MBP i7's 330M 512MB vs 27" iMac's ATI Radeon HD 4670 256MB

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Libertine Lush, Apr 24, 2010.

  1. Libertine Lush macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    #1
    I had the the 27" iMac with the ATI and I just recently ordered the 15" i7 MBP with the 330M (512MB). Knowing mostly nothing about graphics cards or computer gaming, but wanting to get a few games for my MBP, I'd like to know how the 330M compares to the Radeon HD 4670.

    I intend to get Orange Box for Mac when Steam's out and the Mac version of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. My only experience gaming on the iMac was a Bioshock demo that ran modestly on mostly medium settings. So in comparing the two graphics cards, I'd like to get a sense of what to expect.

    Thank you.
     
  2. peakchua macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2010
    #2
    4670 And 4850 Kick Nvidias 330m

    THE 4670 kicks the 330m but not by that far, the 330m is a midto high range product that is fast, effcient but since i love AMD ATI better (i hate amd microprocessors) According to notebook check, the 330m is on the middle-to low end of the level 2 gpus while the mobility radeon 4670 or desktop version (mobility most likely used) is on the top area which makes th 4670 better :) AGAIN, ATI KICKASS :)
     
  3. peakchua macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2010
  4. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #4
  5. Libertine Lush thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    #5
    Thanks a lot for your replies, peakchua & aiqw9182!

    Thanks for the links. I had checked the 330M at NotebookCheck, but forgot that the 4670 in the iMac is actually the mobile version, so it's also listed at that site. Interestingly, it shows the Shader and Memory speed on the 4670 might be a lot slower than the 330M. I say "might" because I've learned from these forums that Apple underclocked the 330M--and I forgot what it was underclocked to (someone actually took a screenshot of the speeds in Bootcamp).

    Could you tell me what virtual ram boost is? Why it runs at a lower res only and what qualifies as lower res? I run Call of Duty 4 (Mac version) at native res, 1680x1050, which I'm sure qualifies as hi-res, so would I not benefit from virtual ram boost in such an instance?
     
  6. mikeo007 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #6
    ROFL, you've got to be kidding me. The 330m is rebranded trash. It's performance is mediocre and it is anything but efficient as it destroys the battery life on the new MBPs. At best, it's at the high end of the low range cards or the low end of the mid range cards.

    I'm not sure what he means by virtual RAM boost, i've never heard of that. He could be referring to the card's ability to share some system RAM if it runs out of VRAM, but that's a feature of the OS rather than the GPU.

    The lower res thing refers to the fact that the native resolution of the 15" macbook pro is only 1440x900, which means that the GPU will have to push less pixels to fill the display, meaning it will perform better.
     
  7. The Final Cut macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #7
    Rebranded trash? Considering the iMac is a non mobile system and the Macbook Pro is an ultra thin laptop, I would say the 330m is very similar if not better.
     
  8. mikeo007 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #8
    My comment wasn't directed at the comparison between the two cards, but rather the claim that the 330m was a mid-high end card which it in fact is not.
     
  9. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #9
    The 4670 in the iMac has 256MB of RAM. The 330M in the MacBook Pro you've purchased has 512MB of RAM. Boost, increase, whatever you want to call it, it will be an improvement.

    The resolution of the iMac the 4670 runs natively at is 1920x1080 on the 21.5" and 2560x1440 on the 27". The 330M will be running at 1680x1050 or 1440x900, therefore it won't be needing to push around as many pixels, which in turn would make performance better.
     
  10. Libertine Lush thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    #10
    Thanks for clarifying.
     
  11. mikeo007 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #11
    Ah, VRAM= video RAM, not virtual RAM. That would explain the misunderstanding :)
     
  12. danistyping macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, MA
  13. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #13
    My mistake. I had the word virtual on my mind.
     
  14. methdxman macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    #14
    Anyone have an update to this post? I don't know whether or not to trade in my 2009 MBPRO for a base iMac with the 4670 256mb card.

    Many have linked the notebookcheck performance website but it doesn't say anything about the amount of video ram on that site so I'm a bit concerned about the 256mb version of the 4670 card.

    Anyone have ideas? Thanks.
     
  15. Zellio macrumors 65816

    Zellio

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012

Share This Page