[superamit]

Anyone have an opinion on whether one ought to upgrade the 64MB Graphics Memory standard on the new 17" powerbook to 128 BTO? Time to delivery isn't an issue for me, I've been waiting for this guy for a long time.

I do graphics work, and occasional video-editing. I have lots and lots of windows open all the time, but I play no games.

What kinds of situations will benefit from the additional video memory?

Thanks in advance for your response,
amit

[RooneyX]

$50 for future proofing is good. Should've been default option anyway.

[Tomster]

Interesting thing to check are UT2k4 framerates from the 64meg vs 128meg.

[yoyoman]

still 4x graphics card right. The intel laptops and athlon laptops have a 8x graphics card. Whats up with that.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by yoyoman:
still 4x graphics card right. The intel laptops and athlon laptops have a 8x graphics card. Whats up with that.

I just noticed! That holds back the full power of the 9700. ???

[yoyoman]

So the bottle neck now is not only the hard drive at 4200 rpm but the graphics card is only at 4x.

[JHromadka]

I went for the 128 MB because it will have to last me for a long time, and I don't want to be thinking in a year, "Damn, why didn't I spend the extra fifty bucks!"

[bighead]

I honestly don't think the actual bandwidth of AGP 4x (something like 400 MB per second) is going to make a whole heck of a difference in a portable with the RAM speed of the PowerBook. More noticeable, though, is the hard disk speed and RAM amount.

To answer the question, though: if you can afford $50 and maybe a little extra wait time, there's no good reason not to. Especially if you are going to use it for a long time.

[SEkker]

When IS the graphics card a real bottleneck? I cannot believe it matters one bit using the built-in display, except with the most extreme games.

For dual monitor users, when would you notice a difference? with a 17" or a 20" Cinema display? Or would it take a 23"?

Does anyone know a site demonstrating the real-life differences of these newest graphics chips except in terms of gaming specs (i.e. framerates, etc)?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by SEkker:
When IS the graphics card a real bottleneck? I cannot believe it matters one bit using the built-in display, except with the most extreme games.

For dual monitor users, when would you notice a difference? with a 17" or a 20" Cinema display? Or would it take a 23"?

Does anyone know a site demonstrating the real-life differences of these newest graphics chips except in terms of gaming specs (i.e. framerates, etc)?

It wouldn't make that much of difference with current games, since the G4 1.5 is probably more of a bottleneck than the RAM amount in most cases. ie. At resolutions and speeds that the G4 1.5 can handle, 64 MB is probably enough. (Extra memory can't hurt though.)

However, where it might make a difference right now is with Exposé over dual monitors. (There is going to be an article coming out in the next few weeks at another website about how a 64 MB video card makes Exposé choppy, but a 128 MB video card is smooth. Now, the former is a 9600 and the latter is a 9800, but I think the problem is the memory size and not the GPU speed, since AFAIK Exposé doesn't need a huge amount of GPU power.)

[superamit]

128 it is, then!

They claim my ship date will be 4/28.

amit

[yoyoman]

but 8x wil help even if its a little.