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

How does the 9400m+9600m compares to the 320m and to 330m?

L

llkennethll

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 9, 2008
40
0
Pervious gen 15'' mbp with 2.66ghz and 9400m+9600m

VS.

Current gen 13'' base model (2.4ghz, 320m)

VS.

Current gen 15'' base model (2.4ghz i5, 330m)

How do the graphics cards compare? are the 9400m+9600m better or worse than the 320m? And is it much worse than the 330m?

Thank you SO SO much in advance! :]
 
The 320M is between the 9400M and the 9600M; the 330M is a bit better. And Intel HD Graphics is comparable to the 9400M.

Pretty much the current base 15" rocks all previous 15" models in both CPU and GPU (yes the base model is better than the previous top-end configuration).
 
alphaod said:
The 320M is between the 9400M and the 9600M; the 330M is a bit better. And Intel HD Graphics is comparable to the 9400M.

Pretty much the current base 15" rocks all previous 15" models in both CPU and GPU (yes the base model is better than the previous top-end configuration).
Click to expand...

so that would make the previous top-end 15'' better than the current base 13'' model? (graphics card wise...)
 
Yes. Here's how I understand it:

9400m < 320m < 9600m < 330m

It follows the natural progression of new tech being faster, and discrete being more powerful than integrated, even if it's a generation behind. Don't forget! These cards are usually underclocked, and I don't know about the "overclockability" of anything besides the most recently posted 320m results.

Here's notebookcheck.net's Class listing breakdown for the cards:
330m - Class 2, about 1/4 of the way down
9600m - Class 2, half way down, listed as 9600m GT
320m - Class 2, below 9600m
9400m - Class 3
 
Also when checking out benchmarks, make sure to note whether or not they were run at native resolution. An old 9600m pushing 1440x900 has a few more pixels to drive than a new 320m doing 1280x800
 
So what do anyone of you guys think about strategy games like Napoleon Total War will run on the new 13'' mbp??

Napoleon Total War Specs

OS: Windows Vista/XP/7 Processor: 2.6 GHz Dual Core CPU Memory: 2 GB RAM (XP), 4 GB RAM (Vista/Windows 7) Graphics: 256 MB DirectX 9.0c shader model 3 compatible GPU DirectX®: DirectX 9.0c Hard Drive: 21 GB free space[1]
 
From notebookcheck.net:
The NVIDIA GeForce 320M is an integrated chipset graphics card for Core 2 Duo based laptops and successor of the GeForce 9400M. It does not feature dedicated graphics memory but uses the systems main memory instead (shared memory). Therefore, the performance is not as good as similar cards with dedicated graphics RAM. The mGPU is based on the GT216 core (as the GeForce GT 325M e.g.) and offers all 48 shader cores.

The gaming performance of the GeForce 320M should be compareable to a GeForce 310M and even better. Therefore, older and less demanding games should run in high details fluently. Modern and demanding games like Crysis or NFS Shift should only run in low detail settings.

The 320M also supports PureVideo HD to decode HD videos with the GPU. Using CUDA, OpenCL, and DirectCompute the shaders of the GPU can also be used for other calculations (like encoding videos).

The GeForce 320M is not similar to the GeForce GT 320M, which is based on a GeForce 9600M GT.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're only going to get playable frame rates in low detail, but who knows.
 
kraftzwerg said:
Are you sure about that part? I was under the impression the Intel HD is considerably worse than 9400M. I find the 9400M on my 13" MBP actually quite capable.
Click to expand...

Yes and the Intel graphics in the 15" and 17" models are pretty good too.

I just pulled this from:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-HD.23065.0.html

The performance of the new Graphics Media Accelerator HD graphics card is noticable better than the old GMA 4500MHD (due to the increased number of shaders and in some cases also clock rate). In some games, the GMA HD is even as fast as a GeForce 9400M / ION chipset. On average it should be as fast as the HD 3200 / 4200 by ATI and therefore allow the user to play older and less demanding games in low settings. The driver support is still not as good as for Nvidia and AMD graphics cards.
Click to expand...
 
So, clear something for me:
I got the mbp c2d 2.8, 4 gb ddr3,
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M with 512
Did I lost my money or was it worth it? :S
As I have notice, the i7 seens to be better.
Havent try the power that much on architecture's homeworks to know yet. Gee!!
 
i have the 9400m and it works great for me, i can play Quake 4, Doom 3, Civ 4, Bioshock and Half-Life all on high or medium quality in 1080p on my monitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back