Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

PhotoBug · Jul 14, 2007, 05:11 PM

ok well after a long conversation on another thread i was being told that 128MB was just as good as 256MB and i was very sure of what i was going to get in august, the 128.

But all this waiting around has made me afraid i should go back to getting the 256MB. I'm going to get a 23" display to offset the price Difference of the 128 and 256, how well does the 128 handle a 23"? will it slow down my computer to have to output to a 23" and the 15"?

OreoCookie · Jul 14, 2007, 05:32 PM

This topic has been covered numerous times. My best friend runs his 23" HD ACD from a MacBook with puny 64 MB and a much, much less powerful graphics chip. (He has sold his 2nd-gen top-of-the-line ProBook for a MacBook, so he would have taken his old machine back if he felt that it were necessary.)

Stop worrying and invest the money in a nice screen, a color calibration tool (I paid $65 for my ColorSpyder) or more RAM. All of those will have an infinitely larger impact than the extra 128 MB.

If you feel like you need a technical explanation, have a look here: I took some time to describe things in detail (as did a few others), just scroll down towards the bottom.

mduell · Jul 14, 2007, 07:25 PM

In the old days, you needed VRAM just to store pixels; 1024x768@32 bit color is 3MB, so a 2MB card just wouldn't cut it. But VRAM growth has greatly outpaced pixel growth, and 1920x1200@32 bit color is only 18MB with double buffering.

The real need for VRAM these days is usually apps with big textures. Some games have an 'ultimate' resolution setting with obscenely large texture files (IIRC Doom 3 requires as 512MB card). Other apps that need VRAM are Motion and Aperture which keep the video/photo content in VRAM for fast manipulation.

I'd go with the 128 unless you're using Motion/Aperture or a heavy gamer.

MrForgetable · Jul 14, 2007, 08:22 PM

Will Aperture/Motion be sluggish with 128mb?

mduell · Jul 14, 2007, 08:26 PM

Of course it depends on how big/complex your projects are, but it's safe to say they won't be snappy with 128MB. 256MB will help, but even it may feel a bit sluggish.

OreoCookie · Jul 14, 2007, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by MrForgetable

Will Aperture/Motion be sluggish with 128mb?

RAM is a lot, lot more important for Aperture than VRAM. You might see a difference in complex corrections (e. g. when you fix many spots and layer that image in a book), but those are rather rare. During normal operations, you won't notice any difference.

OreoCookie · Jul 14, 2007, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Of course it depends on how big/complex your projects are, but it's safe to say they won't be snappy with 128MB. 256MB will help, but even it may feel a bit sluggish.

It doesn't really make a difference, really complex corrections are very rare. Aperture mainly depends on the speed of the gpu (which is identical in both cases).

VValdo · 10:32 PM

This is coming for OS X (someday). And when it does, I'll want the extra video RAM.

W

one more vid just showed up

Cedar · Jul 15, 2007, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by VValdo

This is coming for OS X (someday). And when it does, I'll want the extra video RAM.

W

one more vid just showed up

Why wait when you can easily use BootCamp

VValdo · Jul 15, 2007, 04:45 AM

That would mean buying Windows. Forget that.

W

PhotoBug · Jul 16, 2007, 12:03 PM

So in a sense your saying with aperture on a 128 it will slow me down? i want this baby to last a long time and be snappy. are any of you running Aperture on 128?

PhotoBug · Jul 16, 2007, 05:40 PM

And on a side note...what specs will you need with unreal tournament 3? It looks Amazing!

jtrwallace · Jul 17, 2007, 12:19 AM

Well, I know this isn't quite the same, but before my current MBP with 256mb of VRAM I had the latest PowerBook with 128mb of VRAM. I use Aperture A LOT and the PB had 1.5GB of RAM and the MBP has 2GB of RAM.. so the RAM is close to the same and the VRAM is the same in difference. I noticed an enormous difference. Under the PB, pressing Z to zoom took two seconds, selecting more than one photo at a time was supper sluggish and laggy. Exporting photos took ages. Adjusting the hues was the worst. With the MBP all of those problems are gone. Now I guess I can't say whether its the processor or the RAM or the VRAM but I just installed another GB into this MBP to make it 3GB of RAM and Aperture seems faster... I don't know it's just something to think about.

ChrisF · Jul 17, 2007, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by jtrwallace

Now I guess I can't say whether its the processor or the RAM or the VRAM

It's the processor.

JoshuaZ · Jul 17, 2007, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by VValdo

That would mean buying Windows. Forget that.

