Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
1. What would you see for battery life using the 9400M?

2. How much does the 7200 RPM HDD affect the battery life?

I have a laptop with a 5400 RPM drive that I was considering switching out to a 7200 RPM drive.

1. Can get up to 4 hours depending on what you are doing, and couple notches off full brightness. Up to 3 hours on the 9600GT.

2. It does quite significantly too. I'm unsure whether it was worth it.. but I'm always working near a powerpoint anyway, so battery drainage isn't too much of an issue. I haven't seen a huge performance increase, but it is hard to measure; if I could swap for a 5400RPM drive with an exact image of what I have on my 7200RPM drive, I could do a fair comparison I guess.

I can't say if it is worth it for a 7200RPM drive. You'd be better off getting a 500GB 5400RPM drive for pretty much the same price.
 
It makes perfect sense from an engineering perspective that the integrated graphics card will take longer to initialise than the dedicated option.

Using the integrated card, the machine has to run the usual POST routine for the integrated system; examine the RAM contents; decide which blocks to dedicate to the graphics card; ensure that these blocks are not currently in use storing data that will be required after the log-in; partition off the RAM and dedicate it to the graphics system and finally, bring that graphics system on line. All this must be time-sliced and integrated with the normal log-in procedures and it will be very likely to impact on log-in times.

Using the dedicated card, all the system has to do is to run the card's POST and bring it into play.

In short, kilamite, you have been deliberately insulting towards a forum member who has noticed an empirically repeatable behaviour. You did not have the intellectual capacity to offer an explanation for this observed behaviour but, rather than choosing the wise man's option of saying nothing on the matter, you chose to deny the validity of ViciousShadow21's observations and even stooped low enough to attack him personally. People receive temporary bans for less.

I suggest that you offer your apologies forthwith.
 
In short, kilamite, you have been deliberately insulting towards a forum member who has noticed an empirically repeatable behaviour. You did not have the intellectual capacity to offer an explanation for this observed behaviour but, rather than choosing the wise man's option of saying nothing on the matter, you chose to deny the validity of ViciousShadow21's observations and even stooped low enough to attack him personally. People receive temporary bans for less.

I suggest that you offer your apologies forthwith.

My God, I love your use of the language. I honestly would not mind being chastised in the same manner.
 
Simple

The 9400M is mainly used to extend battery life. It is usually used when you aren't doing anything that is graphically intensive, e.g. Web Browsing etc.

The 9600M GT however, uses more power than the 9400M. But has a lot more graphical power to offer when you are doing something graphically intensive, e.g. Gaming etc.
 
In short, kilamite, you have been deliberately insulting towards a forum member who has noticed an empirically repeatable behaviour.

Where was he insulting? Unless people really have become this "soft", there were no insults at all. The only people who were a bit overreactionary were the others, and you said nothing about them. Whether they were right or wrong, they acted like babies.

You did not have the intellectual capacity to offer an explanation for this observed behaviour but, rather than choosing the wise man's option of saying nothing on the matter, you chose to deny the validity of ViciousShadow21's observations and even stooped low enough to attack him personally.

This has nothing to do with intellectual capacity. It turns out that perhaps Kilamite was wrong. So? If ViciousShadow21 was wrong (he only said it "felt" 1-2 seconds faster, not that opinion means anything), would that mean he had a lower "intellectual capacity"? Would he owe an apology?

Seems like the only person insulting others is you.

People receive temporary bans for less.

No they haven't. And we're all very glad that you're not a moderator. ;)
 
It makes perfect sense from an engineering perspective that the integrated graphics card will take longer to initialise than the dedicated option.

He said after login it takes 1-2 seconds quicker. Not actual boot of the Mac.

Using the integrated card, the machine has to run the usual POST routine for the integrated system; examine the RAM contents; decide which blocks to dedicate to the graphics card; ensure that these blocks are not currently in use storing data that will be required after the log-in; partition off the RAM and dedicate it to the graphics system and finally, bring that graphics system on line. All this must be time-sliced and integrated with the normal log-in procedures and it will be very likely to impact on log-in times.

Again, he was referring to the login times. He never once mentioned the actual booting up of the Mac could be 1-2 seconds quicker, he said after login the load up time was quicker: "but for me i noticed that after the login the computer starts about 1-2 seconds faster."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the allocation of RAM for the 9400M would have been done prior to actually logging into your user account. You bring up a good point about how the booting of the Mac could be quicker, but we are arguing about how quick the login is.

