[HazMacFan]

Aside from the difference between the 2.2 GHz and 2.4 GHz on the two 15" MBPros, what does the extra video RAM buy me? Will anything besides maybe gaming on Windoze (Bootcamp) really be of any difference? iPhoto/Aperture/Photoshop? Will Leopard be able to tell the difference? Core Animation?

[SierraDragon]

Today video apps, Aperture and games I believe will take advantage of added VRAM; certainly they benefit from the stronger box. Probably Leopard too. Adobe's apps, except for probably 3D, do not take advantage. However buying a new MBP its life cycle is 2008-2009-2010, and during that life cycle additional app upgrades are very likely to be taking advantage of advanced GPUs and VRAM. Large external displays probably take advantage of the extra VRAM.

Tough decision: $500 more for 18% more speed, 33% more hard drive and double the VRAM. Apple always seems to hit right on the hard-to-decide price points. I am an Aperture user and AP uses everything any laptop can give it, so for me the decision was easy, buy a 17" maximum MBP. In addition to important-for-graphics screen real estate and pixels, the 17" size also adds performance.

Barefeats.com has tests, some of which are at:
MacBook Pro "Santa Rosa" - 128M vs 256M VRAM

-Allen Wicks

[HazMacFan]

Great link, thanks. So its the 17" that really shines. Otherwise, its 9% difference and mainly because of the CPU not the VRAM.

[MacosNerd]

I think the general consensus here at 'NN at least by a number of members if that in most cases the extra VRAM does not justify the 500 dollar price increase.

My take is that is I'd rather get the most computer for my money and the configuration that I need now and for the future. Since you cannot upgrade the GPU and the CPU I generally opt for the most I can afford in those arenas.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

I think the general consensus here at 'NN at least by a number of members if that in most cases the extra VRAM does not justify the 500 dollar price increase.

However the $500 is not just for VRAM: it is $500 more for 18% more clock speed, 33% more hard drive and double the VRAM. General consensus IMO does not matter. Whether that $500 is cost effective for any individual is totally dependent on the individual's usage and personal finances.

Such decisions are further complicated by our expectations of what hardware our expected future apps will take advantage of during the life of the new box, which is all in the future. IMO if one expects to be pushing heavy graphics apps, perhaps even professionally, then the decision weights toward buying the strongest MBP one can afford. If graphics usage is not a priority then IMO the decision weights toward buying a lower end box.

When I bought my PB G4 extra VRAM cost +$75 but was of no value to the Adobe apps I was primarily using. Having lived through lame VRAM in the early Mac days, I bought the extra VRAM even though it provided no value add at the time of purchase. A few weeks after I bought the PB G4 Aperture was released. Aperture quickly became my most important app and I was very happy to have the extra VRAM.

YMMV...

-Allen Wicks

[mduell]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

However the $500 is not just for VRAM: it is $500 more for 18% more clock speed

9%. 18% would cost another $250.

Another thing to consider is that even applications that make significant use of the GPU are not necessarily sensitive to VRAM quantity. Most games show very minimal gains to doubling the VRAM quantity, while they show significant gains from increasing VRAM speed. Sometimes (at least back in the days when VRAM speed was limited by chip density), you get faster VRAM when you take a card with less VRAM.

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by mduell 

9%. 18% would cost another $250.

Another thing to consider is that even applications that make significant use of the GPU are not necessarily sensitive to VRAM quantity. Most games show very minimal gains to doubling the VRAM quantity, while they show significant gains from increasing VRAM speed. Sometimes (at least back in the days when VRAM speed was limited by chip density), you get faster VRAM when you take a card with less VRAM.

9% on each core, which would be 18%. If you can spare the cash, go for it. If not, the base 15in will probably do you just fine for 99% of things. Save the extra cash and buy more RAM.

[phoenix78]

bigger is always better.

if you think you will regret not having more vram then get the 256.

I dont think you can completely ignore the fact that you get a little bit bigger HD and slightly faster cpu. thats where the extra cost goes.

It comes down to what you really want to do with your mac. if you arent going to tax your machine too much during its use then you will be more than happy with the base model. If you are a gamer then you will want to get the best you can get. My personal opinion is that if you are a hardcore gamer then a mbp is an expensive piece of machine to be buying for that purpose... you should go buy a dell if you want windows and the best specs for your dollar.

[HazMacFan]

Ordered the 15" base refurb from Apple for $1699 and its arriving tomorrow. I will be getting the 4GB RAM kit from OWC for $117 and will see how long I last before I get the 200 GB 7200 RPM drives that they have. I watched the video and aside from the additional 21 screws I have to mess with, it doesn't seem that complicated.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ 

9% on each core, which would be 18%.

9% on each core is still 9% overall.

2.4 / 2.2 = 1.09
(2*2.4) / (2*2.2) = 1.09