Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

9600M GT + 9400M vs. 8600M GT!

Barefeats...

Well, the mad scientist has made some of his testings and they are now up...

For those of you not familiar with Bare Feats, he is the man when it comes to testing Macs and stuff that goes in them or plugs into them...

http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp05.html

Lonnie
 
Why can't some of these reviewers just compare the old MBP 2.4 GHz 8600M 256 MB VRAM with the new 2.4 GHz 9600M 256 MB VRAM...

That way, we get a more straight answer on how faster the new machines are compared to the old ones...
 
Mackan,
I will attempt to speak for Bare Feats and not for all reviewers...

Bare Feats is not a richly funded lab. They test what they purchase. Also, vendors or others donate or lend equipment to be tested. And then he posts his findings for all of us to benefit. So, Rob obviously didn't purchase the entry level Macbook Pro, he purchased the higher end one... If you find his information useful, there is a place you may make a small donation for his service - but you are under no obligation to do so, and yet the information is still there...

But if history repeats, via some methodology, he will have the very test you ask and post those results as well - Bare Feats is awesome...

Lonnie
 
Bare Feats "shoe string" Lab

We are a bare bones operation at Bare Feats. We buy what we want to keep and borrow what we don't. I have several Mac friends who will likely purchase the slower models of the 'late 2008' MacBook Pro or a MacBook in the days ahead. With their permission, i'll benchmark their machine and add it to our 3D game page linked above.

Meanwhile, for your entertainment, here's the results for the 2.8GHz MacBook Pro running in both 9400M and 9600M GT mode:

UT2004 Inferno 1440x900 Flyby Max
9600M GT = 157 fps
9400M = 71 fps

Prey at 1440x900 High Quality
9600M GT = 69 fps
9400M = 29 fps

Halo at 1440x900 High Quality
9600M GT = 113 fps
9400M = 50 fps

ETQW at 1440x900 High Quality
9600M GT = 63 fps
9400M = 22 fps

MacWorld did a nice 3D Game comparison of most models of 'late 2008' MacBook and MacBook Pro in both modes:
http://www.macworld.com/article/136251/2008/10/macbookgraphics.html
 
Bare Feats,
Had I known you were around the corner I wouldn't have stepped in... hopefully, I didn't step on any toes.

Thanks for your invaluable "mad science"!

Lonnie
 
I think a lot of people are mistaking hybrid SLI and geforce boost. Hybrid sli is strictly used for improving energy efficiency (shutting down the discrete videocard when not used) which all of the 9-series geforce desktop/laptop video cards support. Problem right now is that this feature is not yet supported by os x leopard (perhaps snow leopard will fix this) which is why os x still requires the user to relogin when changing from integrated to discrete video cards or vise-versa.

geforce boost (only compatible with low end discrete cards such as the 9200m, 9300m, and 9500m; according to nvidia: http://www.nvidia.com/object/hybridsli_notebook.html) allows both IGP and discrete video card to run in sli and boost performance. But since, 9600m gt does not support geforce boost, users will not get the performance benefits of running both the onboard 9400m and 9600m gt videocard.
 
Hi everyone!

This is my first post on Mac Forums. I have read all 6 pages of ongoing discussions on which graphic card is better and all that, yet I am still confused.

I've been considering getting myself a Macbook Pro, but I have gotten tangled up in decision making.

I won't lie to you and I'll tell you straight that I do wish to play a computer game here and there on my laptop, therefore I have been deciding among the following three versions of Macbook Pro:

ALL SILVER:

2.5 Ghz, Geforce 8600 512 MB
2.4 Ghz, Geforce 8600 256 MB

and NEW ONE:

2.4 Ghz, Geforce 9400 + 9600 (up to 512 MB shared)


Now, first of all, about the 2 all silver laptops: is it really throwing money through the window by buying the 2.5 Ghz notebook with a 512 MB graphic card over the one with with 2.4 Ghz and a 256 MB card? Is the 512 MB card better AT ALL?

Secondly, how much better is the new Geforce 9600 compared to a Geforce 8600 512 MB from the previous (all silver) laptop?

Thank you in advance.
 
For games, I wouldn't want less than 512MB now. There IS a difference now between those amounts, and I hate that they're still selling models with only 256MB for that much money.

The 9600GT and 8600GT are the same basic hardware, but the former's processors are clocked quite a bit faster. It is better, if still not mind blowing. The problem is, you're comparing a 9600GT with 256MB against an 8600GT with 512MB there. Which would be better will probably vary on a case by case basis, and depending on settings and what-not.

Ideally you'd want the new model Macbook Pro with 512MB for the video card.
 
Wolfpup said:
Ideally you'd want the new model Macbook Pro with 512MB for the video card.
Click to expand...

I know, but let's stay focused on the current situation, which is the previous MBP's graphic card vs. the new one... :p

So you're definitely 100% certain that Geforce 8600 with 512 MB would be better than 8600 with 256 MB? (The reason I'm so doubtful is because of reading all those previous comments in this topic...)
 
jon08 said:
I know, but let's stay focused on the current situation, which is the previous MBP's graphic card vs. the new one... :p
Click to expand...

Well there IS a new one with 512MB. They divided it up the same way again, where the cheaper one comes with 256MB, and the more expensive one with 512 :(

So you're definitely 100% certain that Geforce 8600 with 512 MB would be better than 8600 with 256 MB? (The reason I'm so doubtful is because of reading all those previous comments in this topic...)
Click to expand...

Yeah, if I'm remembering correctly some people were claiming the GPU couldn't "use/see" all of it, which is 100% false. There IS the issue with these lower end (though mid range by notebook standards) GPUs that throwing a ton of RAM on them doesn't magically make them better (that's been used on the desktop market as a marketing ploy for years), but I've seen enough benchmarks lately that I'm confident 512MB really is better for today's games than 256MB.

But if you're comparing the old high end model with 512MB versus the new low end model with 256MB, I'm not sure which would be better. :-/ I just suspect it would depend on what settings you use and what games you play.

I think for myself, if I end up getting one of these, it'll definetly be the new, higher end model (plus in my case they're $100 closer anyway as they got rid of half the educational discount on the cheaper model).

Hope this is semi-helpful! :)
 
gamers gamers gamers

All of these 8600 v 9600 posts seem to be worried about GAME performance.

Is there anyone out there using a MBP for Final Cut Express or CS3?

Doesn't the H264 compression use the GPU and not the CPU? Or do I have it wrong? :(

I am using an old G5, and tired of render times, so I am determined to upgrade, and I LOVE the portability factor of a MB ... so I am confronted with the decision between New and the FireSale Old.

I am WORRIED that Final Cut will melt an 8600m ...

And I am INTERESTED in the claims that any GPU memory beyond 256mb is a waste.

Also .. I have read this entire post, and I agree that it seems unimportant to try to level the playing field when comparing the 8600m and 9600m ... the REAL question is about the overall performance of the NEW MBP versus the previous generation.

And that is MY question: Is the old MBP going to overheat and give me problems ... and if I go for a NEW MBP, will I see much difference between a 2.4gHz with 4gb ram versus a 2.53 similarly configured (the difference being the amount of GPU ram).

Thanks. This is interesting reading!
 
The thing about more than 256MB not getting used is 100% bogus. It's probably based on a misunderstanding (ie more RAM on a low end GPU may not be very USEFUL, but it can be USED).

The 8600GT can also be used for video compression, but I don't think ANYTHING on the Mac does that right now. I don't even think it's used to accelerate DECODING yet. There are a few programs on Windows that are starting to do that, but we're in the early stages of that.

Hard to say if the new or old ones would be more reliable. Generally a first revision of Apple hardware isn't very good...but then that's what the warranty is for, and in general the new design seems much better.

For games the extra video RAM will help, and for other programs it may start helping if it doesn't already (particularly if Apple starts pushing applications onto the GPU in 10.6). The CPU difference will be at least 5% faster, and faster still if the programs running benefit from double the cache.

Also, remember that the higher end config has more RAM. You can knock $130ish off the price of the higher end config when you consider you'll have to upgrade the lower end one.

Personally I'll go for the higher end one if I get one, but either's not terrible (though it is cheesy that they only but 256MB on the GPU...that's clearly done to differentiate the models IMO).
 
Is there any benchmark that shows that that the 256 extra mb will help in the 8600m gt/9600m gt? I hear that it will make only a 1% differences between the 256 vs 512 model.
 
It would depend entirely on what you're running. Could be anywhere from 0% to double digits.
 
What are you interested in running that you think it might make a difference for? The usual hardware sites probably have close equivalents in their archives somewhere-Anandtech's a good starting point.
 
8600 512mb or the new 9600GT 25mb?

Hi Guys, did anyone have an answer to this ? I'm currently selling the notebook that has the 8600 512 in it... replaced it with the 9600GT with 250mb ! did I just downgrade ?
 
woodynet said:
Hi Guys, did anyone have an answer to this ? I'm currently selling the notebook that has the 8600 512 in it... replaced it with the 9600GT with 250mb ! did I just downgrade ?
Click to expand...

what do you do?

if your not doing INTENSE photoshopping the like, the performance will be slighty better on the 9600GT :)
 
Yeah, it would depend on what you're doing with it. If something needs more than 256MB, then it'll be slower, otherwise it'll be a bit faster (or for most general usage things it'll be exactly the same)
 
Wolfpup said:
Yeah, it would depend on what you're doing with it. If something needs more than 256MB, then it'll be slower, otherwise it'll be a bit faster (or for most general usage things it'll be exactly the same)
Click to expand...

yea the clock increase was basically nothing.. would hardly notice any difference. do they use the same GDDR?
 
I don't know...probably the RAM speed was increased a bit? I know the cores were actually increased more than the rest of the GPU, so there's probably a bit more of a boost than it appears, but still.

Oh well, I've got a 9650GT and like it fine :) Doesn't blaze through Crysis, but it even run sit playably.
 
Wolfpup said:
I don't know...probably the RAM speed was increased a bit? I know the cores were actually increased more than the rest of the GPU, so there's probably a bit more of a boost than it appears, but still.

Oh well, I've got a 9650GT and like it fine :) Doesn't blaze through Crysis, but it even run sit playably.
Click to expand...

im fairly certain the RAM and core increase wasnt that massive, but massive enough for them to claim it was :rolleyes:

im not sure if id want the RAM or the boost in speeds, probably both. dual monitor users would want both for sure haha! (e.g. me)

i have an 8500GT in my PC, its So crap.
 
Looks like comparing the "average" 8600 to 9600, the RAM jumped from 700 to 800MHz, and the cores jumped from 950 to 1250mhz.

My notebook has the cores clocked at 1350, but its using DDR2 at 400Mhz, soooo....
 
Wolfpup said:
Looks like comparing the "average" 8600 to 9600, the RAM jumped from 700 to 800MHz, and the cores jumped from 950 to 1250mhz.

My notebook has the cores clocked at 1350, but its using DDR2 at 400Mhz, soooo....
Click to expand...

oh so it was a bit of a jump clock wise, enough i guess.

you notebooks RAM freq, does that include the full speed of it or is that the actual speeds? because if its the acutal speed then you must x2 to get the actual speed (800MHz).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back