ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro vs. nVidia GeForce 9400M [Archive]

kresh

Mar 3, 2009, 01:30 PM

I have searched the forums for a 2600 HD vs 9400M thread but I did not find one and if this has been covered in another thread under a different topic I apologize in advance since I could not find it.

I am not a tech guru and I have a few questions:

The 2600 HD is discrete and the 9400M is integrated, right?

On the 9400M: 1GB Ram = 128MB VRam, 2 GB Ram = 256MB VRam, so does 4 GB Ram = 512MB VRam?

I think the 9400M has 16 cores, how many cores does the 2600 HD have?

Considering the upcoming OpenCL integration with the pending Snow Leopard release, which would be the better graphics chipset? I thought I heard someone say that the 9400M is not ready for OpenCL but that an engineer at nVidia had updated the driver and had it working. Is the 2600 HD OpenCL ready? (Sorry for all the questions bundled together, but they are related)

Many thanks in advance.

edit: The point to all of my questions is that I have a 20" 2.66 GHz C2D Aluminum iMac that replaced a 1.83 GHz C2D Mac Mini. I can't put my finger on it, but I like the Mini better than the iMac and am considering switching back if the graphics disparity is not too great.

QCassidy352

Mar 3, 2009, 01:55 PM

well, I can point you to this (http://www.macworld.com/article/136251/2008/10/macbookgraphics.html) - macworld's review of the gaming capabilities of the unibody macbooks.

Despite what apple claims with their graphs (new imac page), the 2.0 macbook (which is basically the exact same internals as the new mini) runs about even with the 2.4 Ghz imac with radeon 2400xt (low-end of the last generation). I think the macbook wins out in 4 of 7 tests and the imac in the other three. Some of the imac's advantage may be the processor, but not much, as the 2.4 Ghz macbook only beats the 2.0 by a couple of fps in each test.

Yes, you read that right - that was against the 2400xt, not the 2600.

Now, look at this (http://www.macworld.com/article/133332/2008/05/alumimac2008.html). It's not the same set of tests, but it does compare a 2.4 Ghz imac with 2400xt to a 2.4 Ghz imac with radeon 2600 in a couple of graphic-related tasks. The 2600 goes from "a lot better" to "twice as fast."

So if we put all of this together (and yes, I realize the difficultly of analysis across multiple sets of tests, but it's the best we have for now), we reach the conclusion that the nvidea 9400 is a noticable step down from the Radeon 2600 Pro.

Take it for what it's worth.

Jack Flash

Mar 3, 2009, 02:02 PM

The 9400M has 16 pipelines. The 2600 has 120.
Your iMac scores about 8700 is 3DMark05. The Unibody Macbook, therefore the new Mini will score about 4000 in 3DMark05

The 9400M is a great deal slower.

NorrisKillsKids

Mar 3, 2009, 03:45 PM

I'm surprised this isn't being discussed more....

I'd really like to know what the key differences between the 2 are.

On one hand the new 24 inch models have 4gb of ddr3 ram and 9400M integrated

the old 24s have the radeon 2600 HD with 2gb ddr2 ram and slightly stronger processor (referring to the 2.8 old vs 2.66 new)

Which is better which is better. I have a feeling it's a tougher choice than those numbers let on (benchmark wise).

QCassidy352

Mar 3, 2009, 03:57 PM

the old 24s have the radeon 2600 HD with 2gb ddr2 ram and slightly stronger processor (referring to the 2.8 old vs 2.66 new)

That's not the right processor comparison. The lineup went from:
2.4 (20")
2.66 (20")
2.8 (24")
3.06 (24")

to

2.66 (20")
2.66 (24")
2.93 (24")
3.06 (24")

Comparing the old 2.8 to the new 2.66 is not comparing comparably priced models.

gkarris

Mar 3, 2009, 04:03 PM

It's all so complicated...

The quick and dirty method is that if you compare the current and same generation of graphics chips, the discreet graphics with dedicated memory always wins out...

But remember, the integrated graphics is essentially used in "budget" computers...

NorrisKillsKids

Mar 3, 2009, 04:05 PM

Yeah I confused myself. My point was....I'm on the hinge on which is better between the two I mentioned.

I plan on either getting the first 24 inch model (new ones), or the 2.8 refurb from last time with the 2600 ati card.

After much youtubing I've come to the conclusion that the 9400M runs every game that the 2600 could even better than the 2600. And I've seen a ton of videos to make sure it was a trend. But then I look at the numbers above in benchmarks and whatnot and that doesn't seem to be the case.

So can anyone explain that? And are the 4gb ddr3 ram or 2gb ddr2 ram a large factor in the choice?

I wanna be sure before dumping almost 2K.

gkarris

Mar 3, 2009, 04:18 PM

^^^^

Goes back to discreet graphics versus integrated.

Even earlier - I had a Compaq Laptop with GMA900 integrated graphics and my Thinkpad X31 with discreet ATI Radeon Pro graphics beat it out when playing back iTunes Videos.

