15" uMBP w/9600 256 vs 512

So I am going to be getting a refurb uMBP towards the end of the week and I am trying to decide between the 256mb and the 512mb versions of the 9600M. I will be using it mostly for surfing, blogging, programming, photoshop and gaming. Obviously the gaming is what really poses the question.

I plan to play things like WoW, Aion, L4D2, Borderlands, CoD:MW2, Batman Arkham Asylum, and the like. Obviously this will be done in windows via boot camp.

Is the 512mb absolutely necessary to play these games with decent settings or will I be fine with the 256mb as long as I have the discrete gfx (i.e. I know I wouldn't be able to play most of these on the 13" uMBP which is why I am already in the 15" category).

Any help would be appreciated.

 

You can certainly get by w 256 mb.

 

Ok so there is no real need to spend the extra $200 just to get the extra 256mb of vram? Proc/ram/hdd aren't an issue to me as I just upgrade the ram/hdd myself and the difference between 2.66 & 2.8 is negligible.

 

why is that obvious? Mac gamers should do more searching and learning before settling with Windows. Arkham Asylum is the only one in that list I believe hasn't got a way to run on OSX yet without installing Windows. ... and CoD:MW2 is new enough its not running right yet with unofficial ports on ATI graphics.. but your getting nvidia anyways.

you'll see little difference in the 512 and 256 cards actually.. the GPU matters MUCH more than the amount of ram it has.

 

So you're saying that most games can run in OSX? Links as to how?

I know WoW can obviously run native since there is a native client. But I didn't about the others. I figured you needed to run in Windows boot camp to play those.

So where would the difference in 256 vs 512 come into play if not in games?

 

There is a negligible difference between the two, with the 512mb only having a slight bit of a performance increase (~3%-6%) on average in games. I would suggest searching and rummaging through posts as the question has been asked many times

 

There is a negligible difference between the two, with the 512mb only having a slight bit of a performance increase (~3%-6%) on average in games. I would suggest searching and rummaging through posts as the question has been asked many times

 

you can use Wine.. you can use Crossover.. you can used hacked Crossover or Cider...

most of this is very technical... so most Mac gamers just use wrappers others have made. check out portingteam.com on the forum, I'm part of the team there... or theres tons of others community sites with unofficial ports and wrappers for running Windows games (and other software) on Mac OS X. Just watch out for all the old CX "Chromium" based wrappers... they don't work on 10.6. You'd need a port based on Cider, Wineskin, or CXSkin (CXS/CXZ) .... Wineskin is my project and I started the CXSkin stuff, so I could help you out if you had issues, or wanted to get a hand into porting games yourself, and making wrappers for others... if you want to use a wrapper, you have to follow the directions on how to use it... it basically requires you to put your Windows game inside of it, so it can run it.... but depends on the game and the wrapper how thats done exactly.... we are still working hard on bringing better wrappers for games to OSX.

 

if i were you, i'd stick with the 256mb because it's cheaper...

Edit: what doh said is correct, but don't forget that crossover is just an emulator...for the real thing, you should go bootcamp...

 

Wine is not exactly an emulator... Wine is basically just an open source implementation of win32 (and related) APIs on a non Windows platform. "Real thing" doesn't mean better.... but since Wine tries to do all this without any support from MS, it takes time, and most likely will never be able to run every software title ever made flawlessly.

 

Wine
Is
Not (an)
Emulator

That said, performance and especially compatibility with Wine / Crossover / Cider is much lower than just running the games in windows. If you are a purist, you could try and use the tools above to get games running in windows, but there tend to be moderate to serious bugs, and again, performance will be lower, and graphics settings will need to be lower to compensate.

When you run the games in windows, everything will just work, because you are running the games on the platform they were intended for. That is definitely the recommended way to do things. Needless to say, the time investment of getting games to run in os x is large compared to getting them to run in windows, and the results are going to be better in windows as well.

 

I'm not a GPU expert, but I believe I read somewhere that since the 9600M GT is a 128 bit bus, it can't actually use the additional video memory anyway, so essentially the extra memory is completely useless.

 

It's not that it can't use it at all, but it can't use it effectively, hence why there is no performance difference.

 

it can be much lower... it can also be just as fast, or faster... assuming its always going to be worse isn't the best way to go. If the game runs good.. it can be just as good as in Windows.

