[markponcelet]

With Apple's notebook event now concluded and no new 17" model, I'm left stumped on what would be the best purchasing decision. I can't really wait any longer for Apple to release a 17" update, so I either have to choose between the updated 15" model or the older 17" one.

To me, the real difference seems to be the video adapter inside each one. The 17" model has the NVidia 8600M GT, and the 15" model bumped that up to the nine-series: the Nvidia 9600M GT.

I use my laptop for web design, graphics design, and to drive a large external mac display. And when I go home, I boot into Windows and play lots of graphically intensive games. Do any of you graphics-card-o-philes have some insight on whether it's worth buying the 15" solely for the newer generation graphics card? (Stats from wikipedia posted below.)

To me, the difference in video card capability seems significant. Also significant is the warning in wikipedia about the 8600M GT overheating:

Some chips of these series (concretely those from G84 and G86) may suffer of an overheating problem. According to NVIDIA [34], this should only affect a few chips (and a software upgrade should solve the problem), whereas others [35] assert that all of the chips in these series are affected. CEO Jen-Hsun Huang and CFO Marvin Burkett got involved in a lawsuit[36] on September 9th, 2008 alleging that their knowledge on the flaw and their intend to hide it made NVIDIA lose 31% on the stock markets[37].

VIDEO CARD STATS

15" 9600M GT:
32 Stream Processors.
500 MHz core clock.
1250 MHz shader clock.
800 MHz memory clock.
512 MB memory.
128-bit memory interface.
25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth.
125 Gigaflops

17" 8600M GT:
32 Stream Processors.
475 MHz core clock.
950 MHz shader clock.
700 Mhz memory clock.
512 MB memory.
128-bit memory interface.
19.2 GB/s memory bandwidth
43.2 Gigaflops

[Super Mario]

In practical use the 9600 GT isn't that much better than the 8600 GT as the gigaflops figures imply. A 20-35% increase at most.

I'm buying a Dell Precision M6400 which has amazing specs. It has a 1GB Quadro 3700M which blows the 9600GT out of the water for example. The new MacBook Pro can't be used for mobile heavy duty Photoshop use like the Precision can.

[GSixZero]

If you can't wait, I'd go for the 15" unless you absolutely need the extra screen space. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[Maflynn]

15" but then I think the 17" is too large anyways.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

In practical use the 9600 GT isn't that much better than the 8600 GT as the gigaflops figures imply. A 20-35% increase at most.

I'm buying a Dell Precision M6400 which has amazing specs. It has a 1GB Quadro 3700M which blows the 9600GT out of the water for example. The new MacBook Pro can't be used for mobile heavy duty Photoshop use like the Precision can.

How do you figure?

[highstakes]

I hate playing games on my 15" MBP, so I was really hoping to see a 17" refresh. If I had to make a decision right now (I will wait one more month for the 17" refresh), I would easily go with the 15" MBP.

[solofx7]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How do you figure?

I must second the questioning of this.
I never had any issues running photoshop, but then again I guess i was never heavy duty

[solofx7]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How do you figure?

I feel the same, though I have an iMac 24inch, I was planning on going 17, but since it was not updated, that leaves me in a very odd quandary

[Simon]

The GeForce 9600M GT GPU runs 3DMark 43% faster than the 8600M GT used in the "early 2008" MacBook Pro.

[polendo]

By all means.. 15. Just by the sole video problem that might appear on the 17" (8600 GT), I would definetly skip it.

[markponcelet]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The GeForce 9600M GT GPU runs 3DMark 43% faster than the 8600M GT used in the "early 2008" MacBook Pro.

Now that's something I can get behind. Where did you find the benchmarks?

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

I'm buying a Dell Precision M6400 which has amazing specs. It has a 1GB Quadro 3700M which blows the 9600GT out of the water for example. The new MacBook Pro can't be used for mobile heavy duty Photoshop use like the Precision can.

Uh... aha. Tell me how a monstrous 3D card helps you with a 2D application like Photoshop??? Even if it is some percent faster in typical tasks, no way one card will blow the other out of the water.

PB.

[Chuckit]

I didn't think the current version of Photoshop even used the GPU.

[markponcelet]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I didn't think the current version of Photoshop even used the GPU.

According to this article, CS4 (due out this November) is widely rumored to use the GPU to accelerate some tasks.

PHotoshop acceleration was a factor in my decision process when I considered buying a new machine, but not a huge one. If CS4 can actually use the MBP's new GPU, great. If not, well, at least there's the normal processor there for it to use.

[solofx7]

I must respectfully disagree with this whole "graphics card" thing.
I do so out of respect, so do not blast me.
I very much understand Apple's upgrade/thought process most of the time.
This "matching PC part for part/dollar for dollar" is not their goal, nor does it need to be.
A very cheap Macbook was not the goal and does not need to be the goal for a variety of reasons.
I do not think that the 400 - 800 dollar initial purchase price is not the goal of Apple.
That is not the target customer. That is another story for another day.
The whole video card thing is that the video cards that Apple offers is a good variety and are plenty powerful.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by markponcelet 

According to this article, CS4 (due out this November) is widely rumored to use the GPU to accelerate some tasks.

It's not a rumor, Adobe has already confirmed it and in fact will be shipping CS4 this month (I believe), not November

[Simon]

Originally Posted by markponcelet 

Now that's something I can get behind. Where did you find the benchmarks?

BareFeats quotes these two reviews:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...GT.3986.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...GT.9449.0.html

[Scooterboy]

Looks like Apple is back to their "let's give them a mid-range GPU and call it the most advanced one on earth" again. They put the best mobile GPUs available at the time in their previous Intel MacBook Pros. Even the PowerBook G4's had respectable GPU's 4 years ago. For the money they charge for their MacBook Pros I expect a top of the range GPU. Looks like milling out the cases cost a bit more than they thought it would so they're skimping on features and components.

I prefer the form factor of the "current 17 inch" anyhow, so I'll upgrade from my G4 to a refurbished 17" MacBook Pro 2.6 GHz.

[OreoCookie]

This is the fastest of nVidia's gpus which can be efficiently cooled in such a small package.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

Uh... aha. Tell me how a monstrous 3D card helps you with a 2D application like Photoshop??? Even if it is some percent faster in typical tasks, no way one card will blow the other out of the water.

Even PSCS3 does use graphics acceleration for 3D and for Bridge, but CS3 is irrelevant anyway because we buy new boxes for the future. CS4 is shipping today and requires strong graphics support for some features. Exactly what hardware support CS4 is most sensitive to we will know in a few weeks as production-version hardware tests are published.

More important is the fact that OS 10.6 Snow Leopard facilitates taking advantage of available graphics card power. Folks buying boxes today for future usage with heavy apps of any kind should carefully evaluate the graphics support of the boxes they consider buying. Given that the max 4 GB RAM of Apple laptops is significantly limiting to graphics apps, gleaning extra performance from the GPU is particularly attractive.

All that said, in answer to the OP I would buy the 17" with matte screen because IMO glossy displays add too much contrast and saturation to images to be considered appropriate for pro graphics work.

-Allen Wicks

P.S. I had many smaller laptops but much prefer the extra screen real estate and pixels of the 17" size now that I have used it for many months. I transport it every day and do not really notice the extra pound of weight.

[Grryshecjk]

If i were deciding today i'd go with the 17" High resolution