[viruscool]

I currently have a MBP 2.33Ghz with 2Gb RAM, I play a lot of World of Warcraft but I always have atleast 6 or 7 apps open at the same time. I've noticed that I have a lot of page outs (usually something like 800000 page ins and 1000000 page outs after a while of uptime). The mac tends to get sluggish over time, so I was wondering if it would not only improve general performance but also the performance on WoW (mainly in cities and raids) if I upgraded my BP to 3GB?
I've heard that putting a 2GB and a 1GB stick in will actually decrease gaming performance instead of increasing it, is this true, or is it only true of macs with integrated graphics.

Full spec:
2.33Ghz C2D
2GB RAM
160GB HDD
256MB X1600

Generally get about 25-30 fps in outlands with video settings on high, but getting only 10-20 fps in shattrath :|

[Sörnäinen]

As far as i know is the problem, that the two different sizes of memory in the two slots lead to non-parallel access to the two memory slots - if you have the same memory in both slots, this is slightly faster.

So it has nothing to do with the shared memory graphic card.

But i doubt that this is really a big problem. More RAM usually speeds up the System in general... so i would do it.

[viruscool]

Just out of curiousity what kind of framerates do other people get on MBP with atleast 2.16Ghz C2D and 2GB RAM, so I can compare, because I'm getting 15fps in Nagrand at the moment, even when I put all graphics settings on low I only get 20 fps, surely that can't be normal?

[highstakes]

Hm...that does not sound normal. I have a MBP Core Duo, 1 gig...and most of the time in outland, my FPS hovers from 25-30; usually have about 3-4 add-ons running and with Firefox as the only app thats opened. Post in Blizz's Mac forum, the mods (and sometimes players) usually respond fairly quick WITH helpful info...given that you provide your spec, the 3rd party apps you are running, and the external programs you run (like Firefox, mail...etc.).

EDIT: Most of my settings are medium.

[viruscool]

I wanted to post in the mac forums as they do seem helpful, however it is only for american players, and there is no EU mac help forum, which is a real bummer. Might try sending an email to tech support, see what they say.
Anyone got any other idea?

[P]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

As far as i know is the problem, that the two different sizes of memory in the two slots lead to non-parallel access to the two memory slots - if you have the same memory in both slots, this is slightly faster.

So it has nothing to do with the shared memory graphic card.

But i doubt that this is really a big problem. More RAM usually speeds up the System in general... so i would do it.

Two different sizes of RAM (or rather, two non-identical DIMMs of RAM - they can the same size but still not identical, if you're unlucky) means that 128 bit memory accesses are no longer possible. This has a very small effect on most transactions, so small in fact that more RAM will always eat it up, but there is one exception and it is indeed related to integrated graphics.

If you have discrete graphics, the GPU has its own memory bus and only the CPU (and a few more things that use very little bandwidth, like DMA from the HD and some ports) uses the main memory bus. Going dualchannel improves memory bandwidth - in the newest MBPs, for an example - from 667 MT@64bits to 800 MT@64 bits (width of the processor FSB) - a fairly small change that is only useful when you are limited by memory bandwidth, which is not often.

For integrated graphics, however, the GPU and CPU has to share that memory bus. In graphics-intense situations, there is quickly congestion. Moving up to dualchannel will in effect double memory bandwidth (up to 667 MT@128 bits, equivalent to 1333 MT@64 bits), with the CPU limited to 800 MT@64 bits (at best - not in any currently shipping Mac, the MB and mini are limited to 667 MT@64 bits) and the GPU free to use the rest. This has enough of a positive effect on games and graphics-intense apps that 3 gigs can perform worse than 2 gigs in these situations.

OP: your MBP has discrete graphics and so is not affected by this, but it might be interesting to know.

[viruscool]

Originally Posted by P 

Two different sizes of RAM (or rather, two non-identical DIMMs of RAM - they can the same size but still not identical, if you're unlucky) means that 128 bit memory accesses are no longer possible. This has a very small effect on most transactions, so small in fact that more RAM will always eat it up, but there is one exception and it is indeed related to integrated graphics.

If you have discrete graphics, the GPU has its own memory bus and only the CPU (and a few more things that use very little bandwidth, like DMA from the HD and some ports) uses the main memory bus. Going dualchannel improves memory bandwidth - in the newest MBPs, for an example - from 667 MT@64bits to 800 MT@64 bits (width of the processor FSB) - a fairly small change that is only useful when you are limited by memory bandwidth, which is not often.

For integrated graphics, however, the GPU and CPU has to share that memory bus. In graphics-intense situations, there is quickly congestion. Moving up to dualchannel will in effect double memory bandwidth (up to 667 MT@128 bits, equivalent to 1333 MT@64 bits), with the CPU limited to 800 MT@64 bits (at best - not in any currently shipping Mac, the MB and mini are limited to 667 MT@64 bits) and the GPU free to use the rest. This has enough of a positive effect on games and graphics-intense apps that 3 gigs can perform worse than 2 gigs in these situations.

OP: your MBP has discrete graphics and so is not affected by this, but it might be interesting to know.

Okay, so what your saying is, that it would decrease graphical performance on a Mac with intergrated graphics, but on my MBP with dedicated graphics it would improve performance?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by viruscool 

Okay, so what your saying is, that it would decrease graphical performance on a Mac with intergrated graphics, but on my MBP with dedicated graphics it would improve performance?

No, it wouldn't improve performance under any circumstance. It will affect performance, but it may not affect it to any noticeable degree.

[Sörnäinen]

Thank you for all those informations... very detailled. Cool!

[juliancs]

Just to add my WoW data: First MBP Core2Duo, 2GB RAM, 2.33GHz, 256 Ati x1600. Usually running iTunes, Messenger + Safari in the background as well. I have all settings on highest apart from Antistropic (spelling?!?!) filtering (I THINK) and terrain detail on medium, running at native res. Get around 35-45 FPS, with slowdowns to 25 in some areas of outland (with lots of view distance) and loading times. Runs great, thank god!

[viruscool]

I emailed WoW tech support the other day, they claimed that some of the issues were because 10.4.x was using an older version of OpenGL, however when 10.5 is released it will be using the new version of OpenGL and 'should' speed the game up. Whether this is true I dont know, but I think I'm going to run memtest on my RAM and reinstall OS X as well to see if that fixes any problems.
Anyone know how to use Memtest?