256Mb vs 128Mb video RAM

#1 benefit is performance in video games (texture memory, etc). it makes a huge impact. then things like photoshop, video and media apps. no noticeable difference for general business applications

#1 benefit is performance in video games (texture
memory, etc). it makes a huge impact.

this has me thinking again. i decided between the 1.83 and the 2.0 based on whether i thought i would need the vram. (i decided i wouldn't). i understand more vram = better game performance, but where do you start getting diminishing returns? i'm not a gamer, but doom3 looks really cool, so i'm going to buy it when my mb comes. i looked at the sys-reqs page and it said 64mb of vram min (128mb rec), so i figured 128mb on a powerful card like the mbp's would be sufficient for a casual player who's usually just an internet junkie and video watcher, while 256mb might be more than i would need.

any thoughts?

(about six years ago i paid over 3k for a dell desktop because i went overboard with "top-of-the-line" fever (stupid kid). i never got ram usage over 50%, never played a lot of big games, basically, never got my money's worth. so, i'm a little gun-shy with this next big purchase, and i don't want to pay for something i don't need. yay, i'm growing up!)

MBP 1.83 Mac OS X (10.4.5) not yet shipped, probably not yet built

256Mb is a lot, and in my opinion largely irrelevant... i have 128Mb on a Dell laptop (can i say that here?) and that can handle all modern games, ok maybe not at full res, max frame rate etc... what it does do extremely well is Photoshop, Premiere etc

The 128Mb card will play anything, but if you do want the be all and end all of last drop of detail, get the 256Mb. Of course on games like Doom if you have time to notice every single drop of res, it probably means you've died quite soon and are waiting on others so should probably get better at the game 😀

Apple has been in the process of offloading more tasks to the graphics processor for quite a while now.

If you have extra resources there, they will eventually be called upon for tasks not yet fully optimised for that much memory on the video card so its a good preemptive investment. Plus you can drive a 30" display with processing power to spare- amazing! My G5 dual 2.5 can't even do that with it's video card.

It will become even more important in the future to have more VRAM and it certainly can't hurt to have more- as with all things memory. And as with most things PowerBook... errr, MacBookpro, it can't be upgraded later so its best to go for it now.

*Looking forward to 2.16/7200

G5/2.5 dual, PB12 1.33 Mac OS X (10.4.5)

I'm a gamer by design and purchased the Macbook Pro to feed that addiction on the road with games like Doom 3, World of Warcraft, etc. I've learned in playing these games on a desktop that you can never have enough vRAM.

However, a poor connection can also ruin your online experience as well and all the vRAM in the world won't fix that problem.

Doom 3 & WOW played fine on a Powerbook with a 128mb video card and 1gb of RAM. However, in "high traffic" zones or areas where a lot was happening quickly the performance began to suffer. I'd see FPS go from a smooth 40fps to a choppy and unplayable 2-10fps. With a 256mb video the average FPS was in the upper 50s and busy traffic zones dipped to the lower 30s, upper 20s.

Personally, if you're really serious about using the machine for gaming then you'd want the 256mb. As another member stated, you also have to plan for the future and how before you know it, Nvidia will begin to be pushing 1gb vRAM cards (not immediate future, obviously).

if you are a hardcore FPS (first person shooter) gamer, then every little bit helps. since Apple is using a mediocre gaming chipset, the extra memory is worth it. Its all about frame rate. People used to say, 'hey if video is 30 frames a second, why would i need more than that?' If you never looked around in a game they would be right. In a game, as you look around (and move) you have to divide the speed with which you turn out of the frame rate (and factor in your movement). You also have to factor in the movement of your enemies into the equation. So at 30 fps, if you whip your mouse around fast enough the enemy may never render on screen, whereas at 200 fps you might see a blur... which counts in competitive fps matches. Also, the frame rate in a game will drop on weaker video cards when there are a lot of enemies on screen, complex objects, lighting effects, etc.

PS. the equation is a bit more complex than dividing mouse movement by frame rate. it also depends on variable like distance of objects and many other factors. but all and all, even 60 fps isn't really enough... i'll hunt around the office for it and post it here if i find it.