Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

9400M (Mac mini vs MacBook/MacBook Pro)

B

bezerk3r86

macrumors member
Original poster
Nov 3, 2008
52
0
Now that all the mac hardware has the 9400M, I thought I'd gather up some of the results Apple put up for their products. The biggest highlight is the difference in performance of the 9400M between the mini and the MacBook.

What could this really mean? I remember that NVIDIA wanted to put the 9400M first in the desktop lineup before the notebook ones. Does this meant that the desktop ones are more powerful than the notebook ones, even though the mini and MacBook use similar components?
 

Attachments

  • Picture 4.png
    Picture 4.png
    423.4 KB · Views: 356
  • Picture 5.png
    Picture 5.png
    377.1 KB · Views: 280
  • Picture 6.png
    Picture 6.png
    438.3 KB · Views: 211
  • Picture 7.png
    Picture 7.png
    380.1 KB · Views: 221
umgoblue2008

umgoblue2008

macrumors regular
Dec 6, 2008
100
0
Hmm, my question is: did the previous mini and previous macbook share the same graphics chip or different? A different starting point could be the reason for the discrepancy.
 
tersono

tersono

macrumors 68000
Jan 18, 2005
1,999
1
UK
The mini is based on laptop architecture, not desktop components, so I think you're barking up the wrong tree there...
 
Chundles

Chundles

macrumors G5
Jul 4, 2005
12,037
493
The old Mac mini had the GMA950 whereas the Macbook had the X3100. I'd presume that because the X3100 could actually run a few games like Spore and Lego Indy that it was a decent jump over the GMA950.

That may explain the slight difference in the performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom