NVIDIA GeForce 9400M vs. ATI Radeon X1600

BoingoBongo · Oct 20, 2008, 02:19 AM

I'm curious to see where my new MB's video card ranks in comparison with my iMac Core Duo's (with 256mb vRAM).

The iMac has the ATI Radeon X1600, and the MacBook has the new NVIDIA GeForce 9400M. I know this is an odd question, but does anyone have any idea how these two compare?

Thanks.

timestoby · Oct 20, 2008, 02:25 AM

im not sure that youll find a comparison.but the dedicated ati card would be better it seems,since the 9400m is intergrated.i know the same question was asked yesterday.

thomahawk · Oct 20, 2008, 02:29 AM

the x1600 are very old cards whears the 9400m just got out mid-08 obviously the 9400 wins in graphics performance but im not sure what your trying to get at. but if its a decision i'd choose the 9400 cuz its the latest and you can run it with newer parts as well as its Dx10 capabilities (though macs dont have it lol.. i think?)

BoingoBongo · Oct 20, 2008, 02:32 AM

Thanks for the responses guys! I know this was a really weird question, but I'm just trying to compare my new MacBook with my old iMac.

I know the MB beats the iMac in every area except for hard drive speed (7200 vs 5400), and I didn't know how the video cards compared. The old one does have dedicated RAM, but it is old, so that's where I got confused.

Basically, I'm just trying to figure out exactly how great my new computer is.

dukebound85 · Oct 20, 2008, 02:39 AM

run cinebench. this test will test your graphics and cpu independently so you can compare the reults between the two computers!

BoingoBongo · Oct 20, 2008, 02:45 AM

Thanks! I'll run that right now. Awesome.

dukebound85 · Oct 20, 2008, 02:59 AM

if you dont mind, id like to see the results too when youre done

neiltc13 · Oct 20, 2008, 05:50 AM

My old 17" iMac with 1.83GHz Core Duo and X1600 128MB scored about 1200 in 3D Mark 06. The new MacBooks get around 2000.

Scott6666 · Oct 20, 2008, 07:59 AM

Thanks, this is useful for me as well.

We have a iMac that my kid monopolizes to play games under bootcamp. I am thinking about getting her a MB instead. Just want to make sure that all the games she is running now *should* play on the new MB before we buy.

I'd love to see more benchmark comparisons if anyone has them.

BoingoBongo · Oct 20, 2008, 11:46 AM

Ok here are my results. I don't know exactly what they all mean, but it seems that the MacBook is the clear winner (unless lower numbers are better...).

iMac-
Time: 3:56
Rendering (1CPU): 1980
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 3742
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.89
Shading (openGL Standard): 3424

MacBook-
Time: 2:51
Rendering (1CPU): 2619
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 5163
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.97
Shading (openGL Standard): 4003

So that's pretty cool. I'd appreciate it if anyone can help me decipher these results.

hazoomeh · Oct 20, 2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott6666

Thanks, this is useful for me as well.

We have a iMac that my kid monopolizes to play games under bootcamp. I am thinking about getting her a MB instead. Just want to make sure that all the games she is running now *should* play on the new MB before we buy.

I'd love to see more benchmark comparisons if anyone has them.

If she just plays in windows then get her a PC and save yourself some daddy dollaz.

MrT8064 · Oct 24, 2008, 06:42 AM

Here are a couple of links i have found:

X1600 Benchmarks

and

9400 Benchmarks

the results look very similar to me!

BoingoBongo · Oct 24, 2008, 08:31 AM

Cool! Thanks for those!

EricJD · Nov 9, 2008, 12:40 AM

Thanks for the links, I was curious about this too.

Old Mac Geezer · 08:58 AM

I wish more people would do comparisons like this. It is good for people on a budget looking for a Macbook. You can get a used 17" Macbook Pro with X1600 graphics for the same price as a new 13" Macbook with 9400M graphics. If the performance figures for both are approximately the same, I'd rather have the used 17" Macbook Pro.

(Forget the Macbook Pro with 8600M graphics. Too many problems with that one, especially if it's beyond Apple's service period.)

davwin · 09:17 AM

Most of the benchmarks posted show them pretty close to each other in real world tasks and games and give the advantage to the 9400 in synthetic benchmarks. For comparisson, my neighbor has an older MBP with the 1600 and I have one of the Unibody MB with the 9400. We tried some games out to compare the two and we were pretty much dead even on fps in BF2 but this was at native res and the MBP is a higher native res. At 1280x800 we were still almost identical in performance on L4D and WoW (those are the only titles we compared).

