Is a GMA 950 better than ATI Radeon 9000?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by ViM, Nov 8, 2006.

  1. ViM macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Australia
    #1
    With the C2D macbooks out I'm thinking about buying one. I already have a mac mini G4 so I'm used to the OS X interface. The real turning point is if the Macbook's GMA 950 can play the games that I have in bootcamp. For example, Guild Wars, Rome Total War (maybe Medieval 2 Total War) and FM07.

    My current laptop is a Dell Latitude D600 1.6 GHZ 512 RAM with a Mobility Radeon 9000 AGP 32 MB. I'm wondering if the GMA 950 is better than the Radeon 9000 otherwise I might get a refurbished CD Macbook Pro. However I would prefer Macbook because it is smaller( I am a student). Also does the 64bit support in C2D macbook make a difference from the 32 bit support in a CD macbook pro? Any experiences relating to purchasing refurbished macs would be appreciated.

    ViM
     
  2. blahbrah macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    #2
    I believe the GMA950 doesn't have hardware T & L so that might be a big factor. I believe it is not as good as a Radeon 9000 but I could be wrong.
     
  3. Machead III macrumors 6502

    Machead III

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Location:
    UK, France
    #3
    You can't really compare the GMA with traditional graphics cards. In some respects it's very good, such as video playback, but in other's, like 3D, which is what you're concerned with if you want to game, it's pretty horrendous.

    Get a MBP. Trust me. I got a MB thinking it would be ok for minor gaming, but it's really not. I've ordered a C2D MBP, as I know the X1600, that was in my old iMac, is brill.
     
  4. worriedmac macrumors regular

    worriedmac

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    #4
    Does the GMA out perform the Powerbooks ATI 9700. By this I mean is it faster to respond graphically, I'm guessing that the GMA doesn't have the pixel shader ability.
     
  5. lewion macrumors regular

    lewion

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    Kalmthout
    #5
    I actually don't know, what i do know is that the macbook with gma 950 is better for gaming then a G5 with a radeon 9600.... So the Is not better as a radeon 9000 is really killing me here :) off course its better, its better as a geforce fx 5200 and most of the times as a radeon 9550 - 9600
     
  6. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #6
    I'm a graphics snob. Just so you know. ;)

    In my opinion the GMA graphics are crap, and to a certain extent, the numbers back me up.

    The Mobility Radeon 9700 in the PowerBooks, and the GeForce Go5200, and the Mobility Radeon 9500 in the last iBooks were all clearly better GPUs than the GMA hardware. Which is irritating. A Radeon 9000/9200 doesn't support all of the features the GMA has, but it is also probably a faster card (especially with its dedicated DDR memory), so 3D apps that don't use newer features (like older games) will probably run faster on a Radeon 9000 all else being equal.

    However, the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo CPUs are so much faster than the G4 that they make the MacBook a good buy anyway. The GMA graphics are not really for gaming but they are fine for any non-3D stuff. In addition, many people are playing games on their MacBooks; I suggest trying out some games at the Apple Store on a MacBook and deciding for yourself.

    I personally require a reall embedded GPU, so when I replace my PowerBook it will probably be with a MacBook Pro unless the MacBook finally gets a real GPU (at least as an option). But everyone has different needs and expectations, so try out the MacBook before you buy and see if it provides the performance level you need.
     
  7. dextertangocci macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    #7
    I have never used the ATI Radeon 9000 before, but I play Doom 3 and Qake for on medium to high settings on my 2Ghz MB with good performance;)
     
  8. worriedmac macrumors regular

    worriedmac

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    #8
    I take it that core image uses the cpu more than the graphics card then? Looking at that site at least and I was thinking that core image was going to use the gpu more.
     
  9. Greebazoid macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Location:
    Cape Town
    #9
    GMA950 is horrendous at 3D games in windows.

    I have a core duo mac mini with one in it and its slower than a very slow thing, going very slowly in the very slow lane, whilst overloaded with heavy slow-making things at 3D games..

    Its fabulous (I mean it) in MacOSX, with video playback, powering the TV - really, its superb at all that, but at 3D games.. just dont do it.

    When I got mine and excitedly installed bootcamp/XP and installed one of the 3DMark apps (dont recall which) - imagine my shock/horror/amazement when it got 1/8 the performance of the 6200 (non GT) in the AMD standing next to it

    By comparison, the X1600 in my MBP gets more 3D marks than the 6600GT in the AMD64 (that was standing on the other side)
     
  10. Macmadant macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    #10
    I've got a Radeon 9000, and i would probably say they are comparable, and as for playing doom on high quality settings i would say that was a fib, to have it on set on 'Super high', the setting above 'high', is supposed to have a 512 MB card to work properly, my C2D iMac has a x1600 and halo looks beautiful on it as-well doom looks equally nice, with the MBP i believe you get a x1600
     
  11. Macmadant macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    #11
    Well i don't think i could have said it better my self, also as for the difference in speed between 64 Bit CD2 and 32 bit CD, you won't notice any difference as the games are probably not written in 64 bit, and even then your only talking 10% or less performance difference if they are, such as a single 1.6 ghz G5 wasn't much faster than a single 1.42 ghz G4
     
  12. mygoldens macrumors regular

    mygoldens

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    #12
    Game away on a Macbook

    Well, I just got a Macbook 2.0 core 2 duo and it is great. I had 4 Macbook Pros, 3 2.16 and one 2.33. All of them had screen problems, spontaneuos reboots, etc. I gave up.

    I am trying a Macbook core 2 2 GHz and it plays Call Of Duty 2 at 800x600 very well. I am surprised to say the least. I would not call it a gaming laptop, but imagine my surprise at it playing Call of Duty 2.

    So far none of the problems the Macbook Pros had. I did bump the memory to 2gig myself.
     

Share This Page