MacBook Pro: 9600M GT w/ 256MB Video Performance? Is it really "better"?

[andothfc]

I got a MBP with the 9600 dedicated graphics and it provided no discernible performance improvement, it blasted the fans and it made it a very hot laptop. When I bought a new MBP a few months later it was a no brainer for me to get the cheaper one with the integrated graphics as that was the setting I ended up using most on the original one anyway.

I think there are very few use cases where the dedicated is required. They certainly exist bit they are a small minority. The 9400 is very capable.

 

[J the Ninja]

The Cinebench test is misleading. It does not show the performance difference. Many other game, 3D rendering, and OpenCL tests show the 9600 has having roughly double the performance of the 9400. This makes sense, as it has has double of everything on the chip, and much faster memory.

And those 4 points:

1. While the 9400 remains active when the 9600 is running, there is not much it can do. It can run OpenCL jobs (although it cannot split a single job with the 9600) but that is about it. It cannot do any OpenGL/Core Image anything.

2. Fun fact: According to the HybridSLI tech brief, this is how it is supposed to work. System Profiler's display list seems to indicate this isn't the case, as it shows both the internal and external displays as connected to the 9600 when in Higher Performance mode.

3 and 4: What everybody else said.


Oh, and no, you will not be able to use both at the same time for a single 3D or OpenCL task. Ever. This is not supported in hardware for some good reasons which I am sick of repeating for deaf ears.

 

[DoNoHarm]

get the integrated graphics, even if the benchmarks show it as close, it will have a higher resale value if you sell it sooner or it will be faster in the later years of the computer's life if you keep it.

 

[Azathoth]

Hi guys

I am looking to purchase one of the new Mac Book Pro and wanted to get your thoughts. I am a graphic designer so I use Adobe products a lot (if that gives any indication of my usage.)

As far as my budget goes, my original plan was to get the 15-inch 2.53GHz Mac Book Pro and upgrade to a 320GB Hard Drive for a extra $50.

However, I am torn because the 15-inch 2.66GHz Model comes with the the 320GB I want and the 9600M GT with 256MB for increase graphic performance.

I would rather save the $250 if I can... so I ask.... Is the 9600M GT with 256MB really worth the extra money? Is NVIDIA GeForce 9400M just as good alone? How much better is having the 9600M GT with 256MB? What would you guys suggest?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts! Have a great day!

As others have said, for 2D stuff it makes no difference. One thing to consider is that Apple's drivers are *unable* to turn off the 9600 when you are booted in Windows, which is one of the reasons that the MBP has poorer Windows battery life - most reviewers get the 9600 version.

 

[PVIllustration]

I play a couple of games on my MBP. mainly World of warcraft which runs great with the 9600GT activated.

However I seem to have noticed that when I put it on my 24" external monitor (being sure that the external monitor is set to primary (by draggin the top bar to it)) that the performace is weaker when set to external monitor. It's not much, but however noticable. And yes, I have tried to set the resolution lower and higher.

Anyone have an explanation to this, other that the 9600GT now has to maintain two monitors (internal and external)? It's not really a huge problem, but it does puzzle me.

To be of use in the thread, I would definitively get the GT if you do: 1. gameing. 2. 3d modelling.

The 9600GT does pack a punch compared to the 9600M. You will feel the difference in the right applications when you go from integrated to discreet graphics.

 

[AaronX]

It "uses" both, because the 9400 acts as the Northbridge - so it is always used.

I play WoW at 1440x900, I set the graphics to Ultra for fun and forgot about it - the 9400 can push Ultra and get decent frame rates (most of the time)! In fact I use the 9400 more since it's cooler and uses less battery. I'm using my 9600 now and my CPU and GPU diode are >80C.

 

[maflynn]

I concur with the consensus, the 9400 is more then up to the task. It uses less power, runs cooler, provides good performance. So much so, I typically stick with the 9400.

 

[whats.the.story]

9600GT 256 vs 512

Is there that much of a difference between performance on the 9600GT with 256mb or the 9600GT with 512mb?

also, does graphics performance decrease very much when connected to an external display?

Is it possible to upgrade the 2.66 15" with the 9600GT with 256mb up to 512mb later on?

 

[J the Ninja]

Is there that much of a difference between performance on the 9600GT with 256mb or the 9600GT with 512mb?

also, does graphics performance decrease very much when connected to an external display?

Is it possible to upgrade the 2.66 15" with the 9600GT with 256mb up to 512mb later on?

The answer to all your questions is "No".

 

[Greg K]

Adobe software (certainly from CS4) is hardware accelerated now - so you see a benefit to extra video RAM even in Photoshop. I have 128MBs on my MBP and typically PS will tell me it can't HW accelerate zooming and panning of photos once I've opened more than 7 images (from my DSLR - 12mpx).

So the extra RAM would be a benefit in more than 3D.

 

[Collider]

I got a MBP with the 9600 dedicated graphics and it provided no discernible performance improvement, it blasted the fans and it made it a very hot laptop. When I bought a new MBP a few months later it was a no brainer for me to get the cheaper one with the integrated graphics as that was the setting I ended up using most on the original one anyway.

I think there are very few use cases where the dedicated is required. They certainly exist bit they are a small minority. The 9400 is very capable.

I mostly agree with this. I got the 2.66 pretty much specifically for the two graphics cards (mostly for WoW), but since the 9600 runs so much hotter and the 9400 works well enough well for my needs, I tend to just stick with the 9400, even for gaming. So, on that score, I wouldn't say the 9600 is really necessary unless you're into hardcore graphics-intensive stuff.

However... that said... if I was making the decision again, I'd still buy the exact same model, if only for the security of knowing the extra graphics power is there if I ever do need it. MBPs aren't exactly a cheap investment, and it's nice to know that you've got the extra firepower in reserve should you need it later down the line.