For the gamers out there - the gaming sites are your best bet, maybe even see if you can get away with a cheap Mac Mini for Mac stuff and a Wintel Gaming Rig for games (that's what I did, bought a recycled HP Workstation and now I can put whatever graphics card happens to come along).

The Mini was $579 and the HP workstation was $150 plus about $200 worth of parts... My monitor has two (DVI and VGA) inputs.

dorman1979

Mar 3, 2009, 04:34 PM

I'm having the same question????
I'm looking for the best Imac for HD video editing via Final Cut Pro Studio 2.
Do I go with the Refurb 2.8ghz 2gb ddr2 ram ati2600 pro 256ram $1199.00
Or the brand new 2.66ghz 4gb ddr3 ram 9400m $1499.00

Which system would be faster for video editing?
Thanks so much for your help guys!

kresh

Mar 3, 2009, 04:53 PM

Thanks for the replies. How about OpenCL though?

(edit) opps. I must have missed the post with the pipeline count. I assume that with 120 pipelines vs 16 then the 2600 HD will offer dramatically faster OpenCL acceleration?

Does the number of GPU cores matter, how many does each graphics chipset have (2600 HD vs 9400M)?

QCassidy352

Mar 3, 2009, 05:00 PM

Benchmarks are not the most reliable things in the world, but I trust them a darn sight more than youtube videos.

avihappy

Mar 3, 2009, 05:01 PM

I posted a bit on this topic in another thread. Here is the post: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7204207&postcount=31

Does the number of GPU cores matter, how many does each graphics chipset have (2600 HD vs 9400M)?

Yah, the both have only one core.

Here is an snippet from my post that I linked to:

Ranks are...
...
69: Radeon 2600 (Mobile from old iMac, and not the "PRO" version)|3DMark06 Score: 3134
96: GeForce 9400M|3DMark06 Score: 2067
110: Radeon 2400 XT Mobile (the one from the old low end iMac)|3DMark06 Score: 1735

roski11

Mar 3, 2009, 05:06 PM

Jack Flash

Mar 3, 2009, 05:15 PM

avihappy

Mar 3, 2009, 05:18 PM

I had the exact same problem as you. I ended up buying the refurb for 1199. Anyone know the difference between the two chips ???

OK, here is how I rank those iMacs:

1: The new 2.66 one [IF YOU UPGRADE TO GT 130 (better) OR RADEON HD 4850 (by far the best)] (best video + more RAM)
2: The refurb exactly as you made it IF YOU GET MORE RAM! (OK video + more RAM)
(tie): The new one exactly as you said. (more RAM but crap video)
(tie): The old one exactly as you said. (better VIDEO but less RAM)

But know this: RADEON HD 4850 (new iMac) > GEFORCE 8800GS (old iMac, thanks to Jack Flash) > GT 130 (new iMac) > GT 120 (new iMac) > RADEON 2600 PRO (old iMac) > GEFORCE 9400M (new iMac and Mini) >= RADEON 2400 XT (old iMac) > INTEL GMA 950 (old Mini)

roski11

Mar 3, 2009, 05:27 PM

OK, here is how I rank those iMacs:

1: The new 2.66 one [IF YOU UPGRADE TO GT 130 (better) OR RADEON HD 4850 (by far the best)] (best video + more RAM)
2: The refurb exactly as you made it IF YOU GET MORE RAM! (OK video + more RAM)
(tie): The new one exactly as you said. (more RAM but crap video)
(tie): The old one exactly as you said. (better VIDEO but less RAM)

But know this: RADEON HD 4850 (new iMac) > GT 130 (new iMac) > GT 120 (new iMac) > RADEON 2600 PRO (old iMac) > GEFORCE 9400M (new iMac and Mini) > RADEON 2400 XT (old iMac) > INTEL GMA 950 (old Mini)

Cool, I only got the standard 2gb RAM. How do I get more ??? Send it back ??? Do it myself ????

Jack Flash

Mar 3, 2009, 05:36 PM

OK, here is how I rank those iMacs:

1: The new 2.66 one [IF YOU UPGRADE TO GT 130 (better) OR RADEON HD 4850 (by far the best)] (best video + more RAM)
2: The refurb exactly as you made it IF YOU GET MORE RAM! (OK video + more RAM)
(tie): The new one exactly as you said. (more RAM but crap video)
(tie): The old one exactly as you said. (better VIDEO but less RAM)

But know this: RADEON HD 4850 (new iMac) > 8800GS (old iMac) > GT 130 (new iMac) > GT 120 (new iMac) > RADEON 2600 PRO (old iMac) > GEFORCE 9400M (new iMac and Mini) > RADEON 2400 XT (old iMac) > INTEL GMA 950 (old Mini)

Wanted to add that in.

