Question about the new MBP

[AnthroAndStargate]

So I have an ADN discount and I am ready to get the new MBP.

I was wondering if I could seek the advice of other members of the community. I wanted to get the 2.5 GHZ 6MB L2 cache 512mb VRAM 15" mid range model which would cost 1,999 with the discount. My friend is saying I should get the base model with 256 MB VRAM because I wont notice any difference in speed (either through the L2 cache) or the grpahics card (says 8600gt m is not enough to really be able to handle the 512 versus 256 and utilize it properly).

Can anyone give any advice and input? It feels wrong not to get the higher bump spec for a purchase as big as this, but if its really worthless then.... ?

(edit) forgot to say, im a hardcore gamer and expect to be gaming on this thing hopefully in OSX but atleast in bootcamp with XP.

 

[Oil]

How much can you get the base model for with the discount?

 

[randomlinh]

It depends on what you're going to do. I'd really like to see if that extra 256MB gives any significant bump to Aperture. But for gaming, I'd suspect it's not a big difference. I'd guess your discount for the base is near a $500 difference? I personally would pocket the money. Unless of course, it does make a huge difference with Aperture

 

[AnthroAndStargate]

Originally posted by: OSx86
How much can you get the base model for with the discount?

Base model = 1,500 USD.

 

[ubercaffeinated]

isn't it a 20% discount making it 1600 USD, plus the 100 you actually spent to get the discount, making it 1700 total?

 

[AnthroAndStargate]

So does anyone know, is the extra vram and extra 3 mb of L2 cache plus slightly more processor speed worth the 300ish dollars? Im willing to spend it if it will be a difference and make the laptop better but if its pointless I guess there sno point in spendin it.

Im a pretty heavy power user , spend all my time gaming, doing websites, surfing web, school work, etc. so I plan to use this for all that. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Tegeril]

Yeah, it's not 1500 but 1600 + 100 for getting the discount so 1700, 2100, and something higher for the 17". Compare to edu disc at 1800, 2200, and something higher.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: AnthroAndStargate
So does anyone know, is the extra vram and extra 3 mb of L2 cache plus slightly more processor speed worth the 300ish dollars? Im willing to spend it if it will be a difference and make the laptop better but if its pointless I guess there sno point in spendin it.

Im a pretty heavy power user , spend all my time gaming, doing websites, surfing web, school work, etc. so I plan to use this for all that. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

The only think you've listed that would make a significant inroads on the extra performance is gaming. And I think it's a highly subjective matter. How long do you plan on keeping this? If for longer than 2-3 years, I'd say if you can afford it go for it. Drivers can always improve and better utilize the extra ram.. possibly. You can never add more memory later though.

Dunno if anyone has done many benches... as I didn't even know a 512 option was available on the mobile platform, heh.

 

[Parasitic]

I think the $500 price gap is too much for the extra 100MHz, 50GB HDD space, and 256MB of VRAM.

 

[bearxor]

I agree that 500 is a bit too much to spend. I'm very happy with mine and it was the base model. I'd pocket the change. The resolution on this is only 1440x900 which isn't going to overtax 256MB of RAM i games (or even 128 for that matter) and the extra 3MB of L2 cache is likely to be a non-issue for faster performance unless you're doing some extremely heavy stuff.

 

[AnthroAndStargate]

Originally posted by: bearxor
I agree that 500 is a bit too much to spend. I'm very happy with mine and it was the base model. I'd pocket the change. The resolution on this is only 1440x900 which isn't going to overtax 256MB of RAM i games (or even 128 for that matter) and the extra 3MB of L2 cache is likely to be a non-issue for faster performance unless you're doing some extremely heavy stuff.

if i end up hooking it up to a 20-22" LCD for gaming/use when at the desk will 256mb vram be enough?

