Graphics card differences - Pro vs IMac 24

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by acrafton, Mar 16, 2007.

  1. acrafton macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    #1
    So, how do I compare performance of graphics cards, specifically the one that comes in the Macbook Pro to the one that comes in the iMac 24"? Here are the names/specs:

    Macbook Pro (15") - ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics with 128MB SDRAM
    IMac 24"- ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics with 128MB SDRAM

    So, which is better and by how much (don't even know how to quantify it) but would be used for gaming, aperture, and very little final cut.

    Thanks
    Adam
     
  2. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #2
    You cannot get a 24" iMac with the Mobility X1600.

    It comes standard with a Geforce 7300GT (128MB) and can be upgraded to a Geforce 7600GT (256MB).
     
  3. acrafton thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    #3
    Yes, thanks (cut the wrong descrip) - so, which is better and by how much?
     
  4. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #4
    The playing field isn't equal. You are comparing a screen with a 1920x1200 resolution (iMac 24") to a 1680x1050 (MacBook Pro 17") or 1440x900 (MacBook Pro 15.4").

    The number of pixels the graphic cards have to push are way different.

    Regardless, the 24" iMac with the Geforce 7600GT is going to perform better at most things despite the larger resolution screen.

    You can find performance numbers for the iMac here and the MacBook Pro here.
     
  5. macjonny1 macrumors 6502a

    macjonny1

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #5
    Well, I guess one could compare by hooking up the macbook pro to a higher res display or a 1080P LCD TV...

    I would personally wait for the next MBP update if you want a laptop. I can't imagine that it will still have a gfx card that they first put in the macs over a year ago. If they do keep it, that would be pretty sad.
     
  6. whateverandever macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Location:
    Baltimore
    #6
    Well prepare to be very sad, unless the next MBP update is quite a ways off. As we've discussed thoroughly in another thread... there is no video card update available for Apple to use. Unless they somehow improve the thermal levels of their current design and can fit in a hotter running chip, they simply can't upgrade to a X1800 or anything of that nature.
     
  7. whateverandever macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Location:
    Baltimore
    #7
    I wish barefeats would do a decent comparison of the video card options instead of randomly varying the machines.

    I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison of a 20" iMac w/ a X1600 @ 2.33Ghz vs. a 24" iMac w/ Geforce 7300 @ 2.33Ghz vs. 24" iMac w/ Geforce 7600 @ 2.33Ghz. They have the main processor speed varying too much to get a valid idea of how the video cards perform.

    I believe the Geforce cards in the 24" iMac are mobility cards... and obviously the 7300 in the Mac Pro is a desktop card. At first I was surprised at how the 7300 blew away the X1600 until I realized that the 7300 wasn't mobility... :|
     
  8. macjonny1 macrumors 6502a

    macjonny1

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #8
    OK you ruined my day now!!!!:mad:

    Could you link to that thread so I can see what you are referring to? I'll do a search as well. So, is it because the MBP is so thin that it couldn't handle one of the newer NVidia or ATI gfx mobile cards?

    I guess I really don't need the highest powered card anyway...all i would plan to do is play WoW which would do fine on a x1600. I'd also like to be able to play HD video which I'm assuming again would be fine on a x1600. Anyway, I'm waiting for the update with Leopard before buying now as my current machine is not needing urgent replacing.
     
  9. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #9
    wha? What about the 7600GT geforce or the x1700 radeon? There are plenty of other midrange cards out there with similar heat levels. In fact, the x1700 i believe is cooler.
     
  10. whateverandever macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Location:
    Baltimore
    #10
    Yes, the X1700 is basically an X1600 with the "strained silicon" production technique. That would be a reasonable upgrade, but it would cost Apple more and not really improve performance all that much (it's only marginally better than an X1600... because it is an X1600).

    Apple still doesn't clock the X1600 in the MBP at the top clock rating, so it's not like the actual chipset is presently a limitation in the MBP, it's the cooling system.

    I believe the mobile version of the Geforce 7600 draws more power, but since I can't really find much information on it, I can't be sure.
     
  11. macjonny1 macrumors 6502a

    macjonny1

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #11
    Other than games, what other apps would run a lot better on a newer graphics card?
     
  12. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #12
    b\c it would cost apple more is a silly reason not to upgrade the graphics card. I doubt it's that much more in the bulk they buy in. By that logic they could ship with 9600 radeons b\c they're cheaper.

    And also, if I remember correctly, the santa rosa platform draws less power so it could afford the assumed slight increase in power consumption of a geforce 7600.

    Its been a year with the same graphics card..they gotta either up the clock speeds on the x1600 or get a new card in there...this is a pro level computer and they need to keep it competitive.

    Furthermore, the rumors of a new case design could fix the cooling problem they're having.

    I wouldn't rule out a graphics card upgrade just yet..
     

Share This Page