QCassidy352

Mar 3, 2009, 05:39 PM

RADEON HD 4850 (new iMac) >8800GS (old iMac) > GT 130 (new iMac) > GT 120 (new iMac) > RADEON 2600 PRO (old iMac) > GEFORCE 9400M (new iMac and Mini) > RADEON 2400 XT (old iMac) > INTEL GMA 950 (old Mini)

I'd say that about sums it up. I'd just add that the difference between the 9400M and the 2400XT is pretty minimal, and benchmarks show them outperforming each other in different situations.

dorman1979

Mar 3, 2009, 05:40 PM

So it seems the best deal is to get the refurb and upgrade the ram to the max 4gb.

One last ? Can the Video card be easily upgraded later down the road?? And is it something I can do myself.

avihappy

Mar 3, 2009, 05:41 PM

Wanted to add that in.

Thanks, I had a hard time finding numbers for the Mobile version of that card, so I omitted it.

Cool, I only got the standard 2gb RAM. How do I get more ??? Send it back ??? Do it myself ????

You can buy more RAM. I like Crucial RAM: http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=iMac%202.66GHz%20Intel%20Core%202%20Duo%20%2820-inch%29%20MB324LL/A

To install it look here: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1432

So it seems the best deal is to get the refurb and upgrade the ram to the max 4gb.

One last ? Can the Video card be easily upgraded later down the road?? And is it something I can do myself.

No, you cannot upgrade video on any iMac after you have purchased it.

ltldrummerboy

Mar 3, 2009, 05:50 PM

I would definitely recommend the refurb 2.8. It's a great computer. In my opinion the 2600 Pro beats out the 9400m by a lot.

dorman1979

Mar 3, 2009, 06:29 PM

Okay I just ordered it!!!! WOOOOOOHOOOOOOO and paid the extra 46 for next day shipping!

Does it matter what type of ram I get as long as it is compatible!
Cause I'm finding huge price differences!

avihappy

Mar 3, 2009, 06:33 PM

Okay I just ordered it!!!! WOOOOOOHOOOOOOO and paid the extra 46 for next day shipping!

Does it matter what type of ram I get as long as it is compatible!
Cause I'm finding huge price differences!

Yes it does matter! Make sure you are getting RAM that fits in the slot and operates at proper speeds. Also, the old iMacs only hold 4GB Max. So that is 2GB Max per slot. Here are some examples of what works: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2153340551%201327939683&name=For%20Apple%20iMac

dorman1979

Mar 3, 2009, 09:03 PM

4GB crusial kit on the way and Im ready to go!!!!!!

Thank you all SOOOOO much for all your help!!

P.S. JC's "Avatar" is gonna rock!!

NorrisKillsKids

Mar 4, 2009, 01:20 AM

I ended up getting the HD 2600 pro refurb! I just need to buy 4g ram and I saved myself 400 dollars. I don't think 400 warrants ddr3 ram....

I've been sitting here for hours hoping I made the right decision. And I'm extremely excited. If it's any consolation, the only game I ever plan on playing is Starcraft 2 and probably Diablo 3 and it's pretty obvious it'll run on either so I think I'm safe.

Anyone know the best apple memory retailer in Canada?

Star Destroyer

Mar 4, 2009, 02:09 AM

So i looked at the refurb store (Canada) and noticed the title says "Refurbished iMac 20-inch 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo" and the GPU says "ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory"

When you click the link and scroll down to the tech specs part the GPU reads ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT with 256MB of GDDR3 memory"

So is that to say the 2600 XT IS the 2600 Pro everyone here is talking about? or is it a typo and thats actually a different chip ?
I dont want to buy it thinking im getting one thing and it ships with something less.
I checked the 2.8ghz refurb and it says 2600 Pro in both locations, so what does the 20inch 2.66ghz refurb imac come with ?

heres the link http://store.apple.com/ca_edu_115679/product/FB324LL/A?mco=MjE0NjA3MA

NorrisKillsKids

Mar 4, 2009, 02:17 AM

I'm fairly positive that it is a typo and the one listed in the spec overview is the real one. So yeah it should be the XT. That's a pretty significant typo though, someone should tell em.

mikesjo

Mar 4, 2009, 04:52 AM

Do the older iMacs max out at 6GB system ram even though it says 4GB on the site? I thought I read some discussions on this. Can someone clarify?

Thanks.

megastuff999

Mar 4, 2009, 11:57 AM

Older iMacs max out at 4GB memory. I think you are thinking of the Alu (Oct 2008 onwards) MacBooks which can do 6GB with a 4GB and 2GB SODIMM.

That 4GB limit on the 2008 iMacs is one mark against it I suppose but the thing is, by the time 4GB DDR3 is a sensible price, they'll probably be somthing better on the scene anyway. I think the refurb 2.8 with upgraded memory definitely seems like a better/more cost effective set-up.

mudenza

Mar 4, 2009, 01:02 PM

Older iMacs max out at 4GB memory.

