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

AR15MBP

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jan 6, 2009
254
5
USA
I tried searching but couldn't find a good answer. I'm new to Mac, and was wondering if using the 9600M improves basic performance, such as using Firefox, iWork, etc., I.E. Non-graphic intensive utilities. It seems to me like it does, and I'm wondering if that's because OS X is a very graphic heavy OS. Can anyone shed some light with some technical know-how? Thanks! :apple:
 
I tried searching but couldn't find a good answer. I'm new to Mac, and was wondering if using the 9600M improves basic performance, such as using Firefox, iWork, etc., I.E. Non-graphic intensive utilities. It seems to me like it does, and I'm wondering if that's because OS X is a very graphic heavy OS. Can anyone shed some light with some technical know-how? Thanks! :apple:

Perhaps a bit more information would be helpful.

Do you currently own the new 17"? If so, have you tried both modes and are you asking because you don't see any difference in speed?
 
I tried the switch during everyday computing, but I really noticed no difference at all.
 
I utilize PS CS4 and Adobe Lightroom and have found that they are becoming more graphic intensive programs because they are memory hogs; so Adobe is leveraging more and more the graphics memory which is often underutilized.

I will let you know if I see a difference in the future when using it and have about 20 Photoshop layers going which can creat a 1GB file in RAM memory.
 
I plan on getting a 17 inch MBP. If I am using Logic Studio, would I notice any difference between the 9400 and 9600?
 
Perhaps a bit more information would be helpful.

Do you currently own the new 17"? If so, have you tried both modes and are you asking because you don't see any difference in speed?

I have the Unibody 2.4 15". I think there is marginal improvement in performance for basic programs, but I'm wondering if that's just a mental thing since I know I'm using the 9600M. I think it probably is at this point.
 
I find the option a bit silly, really. There have been many times while at the office late on Friday for last minute production stuff where I completely forget (the past two times, actually) that there's even the option for higher performance. I always end up finishing the night in 9400M mode. I guess that's a testament to it's performance because production night is nothing but CS4 running for hours and hours.
 
The only improvement I have noticed is mostly the smoothness of UI effects such as the smoothness of Expose, Spaces or animations of certain OSX elements.
 
When I have eyeTV on full screen and open Dashboard, the eyeTV picture in the background starts to stutter with the 9400, not with the 9600. Exposé ("Show all windows") also seems faster. Didn't notice any other differences. And still waiting for the fixed NVIDIA graphic update so that I finally don't have to switch to the cheaper on-board graphic to smoothly watch HD (trailer) with Quicktime ...!!!
 
I have the Unibody 2.4 15". I think there is marginal improvement in performance for basic programs, but I'm wondering if that's just a mental thing since I know I'm using the 9600M. I think it probably is at this point.


i have the 2.53.
i think what i see is also a mental thing. + running hotter :D which is not mental at all.
 
I have the Unibody 2.53 and I have been shuffling between the two GPUs to kind of glean some type of performance difference. I also use Photoshop (for school) and Logic most times. I really have found no noticeable performance difference, both Logic and Photoshop work about the same for me. I think it was kind of a mental thing, looking back on it. So now I just settle with the 9400, mainly because the 9600 just makes my computer run hotter than normal and gives me about 2:20 battery life.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.