MBP graphic card 128 vs. 256 - ???

Jump to First Reply
danceclimberdanceclimber
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
I'm a photographer who is about to start using a Digital SRL. I don't know if I would notice a difference if I had the MBP that came with video card that has 128MB of memory or the one that has 256MB of memory.



So far I have been given conflicting advice. Some people that the difference of 256 or 128 only matters if you are doing 3D rendering (ie: games or video editing) Thus, a 256 in stead of a 128 for photo editing would not be of any benefit. But others have told me that if I am working with large raw files from a digital SRL and I am working in Aperture, that I would notice a performance difference if I were to use the 256. Who's right??? Doesn't have the right answer?



Thanks in advance for the advice.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    majortommajortom Posts: 33member
    It's dificult for me to explain but if Aperture is a lot based on Core Graphics API's then 256MB would be better than 128 but I don't know how much in terms of perfomance. Get the machine with 256MB VRAM if you can afford it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 12
    hanenthanent Posts: 19member
    Hey, it's a simple matter!

    If you're only planning to do only 2D graphic works, then 128M of video ram is more than enough, cpu and system memory is what you need to increase to get a better performance.



    Now if you're planning to to a lot of 3D renering jobs(this includes 3D games)than of course you'll be better off with 256M of video ram.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 12
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by danceclimber



    So far I have been given conflicting advice. Some people that the difference of 256 or 128 only matters if you are doing 3D rendering (ie: games or video editing) Thus, a 256 in stead of a 128 for photo editing would not be of any benefit. But others have told me that if I am working with large raw files from a digital SRL and I am working in Aperture, that I would notice a performance difference if I were to use the 256. Who's right???



    It depends. If you are going to use Photoshop, then VRAM is irrelevant. Only raw CPU power and RAM counts there. If however you want to use Aperture (or any Core Image aware application), then a big amount of VRAM is important.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 12
    majortommajortom Posts: 33member
    The answer is simple: just check Aperture's requirements and you'll notice that a Core Image compatible video card is required. Higher the VRAM better the performance but... how much better? I think: 128Mb are enough and 256 are better. I believe you woun't be able to ha ve an objetive answer to your doubt.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 12
    gregmightdothatgregmightdothat Posts: 1,709member
    If you're using Aperture, get the 256. It'll make things go much faster. If not, stick to the 128.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 12
    trendannoyertrendannoyer Posts: 776member
    wouldnt it also make a differnce if you are useing a second screen a fair old bit of the time ??
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 12
    furious_furious_ Posts: 88member
    like my exgirlfreind says bigger is always better
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 12
    mattyjmattyj Posts: 898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by furious_

    like my exgirlfreind says bigger is always better



    Is that why she's your ex? Sorry had to say it!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 12
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    If they ever get Quartz 2-D Extreme working, everyone will need more video memory. Core Image caches aggressively on the video card, so the more the better if Core Image is being used.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 12
    mattyjmattyj Posts: 898member
    lundy I think that even applies now doesn't it? OS X's user interface is a lot faster on my dual 1Ghz G4 with a GeForce 4 Ti (128MB) compared to my 1.33Ghz Powerbook with Radeon 9700 Mobility (64MB). Is this due to dual processors, or the more memory?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 12
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Yes it does. The original Quartz Extreme only offloaded the compositing to the GPU, but Apple wrote a little "Virtual Memory" system for the the GPU's VRAM so that it could be "paged out" to regular RAM the same as VM does to disk.



    So that used up a fair amount of VRAM.



    Then you had Core Image, which if programmed properly will remember objects and textures that it has already rendered and cached, and not repeat the work. The more VRAM it has, the more that it can cache.



    And when they enable Quartz 2-D Extreme (if they ever do - I suspect there might be a basic design flaw there since it isn't enabled), then presumably there will be a system of caching the drawn elements so as not to have to draw them again.



    As a side note, here we are talking about 256 megabytes of storage, and the entire QuickDraw code for the original Mac 128 was only 24 KILOBYTES of highly optimized, hand-tuned 68000 assembler code. It did regions, patterns, fills, intersections of regions, clipping, text drawing, everything you see in MacPaint. So amazing.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by mattyj

    lundy I think that even applies now doesn't it? OS X's user interface is a lot faster on my dual 1Ghz G4 with a GeForce 4 Ti (128MB) compared to my 1.33Ghz Powerbook with Radeon 9700 Mobility (64MB). Is this due to dual processors, or the more memory?



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 12
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by lundy





    As a side note, here we are talking about 256 megabytes of storage, and the entire QuickDraw code for the original Mac 128 was only 24 KILOBYTES of highly optimized, hand-tuned 68000 assembler code. It did regions, patterns, fills, intersections of regions, clipping, text drawing, everything you see in MacPaint. So amazing.



    too true...no one give a rats ass about efficientcy any more! the general theory is "forget optimization, the customers can just add more ram."
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.