Wrong. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=607076

RADEON HD 4850 (new iMac) >8800GS (old iMac) > GT 130 (new iMac) > GT 120 (new iMac)= RADEON 2600 PRO (old iMac) > GEFORCE 9400M (new iMac and Mini) > RADEON 2400 XT (old iMac) > INTEL GMA 950 (old Mini)

Thats how I look at it. The 9600M is twice as fast as a 2600 Pro, but thats at 1440x900, not at 1900x2000. Furthermore, ATI just does the pro apps better.

megastuff999

Mar 4, 2009, 01:07 PM

Wrong. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=607076

Excellent - you learn something everyday! :D

Ashmanspice

Mar 4, 2009, 03:49 PM

from reading this, I get the sense that buying my imac in january, i got a better computer than I would of if I spent the same amount on an imac today. am I right?

binh514

Mar 5, 2009, 12:06 AM

Oh so i did a great choice to buy my Imac 24" in november back then ! :)

Eidorian

Mar 5, 2009, 12:18 AM

But know this: RADEON HD 4850 (new iMac) > GEFORCE 8800GS (old iMac, thanks to Jack Flash) > GT 130 (new iMac) > GT 120 (new iMac) > RADEON 2600 PRO (old iMac) > GEFORCE 9400M (new iMac and Mini) >= RADEON 2400 XT (old iMac) > INTEL GMA 950 (old Mini)Glad I'm not the only one that knows what's going on. :D

kockgunner

Mar 5, 2009, 03:14 AM

OK, here is how I rank those iMacs:

1: The new 2.66 one [IF YOU UPGRADE TO GT 130 (better) OR RADEON HD 4850 (by far the best)] (best video + more RAM)
2: The refurb exactly as you made it IF YOU GET MORE RAM! (OK video + more RAM)
(tie): The new one exactly as you said. (more RAM but crap video)
(tie): The old one exactly as you said. (better VIDEO but less RAM)

But know this: RADEON HD 4850 (new iMac) > GEFORCE 8800GS (old iMac, thanks to Jack Flash) > GT 130 (new iMac) > GT 120 (new iMac) > RADEON 2600 PRO (old iMac) > GEFORCE 9400M (new iMac and Mini) >= RADEON 2400 XT (old iMac) > INTEL GMA 950 (old Mini)

Thanks for the clarification. It seems like Apple is a bit too happy putting in the 9400s in all their machines. The iMac has the same gpu as the Macbooks now. They also don't come with Apple remotes anymore. WTF.

avihappy

Mar 5, 2009, 03:43 AM

Thanks for the clarification. It seems like Apple is a bit too happy putting in the 9400s in all their machines. The iMac has the same gpu as the Macbooks now. They also don't come with Apple remotes anymore. WTF.

Yah, it seems to me that on the "flagship" iMac, these new models may be something of a graphical DOWNGRADE. Also, this is the only option the "flagship" model has. (ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro to 9400M)

On the "low end" iMac, the GPU is not that much different in terms of power. (ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT to 9400M)

However, on the "high end" iMacs, this is a bump (not a leap) up! (ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro to GT 120)

Finally, on the "ultimate" iMac, from what I hear it is not that much better (perhaps worse). (nVidia GeForce 8800 GS to GT 130)

Now, for a very important detail, the "high end" and "ultimate" iMacs have the option to go to a Radeon 4850! This is a very significant improvement! It will run circles around the other chips. However, it is a "build to order" option. Also, the "low end" and "flagship" iMacs are excluded from this.

All in all from a GPU angle, I think that the "low end" iMac got not very much, the "flagship" got screwed up completely, the "high end" got an OK bump, and the "ultimate" got no improvement. The "high end" and "ultimate" allow an optional (but worthwhile) upgrade to an excellent GPU however, and this refresh will really benefit them.

For iMac lovers in general, this is a bittersweet update.

PurpleCliff

Mar 5, 2009, 04:32 AM

avihappy

Mar 5, 2009, 05:04 AM

Okay, I need everyones help!
I want to get an iMac which is as powerful as possible - I hope to do quite a bit of gaming and video editing. I have two options which are the same price:

The New 20-inch: 2.66GHz with NVIDIA GeForce 9400M
or
The Old 20-inch 2.66GHz TI Radeon HD 2600 PRO

Which one is more powerful?
Which one will last longer?
And does it matter that the RAM in the new one is DDR3? Is that loads and loads better?
Anything else I should be aware of?
Hope someone can give me answers! Thanks!

"The Old 20-inch 2.66GHz TI Radeon HD 2600 PRO" is better than the "The New 20-inch: 2.66GHz with NVIDIA GeForce 9400M". While the DDR3 is a benefit of the new one, it just won't be enough to overcome the fact that the 9400M sucks compared to the Radeon HD 2600 PRO.

HOWEVER, if you really want to "get an iMac which is as powerful as possible", then try to get the one of the new ones that have the Radeon 4850!

