Video editing - X1600 128 MB or 256 MB?

I am considering buying MacBook pro (15", c2d 2.16GHz, 2GB RAM).
In addition to s/w programming I might use it for some video editing as well...

The Question I have is the Graphic card on it ATI readon X1600 with 128MB ram sufficient for normal video editing ? any known issues?

or do I need to go for a higher model (c2d 2.33Hhz and X1600 with 256MB ), which is a bit out of range for my budget.

btw, ATI readon X1600 with 128MB is similar in performance to which model of nVidea?

Thanks
Raju

 

A faster processor will make more of a difference than a more powerful videocard. Video encoding is processor limited. The C2D 2.16 will probably good enough.

 

In gaming, the 128 MB version will be slower, but I am not sure of the impact it will have on video editing. I would suggest going for the 256 MB version, as this will help guarantee a bit more performance when you are editing. If it is a little out of your bugdet, then go with the T7400 or T7200, instead of the T7600. There will be a slight performance decrease, but it will enable you to get the 256 MB version graphics card. The performance decrease will not be something massive either. The Mobility X1600 128 MB should perform about the same as a Go 7600 128 MB.

 

Zero,

Are there macBookPros with T7200 with 256 MB graphic card. the only options I saw (in core 2 duo ) were T7400 and higher.

Thanks
Raju

 

I am not an expert with Macbooks, but I would imagine that there will be some Macbooks with T7400 or T7200 processers. I am not sure of this however. But, if you don't plan to game, then you should be okay with the 128 MB version of the graphics card. As Vespoli has said, video editing is more processer depenant, so the 128 MB won't affect the ability of the computer to edit videos.

 

The only way to get the 256MB x1600 is to go with the 2.33GHz version. There is no processor or video card customization. Apple bases their models on processor speed.

Anyway, the 128 should probably be ok. For reference, the 128 only scores about 100 points lower than the 256 on 3DMark05.

 

Video Editing is not 3D accelerated, so a faster graphix card would make minimal difference. CPU is more important.

 

Budding and Vespoli are right, Video editing is GPU and ram intensive and is not really Dependant on the graphics card. Of course having a Graphics card helps with the video playback but even a x1400 would be fine for that.

As far as a Nvidia alternative to the 128MB x1600, maybe an overclocked Go7400? I do not know if there is an 128MB Go7600, which would be closer to the x1600.

 

That's not quite right...with stock clock settings in Windows the 128 and 256 score similarly, but after moderate overclocking (like most users do for gaming) the 256mb version scores around 800 points higher. The 256mb card also allows for graphics detail settings to be turned up.

Like everyone has been saying, the processor and RAM are the important things for video editing, so 2gb is really ideal for mild editing, and a faster hard drive is definately worth considering. Overall, for specific video editing function, spending a little more for the model with the faster processor, 256mb graphics and 2gb RAM would be worthwhile.

 

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/feedback/Mac_ATI_X1600_overclocking.html

At xlr8yourmac they got the 128 up to 4449. I could not find an OC'd score for the 256mb right off, but I highly doubt it would hit nearly 5300. That would have to be a very cool running x1600. Also keep in mind that OC'ing will very from machine to machine, and that in a laptop OC'ing is almost never a good idea. Anyway, I would really like to see the link or screenshot of a 256mb x1600 scoring 800 points higher.