W

Good lord man, who actually BUYS windows? I think all of China is running off the same Windows 2000 CD.

I'm probably going to bite the bullet and buy the 256 model. I have the money now, might not have it in the future. If I can squeak a bit of extra life out of it I'll be happy.

milhous · Jul 17, 2007, 11:17 AM

great post, i've been on the fence myself as to how much vram i would need to drive my 24" lcd. i currently have 1.2ghz iBook G4 and the lack of real estate in addition to the inability to natively drive an external display in clamshell mode has been annoying me lately.

here's the way i see it so far:

macbook: 1280x800 res, easy to access hard disk and memory, 3gb ram cap, dvi dongle required, integrated (but acceptable) graphics, smaller and portable.
macbook pro: 1440x900 res, easy access to memory, very difficult to access hard disk, 4gb ram availability, integrated dvi connector, discrete 128MB (256 optional) graphics, larger and heavier.

one thing i don't like about my iBook was that it was a pain in the ass to replace the hard drive when it died, and i've since had to take it apart twice, once to initially upgrade to a higher capacity disk, and the other time was to remove the disk, rma it, receive the replacement, and reassemble. i think i would really loathe replacing a macbook pro's hard drive if it were to die or had to be upgraded, but i think it would be ridiculous to consider that alone as a dealbreaker to getting a mbp.

then again i want to go back to a pro notebook having gone from pismo -> ibook g4 so maybe getting a mbp would be the right thing to do.

PhotoBug · Jul 17, 2007, 01:29 PM

Anyone have Real life experience with 128 Vs 256 on aperture? or do you think they would have these at the apple store?

PhotoBug · Jul 17, 2007, 01:31 PM

I mean Both a 128 and a 256 loaded with Aperture that i can play with.

Kadman · Jul 17, 2007, 05:31 PM

I used to run a 24" Dell widescreen (1920x1200) with the 64MB video card in my old PPC Mini (1.42) and it ran flawless for image editing, movie editing, and I even played a few games (Warcraft III in particular). I can't imagine this being an issue on the screaming fast machine that is the MBP, 128MB video or otherwise.

PhotoBug · Jul 17, 2007, 10:26 PM

Yes but your running the Dell 24" by itself (not with an additional 15" MBP screen) and as i am gathering Aperture likes VRAM as well as RAM.

SierraDragon · Jul 18, 2007, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by milhous

here's the way i see it so far:

macbook: 1280x800 res, easy to access hard disk and memory, 3gb ram cap, dvi dongle required, integrated (but acceptable) graphics, smaller and portable.
macbook pro: 1440x900 res, easy access to memory, very difficult to access hard disk, 4gb ram availability, integrated dvi connector, discrete 128MB (256 optional) graphics, larger and heavier.

I see it differently:

MBP versus MB
Thinner MBP vs. thicker MB
FW800 v. no FW800
Many more (1440x900) pixels v. less (1280x900) pixels
MBP has much more screen real estate
Backlit keyboard v. no backlit keyboard
Good graphics card v. no graphics card
Express Card Slot v. no Express Card Slot
The MBP only weighs 6 ounces more

Given that list, IMO the MBP upgrade is worth quite a lot. Certainly for anything to do with graphics or if during the life of the box you may ever want to handle images much the MBP is far, far superior. Working with images like I do, 1440x900 pixels is hugely better than 1280x900. So much so that I bought the 1680x1050 17" C2D MBP.

FW 800 and/or eSATA through an express card are essential if you ever do anything that needs a fast external drive connection (Photoshop scratch, batch image files transfer, etc.). Also if you decide to drive a second monitor at any point the extra graphics power would be beneficial.

Even if you only preview images in the field the larger screen, added pixels, added graphics processing power and faster CPU all make a difference.

-Allen Wicks

SierraDragon · Jul 18, 2007, 11:35 PM

As to 128 vs. 256:

All laptops are limiting for graphics/images work. IMO it makes sense to get the strongest you can, planning for the needs of future apps and also for future needs of the OS.

-Allen Wicks

milhous · Jul 19, 2007, 12:59 AM

I picked up the 15" with 256 VRAM tonight and it's been great so far. Since a MBP already starts at 1999, I felt the additional 500 was worth having a faster CPU, larger hard drive, and doubled VRAM. I want the machine to last 3-4 years and give me the flexibility to use different display setups and to use the MBP display in conjuction with external displays.

I'm a happy camper and my 1.2Ghz iBook G4 served me well.