My rankings:
1: If you can get it, the new high end iMac with the Radeon 4850
EDIT 2: An old iMac with a GeForce 8800GS
3: The Old 20-inch 2.66GHz TI Radeon HD 2600 PRO
4: The New 20-inch: 2.66GHz with NVIDIA GeForce 9400M

PurpleCliff

Mar 5, 2009, 05:18 AM

"The Old 20-inch 2.66GHz TI Radeon HD 2600 PRO" is better than the "The New 20-inch: 2.66GHz with NVIDIA GeForce 9400M". While the DDR3 is a benefit of the new one, it just won't be enough to overcome the fact that the 9400M sucks compared to the Radeon HD 2600 PRO.

HOWEVER, if you really want to "get an iMac which is as powerful as possible", then try to get the one of the new ones that have the Radeon 4850!

My rankings:
1: If you can get it, the new high end iMac with the Radeon 4850
2: The Old 20-inch 2.66GHz TI Radeon HD 2600 PRO
3: The New 20-inch: 2.66GHz with NVIDIA GeForce 9400M

Thanks!
I can't get the Radeon 4850 seeing as it is about $3000 Australian Dollars to get an iMac with it ... ouch.
I'll try and get an old iMac with the Radeon HD 2600 PRO - you don't have any recommendations where do you? Any online Australian stores that still have them? If you don't know don't worry I'll go to the nearby shops and hunt 'em down! :D
Now all I can say is - You better be right! Let's hope this Radeon HD 2600 PRO is good!

avihappy

Mar 5, 2009, 01:59 PM

Thanks!
I can't get the Radeon 4850 seeing as it is about $3000 Australian Dollars to get an iMac with it ... ouch.
I'll try and get an old iMac with the Radeon HD 2600 PRO - you don't have any recommendations where do you? Any online Australian stores that still have them? If you don't know don't worry I'll go to the nearby shops and hunt 'em down! :D
Now all I can say is - You better be right! Let's hope this Radeon HD 2600 PRO is good!

If the Radeon is too expensive, try getting an old one with an 8800GS! It's basically the "next best thing" to the Radeon 4850. Because I don't consider the Radeon HD 2600 PRO to be an excellent gaming card.

I'm not an aussie, but I'll try, here is one with the Radeon HD 2600 PRO: http://www.buymac.com.au/product/imac-20-266ghz-intel-core-2-duo-mb324xa-clearance

I'm having a hard time finding any with an 8800GS. Maybe keep an eye on the Apple Online Refurbished Store?

QCassidy352

Mar 5, 2009, 02:59 PM

Krasnall

Mar 5, 2009, 06:36 PM

PurpleCliff

Mar 5, 2009, 07:32 PM

OK and what about OpenCL, will Radeon 2600 PRO run better than GF 9400M?

I'm just trying to decide if I should go for a 2008 iMac 2.66/2GB/Radeon 2600 PRO or the 2009 2.66/2GB/GF 9400M since the new one is over $200 more expensive (in Poland).

I'm trying to choose between exactly the same ones as you! I'm struggling.
The old one has FW400, Radeon 2600 and is cheaper - whereas the new one has better RAM and iLife 09. HELP!?

Jack Flash

Mar 5, 2009, 08:31 PM

Okay, I've arranged these GPUs in order of performance and grouped them by similar performance, along with their 3DMark05 score.

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4850 (new iMac) 14594

nVidia 8800M GTS (old iMac) 11777
nVidia GT 130M (new iMac) 11836

nVidia 9600M GT (New MacBook Pro) 9372
nVidia GT 120 (new iMac)
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600 XT (old iMac) 8769
nVidia 8600M GT (old MacBook Pro) 6175

nVidia 9400M (new iMac and Mini) 3930
ATI Mobility Radeon 2400 XT (old iMac) 3091

Intel GMA 950 (old Mini) 455

Benchmarks from notebookcheck.net

wdc-sam

Mar 5, 2009, 08:32 PM

:confused:Newbie putting things in basic terms here....(basic caused by shallow knowledge I may add)

I've been umming and arring whether to shell out on a new Imac.

I'm no way a technical whizz. But the only MAJOR difference between the old 20" 256, and the new 20" 9400m, was exactly that - the card(except a firewire slot, display connection, the new one can take 8gb, but for the next 3 years 4gb will do me fine!). It did strike me as odd so I've checked out this here forum and the consensus seems to be the older is the better.

Therefore I've just got hold of the 'old one' £180 cheaper than a brand new one (whats a £ worth these days anyway:) ). So not only have I saved myself some cash I'm thinking I've got myself a better machine??

These deals are out there and mine came with warranty! I'll report back here if I find anything different. Thank you mac forums for making my mind up for me. I hope this helps other people in a similar position to me make a decision. I'll be using my mac for web design so this machine should be perfect for the next 3 yrs at least! I can now hand down the scratched 12inch Powerbook G4 to my nagging GF and double my production rate!

It feels good - get the better machine - AND cheaper!:eek:

Krasnall

Mar 5, 2009, 09:18 PM

Okay, I've arranged these GPUs in order of performance and grouped them by similar performance, along with their 3DMark05 score.