 

Agree 100%. I have tried some games in Crossover and wine. So good results and some not so good. It's just so much easier to use bootcamp, less time trying to make games work and more time playing.

I never could understand why Apple never supported the porting community more.

Now don't get me wrong I used Cross over to run Visio and believe it or not Office 2007. It just makes it easier to switch between my work PC and my Mac.

 

doh123, i don't know of any instances where performance is higher.

for one, compatibility is all over the place. and the amount of effort required to get games working and maintain them working (after updates, patches) is very high. the amount of effort to maintain a windows installation is very low by comparison and compatibility is 100% out of the box. And performance is higher across the board. The only reasons you should be trying to get this stuff working in OS X is if:

1. you are a purist and just want to run all your apps in os x
2. you have a lot of time and don't care about investing it in making this work
3. you don't care if some games don't run well or at all, as long as most run decently with decent settings

in the best case, i have seen performance within about 10% of windows. in the worst case, games won't run at all (either not launching, or will run so poorly that they are unplayable). in most cases, games will run, but at significantly lower framerates and reduced settings compared to just running them normally in windows.

My experience includes CoD4, BF 2142, Portal, L4D, Crysis, TF2, CSS, and HL2.

I wasn't able to get crysis working at all. CoD4 and BF 2142 mostly worked well. Portal, TF2, CSS, and HL2 I got working pretty good, but at lower settings than in windows (everything maxed out in windows). L4D I got running, but the performance was essentially unplayable.

It's possible you could get better results, but the investment of time will be high, and windows is definitely the recommended solution.

 

closer to 100%... sure, but not 100, or there wouldn't be tech support.

the amount of effort is severely lessened when you don't have to do all that stuff yourself, which is why you get game wrappers that others have already done the hard work for you.

But yes.. you gotta want to spend the time to get it to play in OSX.. and its usually around 80 to 90% performance. Great benefits for slightly less performance... mainly you don't lose your whole computer to play a game.

 

lets put it this way,

can you show me a working:

- crysis
- left4dead / 2
- modern warfare 2
- dragon age

in os x, running well or at all?

and with modern warfare 2 and left4dead/2, online compatibility is something to consider also.

 

and when did I say everything always works? Just because some thing wont work, or work right, isn't a reason to discount the option for every single game. Why even have a Mac if you go straight to Windows by default for games without even checking otherwise first.... boot into Windows to play (which I do and never said not to... for SOME games), and you want to do more at the same time, you then have to use a web browser on Windows.. an IM.. everything else you do... what the heck, why not just run Windows all the time... sure brand new games are harder to get working and take longer... as usually no one can even start trying until after its out.

I know its possible to get all of those running (some harder than others), but since they aren't games I care about, I haven't played them to know exactly what does and does not work right with them. If I cannot get a game working right that I actually want to play... then running Windows is a way to fix that, but its never my first option.

You can debate the pros and cons of each way, and it comes down to personal preference, but I don't see anything wrong with me mentioning to someone it may be an option if they want to look into it. Its so much nicer playing stuff without having to reboot or run Windows at all.

 

well, given the list of games the OP originally mentioned, i don't think running them in OS X is a valid option.

(unfortunately)

 

maybe not all of them, but some of them run great... WoW for sure.. but Borderlands supposedly runs really good... L4D2 is still beta support, but it supposedly runs rather well.

I just don't see the point in running all games in Windows just because some wont work... reboot for the ones you really have to. I just think its ludicrous to lose my whole Mac just to play a game, so I advise people to make that the last option. I never mentioned bootcamp since the OP already knew about that, was just informing him/her of more options.

 

i look at windows as a gaming platform.

by running your games in windows, you get:

-consolidation
-compatibility
-higher performance
-better graphics settings

---

that said, cider, cedega, and wine definitely have their place for the mod scene / osx purist / hate rebooting crowd, like yourself.

but C/C/W will not be the best solution for the majority of mac gamers (unfortunately).

 

Ok so I just placed my order for the uMBP 15" 2.66 w/9600M GT 256mb. Most likely I will try a little of both. I will likely play mostly in Windows, however i do like the idea of playing in OSX and would love to give it a go. Thanks for all the comments and help guys, really helped me in making my decision. I'll report back once i get the laptop and get some games loaded.