It was weird though because, depending on the task the Unibody MB would beat the MBP. Using QT Pro to transcode some vid files into MP4 the Unibody MB was faster - Noticably faster. I'm guessing this is due to the GPU acceleration in QT that is Nvidia only currently... is that right? If so, that is a significant benefit to the Unibody MB over the older MBP assuming you might be doing any encodes and the new MB's have the benefit of the newer chasis/lighter weight as well. The MBP has some other obvious benefits such as FireWire and the larger screen though.

Really, I don't think you can go wrong with either; it's just a trade off of features so pick the one that best fits your usage.

Old Mac Geezer · Mar 10, 2009, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davwin

Most of the benchmarks posted show them pretty close to each other in real world tasks and games. For comparisson, my neighbor has an older MBP with the 1600 and I have one of the Unibody MB with the 9400. We tried some games out to compare the two and we were pretty much dead even on fps in BF2 but this was at native res and the MBP is a higher native res. At 1280x800 we were still almost identical in performance on L4D and WoW (those are the only titles we compared).

It was weird though because, depending on the task the Unibody MB would beat the MBP. Using QT Pro to transcode some vid files into MP4 the Unibody MB was faster - Noticably faster. I'm guessing this is due to the GPU acceleration in QT that is Nvidia only currently... is that right? If so, that is a significant benefit to the Unibody MB over the older MBP assuming you might be doing any encodes and the new MB's have the benefit of the newer chasis/lighter weight as well. The MBP has some other obvious benefits such as FireWire and the larger screen though.

Really, I don't think you can go wrong with either; it's just a trade off of features so pick the one that best fits your usage.

The things you mention where the Unibody has the advantage don't really figure much into my daily usage, so for me, I think going with the used 17" is probably a better way to go for the about the same money.

davwin · Mar 10, 2009, 09:22 AM

Cool then - and I'm sure the additional screen real estate will be nice to have. Congrats and let us know how your MBP works out

dagamer34 · Jul 8, 2009, 11:06 PM

Man, if this is true, it's time to ditch my Late 2006 MacBook Pro for something better!

bobnugget · Jul 9, 2009, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dagamer34

Man, if this is true, it's time to ditch my Late 2006 MacBook Pro for something better!

Having ditched a Late 2006 MBP for the base Unibody Macbook (2 Ghz) a few months ago, the MacBook seems to be easily as good as the 2006, and slightly better for Windows based gaming (not by a lot though, and it is running at a lower res).It doesn't seem to like having its hard drive upgraded. I'm waiting till I have some spare cash so I can hook it up to my external display, then we'll see if it is better at a higher res. Apparently the 9400 is better at higher resolution graphics than the x1600.

shadow1 · Jul 9, 2009, 08:50 PM

Interesting, I would rather get the unibody look than than a 2 year old macbook pro with slower ram.

Oct 20, 2008, 02:19 AM	#1
BoingoBongo macrumors regular Join Date: Mar 2008	NVIDIA GeForce 9400M vs. ATI Radeon X1600 I'm curious to see where my new MB's video card ranks in comparison with my iMac Core Duo's (with 256mb vRAM). The iMac has the ATI Radeon X1600, and the MacBook has the new NVIDIA GeForce 9400M. I know this is an odd question, but does anyone have any idea how these two compare? Thanks.

Oct 20, 2008, 02:29 AM	#3
thomahawk macrumors 6502a Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Osaka, Japan	the x1600 are very old cards whears the 9400m just got out mid-08 obviously the 9400 wins in graphics performance but im not sure what your trying to get at. but if its a decision i'd choose the 9400 cuz its the latest and you can run it with newer parts as well as its Dx10 capabilities (though macs dont have it lol.. i think?) __________________ flickr

Oct 20, 2008, 02:39 AM	#5
dukebound85 macrumors 603 Join Date: Jul 2005	run cinebench. this test will test your graphics and cpu independently so you can compare the reults between the two computers! __________________ Old Bike: 2008 Kawasaki Ninja 250r Green Current Bike: 2003 Suzuki SV650S Copper

Oct 20, 2008, 02:59 AM	#7
dukebound85 macrumors 603 Join Date: Jul 2005	if you dont mind, id like to see the results too when youre done __________________ Old Bike: 2008 Kawasaki Ninja 250r Green Current Bike: 2003 Suzuki SV650S Copper

Oct 24, 2008, 06:42 AM	#12
MrT8064 macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Exeter, UK	Here are a couple of links i have found: X1600 Benchmarks and 9400 Benchmarks the results look very similar to me! __________________ iPad Pre-Ordered.

Oct 20, 2008, 02:25 AM	#2
timestoby macrumors 6502 Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: north devon,uk	im not sure that youll find a comparison.but the dedicated ati card would be better it seems,since the 9400m is intergrated.i know the same question was asked yesterday.