Benchmarks are easy to find, my question is if ATI Radeon 2600 PRO is going to be supported by Snow Leopard (I mean OpenCL)

I'll be using my mac for web design so this machine should be perfect for the next 3 yrs at least! I can now hand down the scratched 12inch Powerbook G4 to my nagging GF and double my production rate!
Still using my 4 years old iBook G4 :D

adammelancon

Mar 5, 2009, 09:33 PM

Benchmarks are easy to find, my question is if ATI Radeon 2600 PRO is going to be supported by Snow Leopard (I mean OpenCL)

That is the question I have.
Instead of getting the latest upgrade, I opted to get the 24" 2.8Ghz with the HD 2600 Pro. I've been waiting to get an iMac since my computer died in October. The 24" 2.8 refub for $1199 was just too hard to pass up!

But I'm wondering if the 2600 Pro will work with OpenCL and be able to take advantage of the features coming in Snow Leopard.

Paper&Plastic

Mar 5, 2009, 10:51 PM

I've been wondering the same thing. I'm not gaming with my machine, I just want to make the most out of Snow Leopard when it comes out and know that the programs I'm using (mostly print & web design) are going to handle it to boot.

I too am trying to decide between the 2.8Ghz refurb and the newer 2.66 myself. I actually chatted with someone at Apple today about it, but he just basically talked in circles. He wouldn't really comment on Snow Leopard and kept saying that there are no tests done on it yet. Actually, he was pretty cryptic like Mr. Miagi or something. 'The choice you make will be the right one and I'm sure you'll be more than happy with your purchase.' I'm actually wondering if the Apple Chat isn't all just some automated responses.

mudenza

Mar 6, 2009, 05:36 AM

Benchmarks are easy to find, my question is if ATI Radeon 2600 PRO is going to be supported by Snow Leopard (I mean OpenCL)

I think with Nvidia being the major marketing element in Apple's recent notebook and desktop lineup, people are incorrectly linking Nvidia chips with OpenCL and SL

It is not true that OpenCL is only supported by Nvidia. As long as the chipmakers support OpenCL, which ATI/AMD does, all they have to do is provide the right drivers.

If the 4850 is an option, then, going by everyone's fears here, it wouldn't support OpenCL, but that definitely won't be the case. And won't be the case for the 2600 either

Another thing to point out is that early Intel Mac Pro's had the 2600 as a card option. So, again, going by everyone's logic here, they would leave the Mac Pro dead in the water. Doesn't sound right, does it?

Brazzo79

Mar 6, 2009, 06:01 AM

OK, here is how I rank those iMacs:

1: The new 2.66 one [IF YOU UPGRADE TO GT 130 (better) OR RADEON HD 4850 (by far the best)] (best video + more RAM)
2: The refurb exactly as you made it IF YOU GET MORE RAM! (OK video + more RAM)
(tie): The new one exactly as you said. (more RAM but crap video)
(tie): The old one exactly as you said. (better VIDEO but less RAM)

But know this: RADEON HD 4850 (new iMac) > GEFORCE 8800GS (old iMac, thanks to Jack Flash) > GT 130 (new iMac) > GT 120 (new iMac) > RADEON 2600 PRO (old iMac) > GEFORCE 9400M (new iMac and Mini) >= RADEON 2400 XT (old iMac) > INTEL GMA 950 (old Mini)

It would be nice from apple if I could choose the GT 130 graphic withe the 2.66 Ghz new IMac, but it`s not possible. I don´t want choose the 2.93 Ghz cause the price

kurosov

Mar 6, 2009, 06:40 AM

Well the only game i play is guild wars and I am currently using an outdated p4 rig with an x1650 pro in it so although the 20" i am getting doesn't have any "future proofing" for any possible games i may play later on (though not likely) it isn't one of my large concerns.

Instead i'll be watching the price of 4gb SO-DIMMS carefully. The 8gb of ram option in the future should be helpful to vmware.

tbwtech

Mar 6, 2009, 06:56 AM

Therefore I've just got hold of the 'old one' £180 cheaper than a brand new one (whats a £ worth these days anyway:) ). So not only have I saved myself some cash I'm thinking I've got myself a better machine??

These deals are out there and mine came with warranty!

hi wdc-sam, where did you find this deal please?

KissStephanie

Mar 6, 2009, 03:43 PM

The New 20-inch: 2.66GHz with NVIDIA GeForce 9400M
or
The Old 20-inch 2.66GHz TI Radeon HD 2600 PROThe Radeon card in the now discontinued iMac is definitely better for now, but it may not be once Snow Leopard is released. Apparently it has been having problems with builds of Snow Leopard, and maybe someone could confirm this or not because I would like to know for sure.

mudenza

Mar 6, 2009, 04:24 PM

The Radeon card [...]apparently is having problems with builds of Snow Leopard, and maybe someone could confirm this or not because I would like to know for sure.

