[uicandrew]

besides photoshop and apple's "pro" apps, are there any programs that would use all of the 256 of vram?

my only other mac had 32mb vram and i thought that was easily sufficient.

i want to get the 256 because "you never know when you'll need it"

but getting 128 might let the macbook run cooler? (who knows if overheating is a problem in this rev A) also, i'm a "non pro" user who uses the mac for MS Office, websurfing, and iLife.

i don't have any games for the Mac, although i would be interested in a car racing and/or jame bond type FPS.

I will also eventually be installing windows vista on my macbook for those unavoidable wintel moments.

i mean, all the previous powerbook owners got by on 128......and Tiger hasn't changed, none of the programs are more graphics intensive since the move to universal binaries......

what are your thoughts?

[Eriamjh]

Get it because you can. You can't upgrade it later, therefore youl will be happy to have it when 256MB becomes the standard.

[venom600]

Unless something has changed drastically since CS, the version I own, Photoshop doesn't dramatically benefit from a faster GPU, and does nothing with the 3D part of a GPU. You will not see any added benefit using PS. Unless you are doing some seriously hardcore 3D rendering or are working in Aperture, Motion, et al, you won't see any benefit either. The main reason they did this is because we have been complaining about the crappy video cards in Powerbooks for years. They are finally doing something about it. To put 256mb of VRAM into perspective, I would highly doubt that there are even 15 games that need that kind of memory capacity.

[Chuckit]

256 MB VRAM is mostly future-proofing. It's not necessary for very much right now (though that's not to say it wouldn't help at all). Are you sure that more VRAM makes a computer significantly hotter, though? If it's getting the same use as a 128 MB card, it doesn't make sense for it to heat up more. I ain't any kind of expert in that, though — just saying it seems unintuitive.

[venom600]

I think he is assuming that because the 1.67 has less VRAM it has a cooler video card. The card is the same, only the VRAM capacity is different, and because of that the heat output would be about the same.

[Helmling]

Games, baby, Games!

[mduell]

I doubt you'll ever notice the difference unless you use Motion, play some of the more demanding games, or have a lot of windows open.

[Eriamjh]

RAM doesn't use that much power.

[Freeway Fritz]

I think you all are missing something important here. It has been widely reported over the last 6 months or so that the future of computing will move towards unloading some of the work of the main CPU onto the graphics chip, which does not work as often. I cannot remember who exactly had this information, however it makes sense and I suspect that Apple is working on this. Therefore in some future iteration of OS X, maybe 10.5, we will see some of this unloading, and I want to have as much VRAM as possible when it does.

Also, I use FCP and Motion and I can tell you that the 256 MB VRAM will be most welcome!

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mduell

I doubt you'll ever notice the difference unless you use Motion, play some of the more demanding games, or have a lot of windows open.

If you have any desire to run dual monitors, most definitely get the extra RAM.

For iMac 20" I will, cuz I will want to run dual monitors with Aperture.

It terms of power usage, it will make no difference at all.

[nJm]

Yup, will be great for dual monitors. I run a 19" LCD (1440x900) off my iBook and it struggles to play DVDs smoothly, as it only has 16mb vram per monitor.

[wuzup101]

Definitely go for it if you can afford it - for no other reason besides future proofing yourself. If you're planning on using dual monitors, especially if your external LCD has a high resolution, you'll be very happy. If you play games, get it, no questions asked. There currently are games in the PC world that can use 256mb of vram. With in the next year 256mb of ram will be necessary to run games in high quality settings. Games will easily require much more than the card that's in the new MacBook Pros with in the average useable lifespan of the MacBook Pro (yes even before you're applecare runs out). If you do other 3D work it's a no brainer, but then again most people that do that sort of stuff wouldn't even ask.

[cal6n]

This machine will be a VJs wet dream with 256 VRAM and fast dual cores. Mixing and mashing realtime video with effects really shows what your hardware's made of. I've ordered the 1.83 with a 7200 rpm HDD and I can't wait. On or before 15th Feb: Bring it on!

[olePigeon]

It's so you can meet the minimum requirements to run Windows Vista with Aero in a virtual machine.

[Thraxes]

Core image apps will love the extra VRAM.

Also makes adding HD Video effects with core image so much faster since multiple frames can be fully loaded to VRAM. One second of uncompressed 1080i@30FPS with a 20bit samplerate comes in at just over over 185MB.

3D modelling will benefit from this aswell as there is so much more space for geometry and textures (especially geometry data which in these kinds of uses is way way more detailed than in games).

[schalliol]

Yeah, I went for the higher of the two units partly to get the better video card, it's not such a terrible deal for the CPU performance boost, additional RAM and more powerful graphics card.

I also went with the 120GB. The 5400 RPM drive should be pretty quick anyway and if I end up installing Windows too (if that's even possible) the extra space will be a big help. My at one point massive HD for a laptop at 60GB is just way way to small. If you fill your drive, you can't use it for virtual memory either. I also figure the 7200RPM drive would take more power and generate more noise and heat.

[jhogarty]

When I ordered mine the only thing I changed was to add the USB Modem. Is there really a huge difference between the 5400rpm and 7200rpm drives? Worth the $100?

J.

[schalliol]

It dependes on your application I suppose. 5400RPM SATA will still be pretty quick.

[uicandrew]

it's hard to quantify the advantages of a faster drive. It would be good for things like copying large files between partitions.

apps will also launch faster, but when i went from a 80gb 4200 to a 100gb 5400 hard drive, my laptop became slighter louder sometimes.

[mduell]

The 7200RPM drive will be faster for random access, like creating thumbnails in iPhoto or importing songs into iTunes. For large transfers both drives will be about the same (the higher areal density mitigates the speed difference).

[Salty]

I've been seriously considering the low end model with an upgraded HD, then I realized the video card difference, and considering the more stock RAM aspect, as well as the fact that upgrading the HD is cheaper than, as well as the faster processor, I'm seeing more value in the high end model now, which really sucks because I was all priced out for the low end model... that said I'm really not sure if I wanna wait... dang it! DANG YOU APPLE!

[schalliol]

I'm not sure what you're complaining about, the faster CPU, better video card, and larger hard drive together are quite reasonable for the difference in cost. If you were to upgrade the video card and the hard drive, you'd pretty likely hit the upper tier anyway - or be within $100-200. The real issue is that the more functionality they allow for customization, the more each unit would have to cost, as customization is expensive. I'm sure they'd love to offer you whatever you exactly wanted, but they have to draw the line somewhere and $500 increments seem fair for such things.