How much is mac laptop with 512 mb upgrade#
How much is mac laptop with 512 mb pro#

That the cost difference does not come close to justifying the slight Using Aperture, but their other VRAM comparison tests make it clear I don't know if they have tested VRAM when So CS4 should get more of a boost from that extra VRAM.Д¬heck out. I would expect Aperture to be quite considerably faster on the higher-end MacBook Pros, because the VRAM starts to really come into play with that.ДЄs for Adobe, CS3 applications including Photoshop will simply benefit from the extra L2 Cache, for about a ten percent gain in overall performance I would guess from the benchmarks I have seen.Д«ut CS4 will be a different story - Adobe has finally discovered the existence of the GPU, and is acting accordingly for CS4. The part I'm not familiar with - but assume would be a factor - is Apple applications that use the GPU through Core Image. That includes games, CAD, modeling and animation applications, etc. The VRAM starts to become a major, major factor in any kind of 3D application. For the vast majority of you, that extra level 2 cache is going to produce a slightly snappier performance in all applications.

How much is mac laptop with 512 mb pro#

The 512MB VRAM version of the MacBook Pro also happens to be the one with 6MB of level 2 cache RAM rather than 3MB as in the cheaper 2.4GHz/256VRAM version. I was once told 'if you need to ask the question, you probably already know the answer.'! It's not like the Macbook Pro is a cheap laptop, anyway - as I see it, if you can afford the extra, you should.

How much is mac laptop with 512 mb upgrade#

Having said that, I'd look at spending the extra money - as said here, you can upgrade system RAM as you like, but you'll be stuck with your video card from now 'til the day you sell. You'd be surprised how much VRAM more intensive processes can use. This is where the older idea of 'pixel pipelines' comes in. This manifests as a drop in frame rates.ДЄs for photos, the VRAM processing power depends upon the image process you're trying to apply, and to the size of the image you're applying it to. If the scenery is in less than 256MB 'chunks', then there'll be no appreciable difference, as textures can be handled from within the GPU rather than trying to 'recruit' system RAM to achieve the same effect. This would be most noticeable in 3D games which continually try and load large textures in the background. The real advantage of extra video RAM comes when trying to scale larger images or larger image commands. Just send me a PM and i will do this tomorrow evening. I will run XBench on both my wife's MPB and my MBP and post the results. If anyone is still interested,I can be a bit more scientific about this. Have not done the research yet to see if my theory is true. My opinion is that either the clock speed of the GPU (graphics processing unit) or the VRAM speed on the video card is slightly faster than the one on my machine.

Some people just might not notice these things. Again these observations are extremely subjective and in no way have any correlation to Aperture's performance. Also when dragging a window, the 'painting' looks slightly smoother. Things like Expose, spaces, and all the other 'core graphics' operations have a slightly better frame rate on my wife's mac than on mine. The performance observations i have made were limited in scope to graphic bound processes, not cpu bound. That's why your wife's machine runs a bit faster. The 256MB VRAM model uses 2.4GHz CPU while the 512MB VRAM model usesДў.5GHz CPU.