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: AnthroAndStargate

Originally posted by: bearxor
I agree that 500 is a bit too much to spend. I'm very happy with mine and it was the base model. I'd pocket the change. The resolution on this is only 1440x900 which isn't going to overtax 256MB of RAM i games (or even 128 for that matter) and the extra 3MB of L2 cache is likely to be a non-issue for faster performance unless you're doing some extremely heavy stuff.

if i end up hooking it up to a 20-22" LCD for gaming/use when at the desk will 256mb vram be enough?

Let me put it to you this way

I have the GMA950 in my MacBook, with 64MB of VRAM.

The 8600m GT in the MBPs is roughly twice as powerful as the x1600 in the old MBPs.
That in turn, is about twice as powerful as the x3100 in the new MacBooks.
Which is twice as powerful as the GMA950.

I can, and have, hook up a 23-24" LCD (so the next step in resolution) for the purposes of text editing, and movie watching.

You will be fine hooking up to a 20" LCD.

 

[bearxor]

Everything that Stu said is completely accurate in terms of general computer usage. The DVI port on the MBP will at least drive Apple's 30" monitor which has a resolution of 2560x1600

Now, if you were going to do some serious gaming on a high-resolution monitor, I would suggest more VRAM, EXCEPT that the 8600M GPU will not likely keep up after 1440x900 without serious compromises in the image quality. The 8600M really is the best card for 1440x900 resolution. Even in that case, I've played some games where it couldn't keep up in native res.

So while the video memory is recommended for higher resolution gaming, the fact that it's a 8600M kind of make it a moot point at 1680x1050 or higher, unless you're willing to turn down or off a lot of visual effects.

But something tell me that if you're a serious gamer you wouldn't be considering a laptop, let alone a MacBook Pro... It's great for light to medium gamers, such as myself though...

 

[Kmax82]

Yea, I would agree with bearxor and TheStu, I bought the midrange MBP when I purchased by machine, and I have to say that I do regret it. While the processor speed is higher and there was more HDD space and VRAM, I didn't notice a huge jump in performance over the Base model. I would suggest saving your money and just buying the lower model. That $500 could go to a number of things:

-More RAM
-Bigger HDD
-Case
-Software
etc...

Which I think all of those things would be better suited for the money. But then again, that's based upon my usage of my machine. Strictly speaking of gaming, I would HIGHLY recommend 256 over 128, but after that it's moot with the current graphic chip in the MBP line.

 

[AnthroAndStargate]

Thanks so much for the great answers guys! One last question,

So I understand that VRAM wont make that much of a difference because the 8600 isn't that good of a card I guess? What about the L2 Cache though.

Will the 3MB of L2 Cache on the lower end veruss the 6MB on the High end and the 2.4 versus 2.5 processor diff on the low versus high matter speed wise?

Either way I intend on upgading the ram to 3-4 gigs.

 

[Kmax82]

Are you doing a lot of video encoding/3d rendering, or rather anything that would use lots of CPU cycles? If not, then the difference will be marginal, at best. You might notce 1-2 seconds less load on some apps, and in rendering cycles, but is that worth the $500 bucks? I'm not sure it is, although, like another poster mentioned, if you'll be using this machine for a while (2-3 years) you might want to get the best that you can afford, so that you are that much more future proof.

Also, it's not that the 8600GTM is a bad card, it's just that the bandwidth in the card can't really utilize the 512 MB of VRAM. It just simply doesn't have the throughput to access the higher resolutions that would benefit from having the higher VRAM. Does that make sense?

I personally think that the 8600GTM is a wonderful card for a laptop! It gets VERY similar results to my X1950pro that I had in my desktop. The difference was in resolution. The X1950pro could run a bit higher in the res department. But I think that the 8600 is a very capable card. It even ran Crysis at a playable framerate. Not full speed with max details but def. playable!

 

[MrTransistorm]

Check this one out:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/R...enryn-CPUs.7876.0.html

About halfway down the page they compare the Penryns to the 2.6GHz Merom. It appears that even the 2.4GHz 3MB Penryn is able to keep up pretty well against the 2.6GHz 4MB Merom. These are only a few tests, but it looks promising.

