[Chris Long]

Hi: I do graphic design work using Adobe CS3 suite. InDesign, mostly. Some Photoshop and Illustrator.

New basic 15" MacBookPro is $2000. The 'better' model is $2,500 and for my $500 i'm getting a slightly larger h/d (which I could get on basic model for $75), a 2.4 vs 2.2GHz processor (yawn), and 256MB SDRAM instead of 128MB. Do I care about that SDRAM? What is it? Will it make a noticeable speed difference?

ANY help is appreciated. Thank you.

[fisherKing]

you will be more than fine with the basic mbp.
get it, then go to newegg, or macsales.com, and bump the ram to 4g...

[MacosNerd]

While CS3 will not take advantage of the increased VRam, you will not get a chance to upgrade that after the fact where as memory and hard drives can be upgraded down the road.

Is the increased Vram worth the extra 500 - I kind of doubt it but it depends on how long you're planning on keeping the machine and other programs that will take advantage of the memory such as leopard, aperture etc.

[Chris Long]

fisherKing and MacosNerd:
Thanks for the replies. Appreciated!

Are you saying that OSX 10.5 will make good use of that extra 128MB SDRAM in some way(s)?
I won't be using Aperture. Mostly it's the Adobe Design suite and all the Apple "i"Apps/Safari/Mail/etc.

[phoenix78]

If you can afford it always get the best that you can get. Go for the highest spec model. That way you wil never be in a position where you say "i wish i got the better one".

ram is VERY important. 2Gb as standard is rather nice to begin with and the whole system is fast anyway. You can get more ram later on if you feel that your design apps need more ram. buying ram from apple is expensive though. so shop around for some other reputable brands IF you need it

put simply, ram is just a fast memory that your system uses to keep the data that you are currently executing or using. The more applications that you have open, more ram is being occupied, and the larger your files that you have open, the more ram you wil be using. So the more ram you have means you wil be able to place more of your work data into the faster memory during runtime and so your overal experience should be a fast processing of your work, better response times, fewer hard disk accesses (which are slow).

When leopard (OSX 10.5) comes out im sure it wil be intensive as far as graphics are concerned and im sure it wil use more ram. So better graphics and is good to have

rob.

[Chris Long]

Hi all: thanks for your replies/help.

I understand the 2Gb/4Gb RAM thing. What I DON'T get is this 256MB SDRAM instead of 128MB. How will this help me? Will my machine run faster overall? Is it STRICTLY for video/gaming/etc?

Thanks.

[fisherKing]

more video memory...
i run a 12" powerbook with a 20" widescreen (using both monitors), and am fine with (only) 64 megs vram.

you will be FINE with entry-level mbp; again, go for more ram...

and watch this space for more opinions, of course.

[tiger]

The VRAM comes in handy when outputting to multiple monitor, multimedia apps, rendering etc. I think for basic Adobe work the 128mb will be fine.

So the Extra 500 dollars gets you:

256 Video Memory

200mhz x 2 of processor

40gb of HD


Unless someone else noticed something new? I believe that's pretty much it.

[OreoCookie]

My best friend uses a 23" Apple Cinema Display HD on his MacBook with puny 64 MB. 128 MB will be plenty. Get the larger harddrive and at least 2 GB or RAM, both of which is a lot, lot, lot more important than whether you have 128 MB or 256 MB of video RAM. (You don't have to pay for Apple RAM, though.)

[tiger]

The good thing is that the Pros are now really worth it. Even the Low end comes loaded and the LEDs definitely differentiates them from the macbook, and it comes with standard 2gb ram which is great.

[phoenix78]

I guess it is just future proofing to get the better VRAM. If you have seen the webpage for leopard it is putting an emphasis on graphics. so the more the better.

videos and movies are HD these days so any such content that you play/create on your pc will use quite a bit of video memory.

128 might be overkill for many applications at the moment but 2 or 3 years down the road we may have applications that exploits more video ram. So 256 would be worth it in the long run. Its something you cant upgrade later.

not to mention that the higher spec mbp15 has larger hd and faster cpu as tiger mentioned.



rob

[JoshuaZ]

Man, I feel the EXACT same way. I probably can afford the extra cash, but doubt I need the extra speed and or VRAM, and the extra cash would go a long ways towards buying a nice external 1 TB drive to replace my two 250 gigs I have now. (Damn video taking up so much room!)

I'm still enjoying life with two monitors and only 64 MB VRAM. I was kind of wanting apple to bump up the love to 256 across the board... oh well. I think for you, and me, the base line up an upgraded HD would be just fine. Even with the occasional game or two that I play, I really don't need the 256 VRAM. Its a laptop, not a gaming system.

(I totally wish I could though... just for the heck of it....)

[riotge@r]

Given your original post, the decision is pretty clear. Go with the cheaper version.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by phoenix78 

I guess it is just future proofing to get the better VRAM. If you have seen the webpage for leopard it is putting an emphasis on graphics. so the more the better.

True; with virtual desktop support finally added you're going to want more VRAM for Leopard.

Originally Posted by phoenix78 

videos and movies are HD these days so any such content that you play/create on your pc will use quite a bit of video memory.

False; neither playing nor editing HD video takes a significant amount of VRAM.

[olePigeon]

Leopard is moving to the resolution-independent GUI (so analysists say.) How much of the video card will it use to render the new GUI if you choose that option? And then, on a 23" or 30" display?

I think it comes down to, are you going to miss that $500? If not, I'd go with the 256MB Video simply because the laptop will last you longer. All the GUI elements will be responsive at huge resolutions with multiple visual effects all going on at once.

[giggs11]

I'm having the same problem, deciding between the lower and middle models, and I think I'm leaning towards the middle one. Currently I have a 12" PowerBook, and my one real complaint is that I've never been able to view HD video properly on this, so I'm trying to future-proof a little more I guess. With Leopard supposedly being more video-intensive, I think it makes sense to get as good a graphics card as I can, even if I won't be gaming. I'm definitely getting into photography more, so maybe I'll pick up Aperture along the line as well. Throw in a price discount through my company, and I think the mid-range model makes sense to me.

[VicG]

If you are looking at and can afford upgrading to a new MBP "frequently" then the lower 15" model may be enough. If you want to keep the MBP over an extended period (3, 4, 5 years), hence are concerned with "future proofing", then get the best you can afford. Also keep in mind that RAM and Hard Drives can be upgraded in the MBP at any time, however VRAM is yet to be upgradeable. With advancing SW technology the need for more VRAM can sneak up quite quickly (especially if you are going to be using such programs as Aperture...). So if you need to save some money right now and want to "future proof" as much as possible, I'd suggest getting the 15" with the 2.4 GHZ CPU, 256 VRAM, the standard 2 GB of RAM and basic HD configuration. You can upgrade to 4 GB of RAM and a larger/faster Hard Drive later. Either way have fun and enjoy!

[giggs11]

I have had my PowerBook for nearly 3 years now (July 2004), and I'm hoping to be able to hold on to a MBP for a similar amount of time. It kind of sucks that I'm paying a few hundred extra essentially just for extra RAM on my video card, but I guess the alternative is having to buy a whole new laptop before I want... that's a trade-off I suppose.

[MattJeff]

well im using a imac 800 mhz right now and if you where to get the better of the 2 you would get a 400 mhz boost (2*.2ghz) thats half of my computer. and i agree with the above statement. its just a better overall deal as far as lifetime of the computer.