MacBook Nvidia 9400 M Vs 8600 Gt BMP

[carlos33018]

I currently own Macbook Pro (Santarosa Chipset) with the Nvidia 8600GT video chipset with 128 megs of Vram. Main reason why I chose the macbook pro is because of its ability to push decent gaming performance and its all aluminum casing with just looks awesome. However the new macbooks offer just that and the size is just perfect. One of the drawbacks of my current macbook pro is that is a 15 inch notebook which can become a hassle if one has to carry it everywhere. The new macbooks offer the new nvidia chipset , they have aluminum casing, and they offer the smaller 13 inch display.

Keep in mind that the selling point for me is the size, aluminum casing, and performance similar to my current macbook pro.

Question #1. How does the graphical performance of the new 9400m Compare with that of the older gen Macbook Pros ( Santarosa Geforce 8600GT).

Question #2. If someone currently has the system, please run some benchmarks on it ( specifically graphical ones) and ill run the same on my current macbook pro and ill just compare numbers . Thanks for all your help.

 

[squeeks]

there was an image shown on release day that put the new 9400 chipset at about half performance of the 8600GTm

 

[plinden]

Macworld did some preliminary benchmarks - http://www.macworld.com/article/136214/2008/10/macbookbenchmarks.html?lsrc=rss_main

The new 9400M does indeed show 5x the graphics performance of the older X3100 integrated graphics, at least for Quake 4, and about 2/3 the performance of the new 9600M GT in the new MBPs (again in Quake 4).

 

[Skyldig]

I actually think the "half performance" is a bit of an understatement. At least compared to the 128Mb version of the 8600M GT.

The Old macbook pro with 8600M GT 128Mb scored around 2800-3000 in 3dMark06. We've already seen tests of the new 9400M scoring 2300+ in 3dMark06. I think we're closer to 75% of the performance af a 8600M GT 128Mb.

Sources: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=130879, http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=219447,00.asp

(everything depends on the liability of these tests ofcause. They seem ligit though...)

 

[sfroom]

For some reason, when I tried a SR MBP 2.2 GHz with a 128 MB 8600M GT, I felt that it performed worse than my 24" iMac 2.16 GHZ with a 256 MB 7600 GT, even at native resolutions.

Back to the topic though, when Steve put up the slide putting it at 55% of the 8600M GT (which he called something along the lines of the "best video card currently shipping in our pro notebooks), he was probably referring to the 512MB version.

He also mentioned that the 55% number referred to "heavy duty 3D graphics" tasks, which I assumed to mean prolonged rendering. In "overall" performance, he indicated it was closer to "82% of the highest end graphics we've been shipping in our Pro notebooks".

 

[squeeks]

For some reason, when I tried a SR MBP 2.2 GHz with a 128 MB 8600M GT, I felt that it performed worse than my 24" iMac 2.16 GHZ with a 256 MB 7600 GT, even at native resolutions.

the 8600m GT on the MBP is heavily underclocked compared the the chips in the iMacs

 

[clarencek]

8600GT 256MB vs 9400M

I just "downgraded" from my 17" MBP with a 8600GT 256MB to a 2.4GHz MB with the 9400M.

I ran UT2004 - dropped the size from 1280 to 1024 and it ran perfectly. Just as smooth as on my 17" albeit at a lower res, but I was surprised that there was no different between the two.