How big a difference would the GT130 make over the 9400 for...

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Whackintosh, Mar 20, 2009.

  1. Whackintosh macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #1
    ...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?
     
  2. Sebby macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Whackintosh thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #3
    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 people—for most uses including anything less than serious gaming—it 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
     
  4. Whackintosh thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
  5. aprofetto macrumors 6502a

    aprofetto

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    #5
    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.
     
  6. kabunaru Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #6
    GT130 is way better.
     
  7. Blue Sun macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #7
    Of course it is, but if the user isn't going to be playing the latest and greatest games, the 9400m should be fine.
     
  8. Whackintosh thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #8
    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?
     
  9. gjw4u macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Whackintosh thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #10
    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?
     
  11. Beerfloat macrumors regular

    Beerfloat

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    #11
    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.
     
  12. J&JPolangin macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Location:
    Thule GL @ the TOW
    #12
    ...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?
     
  13. ditzy macrumors 68000

    ditzy

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #13
    I believe the 9400 beats it.
     

Share This Page