128 or 256 RAM vid card - Does it matter for using 30 inch w/ lappy?

[Unarmed]

Gonna pick up a 15 inch Macbook Pro and 30 inch display and just trying to chose between the two 15 inch models.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/We...nclm=MacBookPro

I don't think the processor speed bump from the low end model to the high end 15 inch will be noticable, and I already have extra 1 gig RAM sticks from my current Macbook, so I'm just wondering if its worth the extra 500 bucks to upgrade from 128 to 256 vid ram. I'll only be using the lappy for poker, 6 tables on the 30, lobby on the lappy. Money's not really an issue, so i'll get the 2499 one if theres going to be a difference, just not sure there will be given I'm not going to be playing games, watching DVD's etc etc.

Thanks!

[ZBTHorton]

I don't think the 30 inch monitor can be powered with any laptop video card.

['Chair]

if money is not an issue, go w/ 256.

ZB - what makes you think the 30 can't be powered by a laptop???

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the 30 inch monitor can be powered with any laptop video card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except Macbook Pros...

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
if money is not an issue, go w/ 256.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Just out of curiousity, where will I see a difference, if any?

[BiPolar_Nut]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if money is not an issue, go w/ 256.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Just out of curiousity, where will I see a difference, if any?

[/ QUOTE ]

Vid RAM nowadays pretty much only comes into play w/ 3D apps (onboard rendering). I seriously doubt you'd run into a situation where Vid RAM from 256 to 512 made a difference on 2D apps like multi-tabling.

32 bit at 1600x1200 on 3 monitors would be 32*1600*1200 bits (61440000 bits) /8 for 768000 bytes = 7500 KB...waaaaaayyyyy under 256MB. The RAM on vid cards is mostly used for 3D rendering (OpenGL, 3DFX, etc). If the *only* difference between cards is RAM and you aren't doing stuff requiring the card to do the rendering of 3D stuff, then no, you won't notice a damned bit of difference.

Edit: and the above example was for a triple headed card....I kinda ran the numbers on 3 monitors before thinking it out. Even a quad-head card would only need ~10MB of 2D RAM to run em all at 1600x1200.

Dual head would need ~5MB 2-D RAM. All you're paying for in mega RAM cards is 3D rendering performance.

['Chair]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if money is not an issue, go w/ 256.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Just out of curiousity, where will I see a difference, if any?

[/ QUOTE ]

Vid RAM nowadays pretty much only comes into play w/ 3D apps (onboard rendering). I seriously doubt you'd run into a situation where Vid RAM from 256 to 512 made a difference on 2D apps like multi-tabling.

32 bit at 1600x1200 on 3 monitors would be 32*1600*1200 bits (61440000 bits) /8 for 768000 bytes = 7500 KB...waaaaaayyyyy under 256MB. The RAM on vid cards is mostly used for 3D rendering (OpenGL, 3DFX, etc). If the *only* difference between cards is RAM and you aren't doing stuff requiring the card to do the rendering of 3D stuff, then no, you won't notice a damned bit of difference.

Edit: and the above example was for a triple headed card....I kinda ran the numbers on 3 monitors before thinking it out. Even a quad-head card would only need ~10MB of 2D RAM to run em all at 1600x1200.

Dual head would need ~5MB 2-D RAM. All you're paying for in mega RAM cards is 3D rendering performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

interests change as do applications...when buying a new computer, *never* put together the bare minimum for the current needs.

your explanation/calculations wreak of fancy-play-syndrome.

OP - why don't you go out there on the net and see if you can put together a laptop with 10megs of video ram.

[BiPolar_Nut]

[ QUOTE ]
*never* put together the bare minimum for the current needs

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree.....yet a 256MB vid card for a non-gamer is already head over heels above what OP's current needs are. I stand by my comments.....and agree w/ AEKD's [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]