According the the latest SL build revealed today, it seems like all the Nvidia chipsets are having a bad time:

# Hibernation is not working on machines with Nvidia graphics cards and will result in a frozen machine.

Parental

Mar 7, 2009, 06:40 AM

Mike in Kansas

Mar 7, 2009, 07:05 AM

hi for a daily use.so internet, imovie, iphoto

what is the real difference between the new imac 24 with 9400M, 4 gb drr3, 2,66Ghz and the old imac 24 radeon 2600XT 2gb drr2 2,8Ghz?

and in the future with snowleopard what does the best choice?

I seriously doubt you'd see any difference in performance between the two in what you are doing. I think that the consensus on here (if there is such a thing) is that the 2400XT<9400M<2600XT, so you're between the old entry level GPU and the old mid-range GPU. If you started doing gaming you may begin to see the differences side-by-side.

Similarly, the slightly slower processor will be aided by DDR3 vs. the old DDR2. If you were doing a lot of movie rendering you may begin to see the differences, if even noticeable. Getting an additional 2GB of RAM is worth about $40 in street value (you can buy 4GB of DDR2 for $50 and sell the old 2GB on eBay for $10). You get twice the HDD which is nice.

Right now the Apple store has the 24"/2.8/2600PRO on clearance for $1399. You can find them online for probably even less at other resellers. Or you can go refurb for $1199 and possibly get a brand new one. I just got a 20"/2.66 refurb and there is nothing about it that would suggest it was used.

You could say that the newer one is more future proof, as it has DDR3 and can handle up to 8GB. It may even perform better over time if Apple begins to take advantage of the DDR3.

ritzuk

Mar 7, 2009, 08:52 AM

from reading this, I get the sense that buying my imac in january, i got a better computer than I would of if I spent the same amount on an imac today. am I right?

Precisely!

bajee

Mar 14, 2009, 11:01 PM

Wrong. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=607076

Thats how I look at it. The 9600M is twice as fast as a 2600 Pro, but thats at 1440x900, not at 1900x2000. Furthermore, ATI just does the pro apps better.

That was using the old iMac with the ddr2 running at 667Mhz ram.

The one comparing is the early 2008 iMac model, which according to apple site, on the spec, it is running on 1066Mhz Ram. Now if you could point me where to find a single 4gig module that runs on 800Mhz, or PC2-8500, that would be a treat.

wdc-sam

Mar 23, 2009, 01:30 PM

hi wdc-sam, where did you find this deal please?

Apple store uk. Right hand column towards the bottom is the Refurb Store. Ordered it Friday night arrived Monday Morning, not a scratch on it, no indications whatsoever of prior use. Simply superb. I am a happy happy man working on a lovely machine!

soldierblue

Mar 23, 2009, 02:11 PM

The 2600 Pro lies somewhere in between a 7600GT and an 8600 IIRC (probably a bit closer to the 7600). If that give you a better idea.

neiltc13

May 2, 2009, 09:32 AM

I benchmarked two machines which I've owned.

A 2.4GHz iMac from late 2007 which has the Radeon 2600 and a unibody MacBook 2.0GHz with the 9400m.

The iMac gave 3887 3DMark06 Marks, while the MacBook only gave 2183.

John.B

Jun 4, 2009, 06:14 PM

I'm on-the-fence with this exact same issue.

Currently the Refurbished iMac 24-inch 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB418LL/A) with the 9400M and 4GB RAM w/ 640GB HDD is going for the same $1299 in the USA refurb store as the Refurbished iMac 24-inch 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB322LL/A) with the ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO and 2GB RAM (easily updated to 4GB) w/ 500GB HDD.

Maybe we'll find out more about SL and OpenCL support for the older video cards at WWDC?

GadgetAddicted

Jun 15, 2009, 05:06 PM

John.B

Jun 15, 2009, 10:45 PM

Wow im in the EXACT same position as you. Same dilemma. Which one should I go for :-S???
It doesn't seem like all of the older-ish ATI cards are going to get the same level of support for OpenGL that the NVIDIA cards are getting in Snow Leopard. The supported OpenCL video cards in Snow Leopard (http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html)* right now are:
* NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT, GeForce 8800 GT, GeForce 8800 GTS, GeForce 9400M, GeForce 9600M GT, GeForce GT 120, GeForce GT 130.
* ATI Radeon 4850, Radeon 4870

Also, only the NVIDIA 9400M will have hardware acceleration support for H.264 video decoding, though you could make the case that faster video cards with dedicated memory don't need it as much as the Macs with integrated video.

Obviously any of this can change before SL ships (IOW they could add support for more ATI video cards), but I'm pretty sure my next iMac will be a refurb 24-inch 2.66GHz C2D 9400M (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB418LL/A); and the current mini only comes with the 9400M integrated graphics anyway. As always, YMMV.

* Accurate as of 2009-06-15; permalink not available for that support page.