Oct 20, 2008, 02:32 AM	#4
BoingoBongo Thread Starter macrumors regular Join Date: Mar 2008	Thanks for the responses guys! I know this was a really weird question, but I'm just trying to compare my new MacBook with my old iMac. I know the MB beats the iMac in every area except for hard drive speed (7200 vs 5400), and I didn't know how the video cards compared. The old one does have dedicated RAM, but it is old, so that's where I got confused. Basically, I'm just trying to figure out exactly how great my new computer is.

Oct 20, 2008, 02:45 AM	#6
BoingoBongo Thread Starter macrumors regular Join Date: Mar 2008	Thanks! I'll run that right now. Awesome.

Oct 20, 2008, 05:50 AM	#8
neiltc13 macrumors 68020 Join Date: May 2006 Location: United Kingdom	My old 17" iMac with 1.83GHz Core Duo and X1600 128MB scored about 1200 in 3D Mark 06. The new MacBooks get around 2000.

Oct 20, 2008, 07:59 AM	#9
Scott6666 macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Feb 2008	Thanks, this is useful for me as well. We have a iMac that my kid monopolizes to play games under bootcamp. I am thinking about getting her a MB instead. Just want to make sure that all the games she is running now should play on the new MB before we buy. I'd love to see more benchmark comparisons if anyone has them.

Oct 20, 2008, 11:46 AM	#10
BoingoBongo Thread Starter macrumors regular Join Date: Mar 2008	Ok here are my results. I don't know exactly what they all mean, but it seems that the MacBook is the clear winner (unless lower numbers are better...). iMac- Time: 3:56 Rendering (1CPU): 1980 Rendering (Multiple CPU): 3742 Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.89 Shading (openGL Standard): 3424 MacBook- Time: 2:51 Rendering (1CPU): 2619 Rendering (Multiple CPU): 5163 Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.97 Shading (openGL Standard): 4003 So that's pretty cool. I'd appreciate it if anyone can help me decipher these results.

Oct 24, 2008, 08:31 AM	#13
BoingoBongo Thread Starter macrumors regular Join Date: Mar 2008	Cool! Thanks for those!

Nov 9, 2008, 12:40 AM	#14
EricJD macrumors member Join Date: Aug 2007	Thanks for the links, I was curious about this too.

Mar 10, 2009, 08:52 AM	#15
Old Mac Geezer macrumors member Join Date: Mar 2007	This is a good comparison I wish more people would do comparisons like this. It is good for people on a budget looking for a Macbook. You can get a used 17" Macbook Pro with X1600 graphics for the same price as a new 13" Macbook with 9400M graphics. If the performance figures for both are approximately the same, I'd rather have the used 17" Macbook Pro. (Forget the Macbook Pro with 8600M graphics. Too many problems with that one, especially if it's beyond Apple's service period.) Last edited by Old Mac Geezer : Mar 10, 2009 at 08:58 AM.

Mar 10, 2009, 09:10 AM	#16
davwin macrumors regular Join Date: Nov 2008	Most of the benchmarks posted show them pretty close to each other in real world tasks and games and give the advantage to the 9400 in synthetic benchmarks. For comparisson, my neighbor has an older MBP with the 1600 and I have one of the Unibody MB with the 9400. We tried some games out to compare the two and we were pretty much dead even on fps in BF2 but this was at native res and the MBP is a higher native res. At 1280x800 we were still almost identical in performance on L4D and WoW (those are the only titles we compared). It was weird though because, depending on the task the Unibody MB would beat the MBP. Using QT Pro to transcode some vid files into MP4 the Unibody MB was faster - Noticably faster. I'm guessing this is due to the GPU acceleration in QT that is Nvidia only currently... is that right? If so, that is a significant benefit to the Unibody MB over the older MBP assuming you might be doing any encodes and the new MB's have the benefit of the newer chasis/lighter weight as well. The MBP has some other obvious benefits such as FireWire and the larger screen though. Really, I don't think you can go wrong with either; it's just a trade off of features so pick the one that best fits your usage. Last edited by davwin : Mar 10, 2009 at 09:17 AM.

Mar 10, 2009, 09:22 AM	#18
davwin macrumors regular Join Date: Nov 2008	Cool then - and I'm sure the additional screen real estate will be nice to have. Congrats and let us know how your MBP works out

Jul 8, 2009, 11:06 PM	#19
dagamer34 macrumors regular Join Date: May 2007	Man, if this is true, it's time to ditch my Late 2006 MacBook Pro for something better!

Jul 9, 2009, 08:50 PM	#21
shadow1 macrumors member Join Date: Jul 2009	Interesting, I would rather get the unibody look than than a 2 year old macbook pro with slower ram.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode