Hey all. Just wondering. How does the ATi X1600 Radeon of old, from the 1st 2 MacBook Pro generations, compared up to the nVidia 9400M chip? In the new MacBooks and also the new MacBook Pros (on low performance)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ATi X1600 vs nVidia 9400
- Thread starter raymondu999
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a old x1600 MB Pro. Here is my take on comparing the both...
from the wiki page on the x1600 mobile variant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R520
and the 9400M: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_Graphics_Processing_Units
Numbers to Numbers the 9400 has some more going for it, but mostly due to the fact that its a new generation. Both i would say are pretty comparable (in my opinion)....the 9400m has some more optimizations than the 1600. Now if you compare the new 3650M form Ati against the 9400 it will detroy it along with the 3450M...
The 1600 was a good mobile processor at the time, still holds it own...for being 3 years old...
from the wiki page on the x1600 mobile variant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R520
and the 9400M: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_Graphics_Processing_Units
Numbers to Numbers the 9400 has some more going for it, but mostly due to the fact that its a new generation. Both i would say are pretty comparable (in my opinion)....the 9400m has some more optimizations than the 1600. Now if you compare the new 3650M form Ati against the 9400 it will detroy it along with the 3450M...
The 1600 was a good mobile processor at the time, still holds it own...for being 3 years old...
No no... I'm not actually judging the strength as a GPU. Instead, I just wanted to compare graphics performance between an old MBP and a new MB
I can't say I've actually benchmarked, but going by general numbers I've seen, I'd say fairly similar, perhaps 9400 perhaps a tad faster.
are my imac's GPU and macbook pro's GPU identical?
i mean the x1600.
and if so, would that mean that they put in a mobile GPU into a desktop computer??
i mean the x1600.
and if so, would that mean that they put in a mobile GPU into a desktop computer??
Actually, Mac OS DOES have better ATi drivers, and Core Image will run faster on comparable ATi cards than nVidia.
It was on a graphic designer forum, the forum escapes me right now. But they were comparing an ATi and an nVidia, and in the case of the comparison, the ATi was actually the weaker card, but they said it produced much better core image as opposed to the nVidia card due to the drivers.
Does anyone have any actual _benchmarks_ of the 1st gen MBP and the current-gen white MB (9400 graphics) so we can benchmark the two? I'm very tempted by the Microcenter $799 Macbook deal (AR), and I'm considering selling the older 1.83 MBP to get the newer design, lighter weight, smaller form factor MB. (Yes, I know I lose some screen size, screen quality, backlit keys, and a few other things.) The basic comparison is against a netbook, and the MB is a nice middle ground, albeit for $350 more $.
Uh, no. The iMac uses nothing but mobile parts. The only thing "desktop" about it is the hard drive and screen resolution: size ratio.