PurrBall

Jun 15, 2009, 10:53 PM

It doesn't seem like all of the older-ish ATI cards are going to get the same level of support for OpenGL that the NVIDIA cards are getting in Snow Leopard. The supported OpenCL video cards in Snow Leopard (http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html)* right now are:
* NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT, GeForce 8800 GT, GeForce 8800 GTS, GeForce 9400M, GeForce 9600M GT, GeForce GT 120, GeForce GT 130.
* ATI Radeon 4850, Radeon 4870

Also, only the NVIDIA 9400M will have hardware acceleration support for H.264 video decoding, though you could make the case that faster video cards with dedicated memory don't need it as much as the Macs with integrated video.

Obviously any of this can change before SL ships (IOW they could add support for more ATI video cards), but I'm pretty sure my next iMac will be a refurb 24-inch 2.66GHz C2D 9400M (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB418LL/A); and the current mini only comes with the 9400M integrated graphics anyway. As always, YMMV.

* Accurate as of 2009-06-15; permalink not available for that support page.

Don't all current Macs have the same 9400m chipset, meaning that they all technically have the 9400m?

John.B

Jun 15, 2009, 11:00 PM

Don't all current Macs have the same 9400m chipset, meaning that they all technically have the 9400m?
I think the GeForce GT 120 and GT 130 are "standalone" and don't have the dual 9400M chipset. Damned nice video cards for an iMac, though. :)

That's just for the MBs/MBPs/MBAs/iMacs/minis, I'm pretty sure the Mac Pros are in their own league. :cool:

MacAndy74

Jun 16, 2009, 03:31 AM

GeForce 9400M all the way, it will support Snow Leopard's OpenCL (HD 2600 not). http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html

trose

Jun 16, 2009, 09:41 AM

If you play 3D games- 2600
If not- 9400M

Sirmausalot

Jun 16, 2009, 11:00 AM

From what I can tell, the older dedicated ATI cards already support hardware acceleration, especially for HD work. So I think open CL isn't as important for them. Anyone have other thoughts or information?

[QUOTE=John.B;7826913]It doesn't seem like all of the older-ish ATI cards are going to get the same level of support for OpenGL that the NVIDIA cards are getting in Snow Leopard. The supported OpenCL video cards in Snow Leopard (http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html)* right now are:
* NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT, GeForce 8800 GT, GeForce 8800 GTS, GeForce 9400M, GeForce 9600M GT, GeForce GT 120, GeForce GT 130.
* ATI Radeon 4850, Radeon 4870

Also, only the NVIDIA 9400M will have hardware acceleration support for H.264 video decoding, though you could make the case that faster video cards with dedicated memory don't need it as much as the Macs with integrated video.

Obviously any of this can change before SL ships (IOW they could add support for more ATI video cards), but I'm pretty sure my next iMac will be a refurb 24-inch 2.66GHz C2D 9400M (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB418LL/A); and the current mini only comes with the 9400M integrated graphics anyway. As always, YMMV.

John.B

Jun 16, 2009, 11:07 PM

From what I can tell, the older dedicated ATI cards already support hardware acceleration, especially for HD work. So I think open CL isn't as important for them. Anyone have other thoughts or information?
OpenCL isn't about about hardware acceleration for HD video. That's a different beast.

OpenCL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL) allows properly written applications to make use of the horsepower inside the GPU of your supported video card as a kind of additional CPU core (or cores).

AFAICT, ATI (and its parent AMD) was on board with this technology before NVIDIA. So I'm not sure why Snow Leopard doesn't have OpenCL support for more than just the two ATI cards.

What I do know is that I'd like whatever budget-priced Mac (iMac 24-inch 2.66GHz C2D (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB418LL/A), mini (http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_mini), whatever) that I buy next to have support for both OpenCL and H.264 hardware video decoding. If only as a hedge against the inevitable obsolescence.

wattmagner

Jul 10, 2009, 06:24 PM

Great thread! I was trying to make the same decision and actually went with the refurb 2.8 for the same reason. I read this thread after the fact but feel better about my decision now.

Thanks

Helmigurt

Jul 15, 2009, 07:53 AM

Hi Everybody!

I´m reading Macrumors and Forums a few years now, and decided to register today...

I use the first aluminium iMac (20" 2.4 GHz, 4 GB RAM with the HD 2600 Pro) as my private machine, and a unibody Macbook (2.4 GHz, 4 GB RAM and the 9400m) at work and on the go.

Startup Time, application performance and "snappiness" is better on the Macbook, maybe because the installation is newer (both run 10.5.7, both have 7k hd drives), maybe because of the faster DDR3 RAM. But in games the iMac crushes the Macbook: COD4 is playable on the uMB, but on the iMac its really smooth and fast, i even did crysis on the imac and it was definately playable. Not so on the MB..

I would only consider the 9400m for very light gaming, left4dead for example runs nicely.

The HD2600 Pro is definately faster in comparable environments.
That said, if you are a serious gamer you get the best bang for the buck with a refurbished 24" iMac with the 8800GS.