In short, kilamite, you have been deliberately insulting towards a forum member who has noticed an empirically repeatable behaviour. You did not have the intellectual capacity to offer an explanation for this observed behaviour but, rather than choosing the wise man's option of saying nothing on the matter, you chose to deny the validity of ViciousShadow21's observations and even stooped low enough to attack him personally. People receive temporary bans for less.

He made an observation yet made no attempt to back up with any sort of logical evidence (i.e. like your post). I argued that. It is a debate... is that so hard for you to understand?

And I believe he called me a tool, so he was the one who insulted me, not other way round (though that post seems to have been removed by a mod). :)

Sigh..
 
He said after login it takes 1-2 seconds quicker. Not actual boot of the Mac.



Again, he was referring to the login times. He never once mentioned the actual booting up of the Mac could be 1-2 seconds quicker, he said after login the load up time was quicker: "but for me i noticed that after the login the computer starts about 1-2 seconds faster."

I don't know where I've given you the impression that I was referring to boot times. I read the OP as referring to the time taken to log back in after the graphics system has been changed and that was what I was commenting upon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the allocation of RAM for the 9400M would have been done prior to actually logging into your user account. You bring up a good point about how the booting of the Mac could be quicker, but we are arguing about how quick the login is.

I'm reasonably certain that you are wrong on this one, I'm afraid. When a Mac is booted, a minimal driver set is loaded in order to get everything up and running in the fastest time possible. Since the log-in window is graphically undemanding, there's no need for any fancy 3d acceleration until much later in the game and the card only functions as a bare minimum VGA device. It's only after log-in that all the clever stuff happens.

Another point to back-up this view is that a change between cards only requires logging out and back in, rather than a restart.

He made an observation yet made no attempt to back up with any sort of logical evidence (i.e. like your post).

Sorry, this is an internet forum and not a peer-reviewed journal. His initial observation was:

like they said it doesnt make a difference when doing anything non-graphic intensive. but for me i noticed that after the login the computer starts about 1-2 seconds faster. i have tested this many times and it is true.

I've emphasised the important part. Is his assertion that "i (sic) have tested this many times and it is true." not good enough as evidence of a behaviour he has noticed?

Well, here is some evidence that should satisfy even you. I have run a series of timed tests using a stop-watch. Each test involved changing the graphics card and timing the interval between triggering the log-out event and the appearance of a reasonably large graphics file (around 650 MB) that had been added to the log-in items. Automatic log-in was enabled.

raw%20gfx%20login%20times.jpg


I have included combined errors of ± 0.3 seconds at the start of timing and +0.3/-0.0 at the end. I measured my reaction time to obtain this figure and the error bars are displayed on the graph. Also displayed on the graph is the mean lines for the restart times for the 2 systems.

You'll notice that there is a large patch of anomalous data starting from run 3. For some reason, my Mac hung at the log-out and needed a hard reset. It then took a few cycles to sort itself out. I've taken the liberty of removing this anomalous data and sorting the rest.

sorted_gfx_login_times.jpg


It's clear that there is a difference in initialisation times and that, on average, this difference is approximately 1 second. It's also clear that this difference (even allowing for errors) can be as high as 2.5 seconds. Interestingly enough, there is an overlap between the faster of the 9400 cycles and the slower ones from the 9600. It doesn't affect the overall result, though, especially when you take the error bars into consideration.

I argued that. It is a debate... is that so hard for you to understand?

You didn't engage in debate. You merely rejected his observation out of hand. Here's your post:

...

Not true. Things won't load faster just because you are using a dedicated GPU. Maybe in Snow Leopard, we'll see slight improvements..

I know what a debate is. We are having one now. It seems a little one sided from where I'm sitting, though. I've yet to see you present any relevant point.

And I believe he called me a tool, so he was the one who insulted me, not other way round (though that post seems to have been removed by a mod). :)

Sigh..

It appears to me that you fished long and hard for that insult, but then I'm just naturally suspicious...
:rolleyes:
 
I would expect to see it running more smoothly... In some parts video can get choppy and changing video cards does not resolve that issue.

There was a thread few months ago where the 9400M dealt with HD much better than the 9600GT because it had better optimised drivers. Though, I believe that was fixed in a graphics update.

As far as HD goes, both the 9600GT and 9400M should perform just as well, the 9400M is more than capable of doing 1080p. Also, unless it is H.264 High Def, it'll rely upon the CPU to do most of the work.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.