How good is the 9400m?

[Wolfpup]

The MBP can, for 1.5x the price of an identically specced PC. But again, it has a mid-range, not a high-end graphics card.

Oh yeah, I 110% agree with you. At least it can be used though. Better than nothing!

 

[Luis]

If you're playing games, get a PC. It's what I'll be most likely doing. For the price of the low-end MBP, you can get a boatload of specs. For the price of the $1299 MB, you can get a MBP's worth of specs.

Apple charges 1.5x the price for identical PC notebook hardware. Why buy a Mac if you're playing games?

That's the thing, I'm not buying this computer to play games. I just want to see if it will manage to play UT2k4 and C&C3: Tiberium Wars (which are the ONLY games I plan on playing with it) so that I can be in peace when i buy it.

 

[Luis]

Not sure of the accuracy of these or whatever, but here is a list of many mobile notebook video card benchmarks scores I found when looknig for the same answer to day. 9400M is number 77. Look for your current card and compare.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

Thanks this is very helpful.

There's one thing I don't understand though, they rate the x1600 at #66 and the 9400m at #77 but if I look at the 3DMark06 benchmark, the 9400m beats the x1600 by almost 200 points. So shouldn't it be better?

 

[Victor ch]

If you're playing games, get a PC. It's what I'll be most likely doing. For the price of the low-end MBP, you can get a boatload of specs. For the price of the $1299 MB, you can get a MBP's worth of specs.

Apple charges 1.5x the price for identical PC notebook hardware. Why buy a Mac if you're playing games?

He mentioned he'll be using such MacBook for Command&Conquer, Unreal 2004 and light photo editing (with CS3 I guess). He'll be using the PlayStation3 for gaming. I use mine for HD gaming and love it, thing is I'll like to have a somewhat decent card for on-the-go as well. Im actually set for the 2.4GHz version, I've talked to my sister and parents and its time to upgrade stuff at the house, I'll do more than OK with the 2.4GHz MB and my sister requires the low-end MBP (she's a pro photographer) and mom needs an iMac (she does some interior design with 3D 'heavy' apps).

Victor

 

[Wolfpup]

Thanks this is very helpful.

There's one thing I don't understand though, they rate the x1600 at #66 and the 9400m at #77 but if I look at the 3DMark06 benchmark, the 9400m beats the x1600 by almost 200 points. So shouldn't it be better?

Donut Mark doesn't mean a whole lot. Like I've posted previously, in actual benchmarks the 1600 beats the 8400, which is more powerful than the Macbook's integrated video. It's going to be worse overall, not better.

 

[Victor ch]

I think this might help the situation at hand; Its a Macworld article about the new MacBooks and its 9400m card, it is really worth reading.

HERE'S THE LINK

Victor

 

[emt1]

Thanks this is very helpful.

There's one thing I don't understand though, they rate the x1600 at #66 and the 9400m at #77 but if I look at the 3DMark06 benchmark, the 9400m beats the x1600 by almost 200 points. So shouldn't it be better?

read the link.

The list is ranked by the aproximate speed of the GPU (may differ with some 3DMark values).

 

[motoxpress]

I love how Apple claims it's 6.x times faster than the previous Macbook on COD4 but never says what the actual framerates were

-mx

 

[Wolfpup]

I love how Apple claims it's 6.x times faster than the previous Macbook on COD4 but never says what the actual framerates were

-mx

6fps.