9400M versus the GT 120 .........

Discussion in 'iMac' started by NorrisKillsKids, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. NorrisKillsKids macrumors 6502a

    Jan 14, 2008
    Before I make the buy I was wondering how big the difference is between the two. I can definitely afford the model that has the 9400M but do go one higher I don't have enough at the moment but maybe could squeeze it.

    I don't know, I google'd a lot and whatnot and I don't think the difference is enough to warrant the price jump between the two of 350 dollars. Yeah I know it's 2.93 and 2.66 which accounts for it too but those don't make a huge differece, that much I know.

    So what's peoples thoughts on the cards? Worth the difference? Not worth it? To be honest the only gaming I ever plan on doing is Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 and I'm pretty damn confident Blizzard will make it work on the 9400M just great, but there's always room to be wrong...so shoot :p

    I should also add that I don't do many intensive things like video editing and photo editing. I might do it for fun every now and then but yeah...if that makes a difference.
  2. rwskemer macrumors regular

    Feb 18, 2008
    I also wonder if having the GT 120 over the 9400M would be better since it's a 24" screen. I have a MBP with the 9400/9600 video cards. This machine is going to be for my parents. I want it to be somewhat future proof. I'm stuck between the two models of 24" iMacs too.
  3. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Jan 16, 2008
    9400M is more than enough unless your parents play Crysis or such
  4. mastershakess macrumors 6502

    May 14, 2008
    Bel Air, MD
    I doubt the 9400m is going to play any new game well.
  5. Pyrotechnic macrumors 6502


    Feb 28, 2009
    United Kingdom
    I too have this dilema. I am one click away from buying. I do not do any gaming at all and have no intention to. However, I do deal with photos and have a HD Video Camera I want to use more.

    Any guidance on what I should do would be appreciated. The 20inch upto the 24 inch is another £500 in the UK for the 2 steps up.

    I need to know its worth it.

    Its also going to be my first iMac so I dont want to be dissapointed.
  6. rwskemer macrumors regular

    Feb 18, 2008
    I think the GT 120 would be more "future proof."
  7. Schipperenzot macrumors newbie

    Mar 3, 2009
  8. Pyrotechnic macrumors 6502


    Feb 28, 2009
    United Kingdom
    Cheers for that.

    Considering I do not play any games, it would appear that I could go for the 24" 2.66ghz NVIDIA GeForce 9400M knocking it upto 1TB HD with Wireless Mouse and Keyboard plus Applecare and iWork for the same price as the next model up.

    In your opinions is this the right way to go for me ?
  9. ChrisN macrumors 65816


    Aug 27, 2007
    Demarest, NJ
    Are there any benchmarks of the card? cod 4? or any other games? I looked around and didn't see anything.

  10. QCassidy352 macrumors G4


    Mar 20, 2003
    Bay Area
    you gotta take apple's charts with a big grain of salt. They claim the GT130 will perform 4.2x as well as the GT120 in COD4. Riiiight....
  11. Pyrotechnic macrumors 6502


    Feb 28, 2009
    United Kingdom
    Im looking at getting the 24” 2.66ghz machine with 4GB Ram and the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M Graphics. I have updated to a 1TB Hard Drive and chose Wireless Keyboard and Mouse complete with iWorks and Apple Care all for £1500

    Hopefully this will do everything I want it to do, especially as its my first Mac
  12. RobP macrumors member

    Mar 3, 2009
    Their charts are very misleading. For a start Apple is too afraid to show frame rates. For seconds the chart comparisons are not against the best that the old iMacs had to offer.

    I'd like to see those charts in comparison to the GT800 in the old 3.06 iMac. I wonder what story that would tell...

  13. Jethryn Freyman macrumors 68020

    Jethryn Freyman

    Aug 9, 2007
    Go for the ATI card.

    GT 100 = 9400 GT
    GT 120 = 9500 GT
    GT 130 = 6500 GSO/8800 GS
  14. avihappy macrumors 6502


    Nov 15, 2006
    I have to tell you, all the NVidia cards in the new iMac are not good for games. If you want games, you better pony up for the Radeon 4850! To give you an idea:

    Radeon 4850 (9577) is 2X better in 3DMark06 than the GT 130 (5816)
    GT 130 (5816) is a bit better in 3DMark06 than the GT 120 (5431)
    GT 120 (5431) is 2.5X better in 3DMark06 than the 9400M (2067)

    Also, 8800 GTS (not quite the same, somewhat faster than what was in the iMac) scores 7816.

    So the Radeon 4850 is about 5X better than the 9400M in 3DMark06.

    The Radeon 4850 will run CoD4 at 68FPS on High and 133FPS on Low.
    The GT 130I have no numbers, but it is not considered to be a good card.
    The GeForce 9400M will be around 20FPS for Low on CoD4.

    So there are some data points for you guys.
  15. Le Big Mac macrumors 68030

    Le Big Mac

    Jan 7, 2003
    Washington, DC
    I know gaming is a big thing, but what about performance with other software (photoshop, for example)?
  16. kasakka macrumors 68020

    Oct 25, 2008
    I don't think it'll matter much. Even the intel X3100 seemed to run for example Pixelmator (which can use the GPU) fine.
  17. evirob macrumors member


    Mar 31, 2008
    Sunny Singapore
    Couldn't wait for the new update and bought a last generation 24" 2.8 BTO, 500GB with a 8800GS...

    After seeing the updated machines and their prices, kinda feel vindicated....:D
  18. lewchenko macrumors regular

    Jun 8, 2004
    The old machines with the 8800GS in them are faster than every new iMac (unless you upgrade to a 4850)... plus they were much cheper.

    Your purchase was very wise.. wish I had done the same. The old models are techncially better than the new ones... such a shame.

Share This Page