Jump to content


New MBP SR - 256MB of VRAM really make the difference?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 randfee

randfee

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 42 posts

Posted 14 June 2007 - 04:03 AM

Hi!

After some days trying to find out about what to expect from the new MBP I stumbled upon a comment in this forum:

View Postrob_ART, on June 9th 2007, 05:02 AM, said:

I spent most of the day running 3DMark06 (WinXP) on the MacBook Pro 2.4GHz while a friend in Hawaii was running it on his 2.2GHz MBP. We were trying to measure the performance difference between the 128MB and 256MB video memory.

Some insights running at 1440x900 with 4X Anti Aliasing and 4X Anisotropic Texture Filtering:
1. Running 3D game engine using SM2.0 Shaders, the 256M model was 101% faster.
2. Running 3D game engine using HDR Rendering with SM3.0 Shaders, the 256M model was 92% faster
3. Running the Pixel Shader 3D Graphics test, the 256M model was 11% faster.
4. Fill rate for Multiple Textures, it was a dead heat (3.8 GigaTexels/sec).

We thought dropping back to 800x600 and turning off AA and Aniso, the gap would close. With those settings:
1. Running 3D game engine using SM2.0 Shaders, the 256M model was 74% faster.
2. Running 3D game engine using HDR Rendering with SM3.0 Shaders, the 256M model dropped to 12% faster.

How does this translate to game performance under OSX? I should have an answer by tomorrow evening since I'll have results for Quake 4, Doom 3, Prey, Halo, and UT2004 from my tests on a friend's MBP 2.2.


Now this really got me confused since Rob also posted on barefeats.com, that the performance gain of the 256 version was negligible and could be explained with the faster CPU clock. If this is true, I would kick myself if I went for the smaller MBP just to find out that I'm stuck with half the performance or something...
Has anyone had the chance to do some Windows game testing or benchmarks on the new machines running bootcamp?? Something?
I hope I'm just misinterpreting the whole thing!

I would appreciate it!
crazy physicist
MBP SR 2,4GHz | GeForce 8600mGT 256MB | 4GB RAM (Buffalo) | 250GB (WD2500BEVS)

#2 Hansi

Hansi

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1785 posts
  • Steam ID:hansroberth
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 14 June 2007 - 04:20 AM

I think the lack of speed difference in OSX is simply because of lousy NVIDIA drivers in OSX as per these XBench results:

http://arstechnica.c...anta-rosa.ars/3

#3 randfee

randfee

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 42 posts

Posted 14 June 2007 - 04:44 AM

View PostHansi, on June 14th 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

I think the lack of speed difference in OSX is simply because of lousy NVIDIA drivers in OSX as per these XBench results:


well, it's common knowledge that the drivers for OSX can't compete with the windows ones but since nobody conducted any proper tests under windows I keep wondering. If the difference is really that big, I might have to reconsider and spend the extra money. One of the reasons I'm willing to switch is to be able to rid my PC tower and play Crysis and stuff (occasionally, not the highest settings needed) when it comes out.

So, I guess that's understandable.
crazy physicist
MBP SR 2,4GHz | GeForce 8600mGT 256MB | 4GB RAM (Buffalo) | 250GB (WD2500BEVS)

#4 Hansi

Hansi

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1785 posts
  • Steam ID:hansroberth
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 14 June 2007 - 05:28 AM

I'll be sure to run a few benchmarks ones these babies actually ship to Iceland....

#5 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 14 June 2007 - 08:43 AM

I always thought the rule was more video ram allowed you to run at higher resolutions but had negligible effect on frame rates...

#6 Lemon Lime

Lemon Lime

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2227 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 14 June 2007 - 11:48 AM

View PostHuntn, on June 14th 2007, 07:43 AM, said:

I always thought the rule was more video ram allowed you to run at higher resolutions but had negligible effect on frame rates...
Some one needs to make a sticky and put it in the hardware thread, and then whenver someone comes on the forums to ask, we post the link and lock the thread. I am soooo sick of this question.

#7 PeopleLikeFrank

PeopleLikeFrank

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts
  • Location:The Republic of Soviet Canukistan
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 14 June 2007 - 11:52 AM

Especially since it's wrong - the capability of the GPU has more to do with what resolution you can run the game at.

If we substitute 'texture resolution' then it's correct.

But yes, I've made many a post correcting the misconceptions, I wouldn't mind a sticky.
The dork formerly known as nobody
---
MBP: C2D @ 2.66 Ghz | GeForce 9600M GT 256Mb | 8GB RAM | 120GB SSD + 500GB HD | 10.6.2 / W7 x64
PC: Q9550 | 6950 2GB | 8GB RAM | 80GB SSD + 750GB HD | W7 x64

#8 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17567 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 14 June 2007 - 01:40 PM

Some of you should collaborate, you could do it in the thread that will get pinned, get something you all agree is authoritative then I'll pin it and lock it.  Mike, it's your idea, go ahead and start the thread in Mac Hardware.  Those interested join in, let me know when you have a keeper.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat

#9 Lemon Lime

Lemon Lime

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2227 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 14 June 2007 - 03:11 PM

http://www.insidemac...showtopic=30457

this should aswer all your questions.