Hey all. Just wondering. With the last gen (like mine) having the nVidia 330M GT (with 512MB) and now having the Radeon 6950 HD with 1GB, roughly how much extra processing power does it give relative to the old card? Thanks
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.
Comparison of graphics strength - last gen vs current gen
- Thread starter raymondu999
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
6750 mind you.
Yeah would love to know this. Maybe you (or any 330m owner) could run some benchmarks. Then a MBP 2011 user can run the identical tests.
But also post CPU and ram specs because those can help as well. The radeon has amazing backing from this quad core CPU.
Yeah would love to know this. Maybe you (or any 330m owner) could run some benchmarks. Then a MBP 2011 user can run the identical tests.
But also post CPU and ram specs because those can help as well. The radeon has amazing backing from this quad core CPU.
There are plenty of benchmarks around here for the 6750. You can find a basic comparison at www.barefeats.com
The 6490 is in between the 320m/8600m and the 9600m while the 6750 is slightly less powerful than the 4850 in the iMac.
9400 < 320 <= 8600 < 6490 < 9600 < 330 << 6750 < 4850
The 6490 is in between the 320m/8600m and the 9600m while the 6750 is slightly less powerful than the 4850 in the iMac.
9400 < 320 <= 8600 < 6490 < 9600 < 330 << 6750 < 4850
Check this site for mobile GPU benchmark comparisons:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html
If you're wondering about gaming, the new macpros with the 6750 are roughly twice as fast. My 6750 macpro scored 5400 on 3dmark vantage, the 330 macpro scored 2400ish.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html
If you're wondering about gaming, the new macpros with the 6750 are roughly twice as fast. My 6750 macpro scored 5400 on 3dmark vantage, the 330 macpro scored 2400ish.
Actually the 6490 is better than a 9600GT found in the 2009 models. It's closer to the 330m than we first expected.
Thanks for contributing.
No graphics benchmark "means anything" if we don't know what one is using the GPU for. They are strictly for cross-comparisons between hardware.
And 3dmark06/vantage are still the defacto standard for generic gaming benchmarks.
What?
Real world performance is the defacto standard, not synthetic benchmarks like 3dmark06.
Just to show you how ridiculous synthetic benchmarks like 3dmark06 is.
3dmark06:
320m = 4155
Intel H3000 = 5053
So the Intel H3000 is supposedly much better than the 320m right?
Almost every good review tests hardware on real world performance to draw conclusions about the performance of hardware.
Take it SC2 is via Bootcamp too then?
Either way, I wasnt expecting that fps on such a high resolution. Should be great on my high end 15 AG.
SC2 seems to to be well programmed for the mac environment and I experienced the same frame rates and quality of picture on each OS. I was also pleasantly surprised of the performance. I used fraps on windows and the in game counter for mac. Whats nice is that the frame rate doesn't even dip significantly when viewing many units in action, such as in a massing game. One minor quirk about the ultra high settings is that the menu screen only gets about 15 fps, so it feels slow, however in game there are no issues. The HD resolution and simply the quality of the screen makes SC2 look amazingly sharp, colourful and smooth compared to my 22inch external monitor. Anyone who drops 3 grand for an alienware is simply retarded.
What?
Real world performance is the defacto standard, not synthetic benchmarks like 3dmark06.
Just to show you how ridiculous synthetic benchmarks like 3dmark06 is.
3dmark06:
320m = 4155
Intel H3000 = 5053
So the Intel H3000 is supposedly much better than the 320m right?
Almost every good review tests hardware on real world performance to draw conclusions about the performance of hardware.
But you should know that 3DMark06 is not only about the GPU. You need a CPU to play games too ya know. And in some games, YES the SB cpu the HD3000 is paired with will increase FPS, sometimes largely, other times marginally. You sound like you understand that HD3000 GPU vs GPU is not as good as the 320m, but then you pull up 3dmark06 numbers and make it seem like you don't know it's also CPU scored as well?
use this. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html
It has them ranked by value of fastest to slowest. Decent chart, gives you a lot of extra info on the cards.
It has them ranked by value of fastest to slowest. Decent chart, gives you a lot of extra info on the cards.
How about parallel processing? As I understand it nVidia CUDA on the Mac is still very much a beta effort with only developer builds of drivers floating around. Is ATi's (or AMD, I should say) solution to parallel processing any better? Or any more readily accessible for that matter?