GT120 vs GT130?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by ucla95, Mar 4, 2009.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    #1
    I saw the graphic on Apples website obviously but the 3DMark06 from another website had the GT130 only like 8% better?? Why the difference in the stats from Apple and the 3Dmark06? Does the 256 vs 512 graphics memory really matter much? I play mainly WoW and iRacing, but may move to newer MMRPGs, and don't want to spend the extra $300 if it's worthless.
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    #2
    Take a look around -- there are plenty of posts already discussing this subject!
     
  3. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    #3
    There are plenty of posts on GT130 vs. 4850, but not GT120 vs. GT130!
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    #4
    I believe there is a bit of confusion and some misleading floating around right. I think the 8% number you are quoting was from a comparison with the GT130M (mobile version). See my thread on GT 130 specs, I'm pretty confident the 130 inside the new iMac is NOT the mobile version, but rather a slowed down version of the desktop card. After I get home tonight, I'll try to run 3DMark06 and Vantage to get some real numbers up.

    If you're only worried about WoW, even the 9400m will be fine. I've also had no trouble running Warhammer Online on the 9400m with low/med settings. If you are thinking about Age of Conan, that may be too much, though I can't say I've ever tried it on the 9400m.
     

Share This Page