It comes down to this: Don't get yourself caught up on cache sizes when comparing two different generations of CPUs. Intel most likely improved the cache controller so that it makes up for the smaller cache size.

I went for the T9300 because I'm going to be doing some serious video and audio work on this machine. I didn't want to wait for Montevina because it will probably lead to an MBP redesign. I don't want to buy a Rev A machine. The current SR is solid.

 

[AnthroAndStargate]

Originally posted by: Kmax82
Are you doing a lot of video encoding/3d rendering, or rather anything that would use lots of CPU cycles? If not, then the difference will be marginal, at best. You might notce 1-2 seconds less load on some apps, and in rendering cycles, but is that worth the $500 bucks? I'm not sure it is, although, like another poster mentioned, if you'll be using this machine for a while (2-3 years) you might want to get the best that you can afford, so that you are that much more future proof.

Also, it's not that the 8600GTM is a bad card, it's just that the bandwidth in the card can't really utilize the 512 MB of VRAM. It just simply doesn't have the throughput to access the higher resolutions that would benefit from having the higher VRAM. Does that make sense?

I personally think that the 8600GTM is a wonderful card for a laptop! It gets VERY similar results to my X1950pro that I had in my desktop. The difference was in resolution. The X1950pro could run a bit higher in the res department. But I think that the 8600 is a very capable card. It even ran Crysis at a playable framerate. Not full speed with max details but def. playable!

Not really. I'll be doing SOME video editing in iMovie but not a ton. Mainly web design, tons of word/school stuff, gaming (WoW, TF2, CS:S, etc.) and thats prolly it.

I do plan on using the laptop for 2-3 years. Its a hard call cause I do want to future proof it but I don't know if thats worth the extra 500 dollars.

 

[bearxor]

Yeah, the difference between the 2.4/3MB and the 2.5/6MB is pretty negligible. Go with the base. I can verify that all the games you've listed run great at native res on my MBP with 128MB of VRAM.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: bearxor
Yeah, the difference between the 2.4/3MB and the 2.5/6MB is pretty negligible. Go with the base. I can verify that all the games you've listed run great at native res on my MBP with 128MB of VRAM.

Heck all those games ran great at native on the previous gen MBP (I fixed my buddy's while he was out of the country, then played some games on it... for testing purposes )

 

[Kmax82]

Originally posted by: MrTransistorm
Check this one out:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/R...enryn-CPUs.7876.0.html

Yes, check this out! It will definitely give you a greater understanding of what you're getting with the 3MB vs. 6MB.

BTW, the graphs for 3MB vs 6MB is near the bottom.

Good read for someone in a debate.

 

[Illusio]

My poor powerbook just went on the fritz today and I think I might have to get a new MBP. I am on the same lines as to which to get? I'll be using it mostly for design work (web with dreamweaver and graphic with Indesign/photoshop/illustrator). Also some gaming with windows, mostly MMORPGs though. Do you think it's worth popping for the more expensive one?

 

[TheStu]

Dark, read this whole thing, we just got done telling Anthro that it isn't worth the money to get the midrange... get the base model, be happy.

Heck, depending on what MMORPGs you play and how seriously, the macbook will get the job done.

 

[Illusio]

Cool, that's what i was thinking, i did read the whole thread.

I just wanted to make sure that i wouldn't need the boost working on high res images in photoshop and illustrator and such.

Also, thought about the macbook, but I need the bigger screen and I don't want glossy.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: Dark Jedi
Cool, that's what i was thinking, i did read the whole thread.

I just wanted to make sure that i wouldn't need the boost working on high res images in photoshop and illustrator and such.

Also, thought about the macbook, but I need the bigger screen and I don't want glossy.

Those apps that you mentioned do not hand off work to the GPU, so you just need lots of RAM and a quick CPU, and any CPU that Apple offers will work, even the ones in teh Mac Minis