...things like video editing and photoshop? It seems the 9400 is a very capable performer on its own, no? I assume it also runs cooler. Outside of gaming, is there much reason for people to consider the dedicated GPU options out there?
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.
How big a difference would the GT130 make over the 9400 for...
- Thread starter Whackintosh
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would have said that the GT 130 would be significantly better than the 9400M, not least because it's a discreet card. I think that even the GT 120 is quite a bit better than the 9400M.
That's what I would have initially thought too, but Gizmodo's review of the 2.66 with the 9400 claims they can't see a reason for anyone who isn't doing serious gaming to move up to the higher models.
"for most peoplefor most uses including anything less than serious gamingit doesn't make sense to buy above the $1500 2.66MHz iMac, especially given the performance I've seen."
http://gizmodo.com/5165335/imac-2009-review
Thats comforting, I just ordered the 2.66 GHz version with 9400 and was wondering if I made a mistake. I do some home video editing (nothing serious) every now and then and was wondering if I should've gone the model up. This makes me feel a bit better. Thanks.
Of course it is, but if the user isn't going to be playing the latest and greatest games, the 9400m should be fine.
That's the big question mark here. If the system would only be taxed with video editing, aperture / photoshop etc, is there any real downgrade in performance that would come with only having a 9400?
In the review, its only the 2009 24" iMac 2.66gHz/4Gb being compared to Mac Minis & MBP! The different new iMacs with different GPU are not being reviewed.
Yes, but this reviewer still is of the opinion that there would be no need for anything beyond the 2.66 unless you were into intensive gaming. Have people had fast, smooth video editing experiences with the 9400?
Traditionally, there's almost no difference at all. Right now the 9400 is not going to be noticeably slower for any kind of 2D operations.
But on the other hand Adobe is already implementing GPU acceleration for some of their Photoshop filters and you will soon see the GT130 start to pull ahead quite noticeably in selected operations. Compressing video streams is also a natural candidate for GPU acceleration, and we can expect more work to be shifted to the GPU over time. That said, the 9400 will also benefit from some of those changes, just to a lesser degree.
So should you worry about being stuck with a 9400 now? Not really. The CPU will still be king for the forseeable future. And you'll still have compatibility with any software that leverages the GPU.
But on the other hand Adobe is already implementing GPU acceleration for some of their Photoshop filters and you will soon see the GT130 start to pull ahead quite noticeably in selected operations. Compressing video streams is also a natural candidate for GPU acceleration, and we can expect more work to be shifted to the GPU over time. That said, the 9400 will also benefit from some of those changes, just to a lesser degree.
So should you worry about being stuck with a 9400 now? Not really. The CPU will still be king for the forseeable future. And you'll still have compatibility with any software that leverages the GPU.
...I'm going to ask the reverse question, how would the ATI 2400 with 128mb dedicated GPU card of the previous generation 2.4 Ghz iMac work compared to the 9400 integrated GPU?
