New 13" Graphics results: Pretty impressive, near 9600M GT

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by gordonyz, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. gordonyz macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #1
    Just did a side by side test with old 2.26G model with new 2.4G model.
    Speaking of 3DMark 06,
    My 9400M scored 2170 while the 320M scored 4748!
    FPS during test was usually 2x or more. That makes a lot of games playable on 320M while not playable on 9400M

    Compared to old 9600M GT model, according to Notebookcheck.net, it averages 5163, and GT 330M is just 6539.
    So, 6539/4748=1.377, only about 40% increase going up to 15" models? Interesting.

    Edit:
    Environment: Both Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit, 3DMark 06 1.20 basic edition
    Specs: 2.26G version 4GB DDR3 (Crutial 2x2GB), HDD: Hitachi 7k500 500G
    2.40G stock configuration.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. ssn637 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #2
    Thanks for the info! A lot of us have been waiting to see benchmark results with the new 320M. Great news!

    Can you please tell us what the default core and shader clock frequencies are reported as for this GPU?

    Thanks
     
  3. mikeo007 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #3
    Thanks for running the tests, results look positive. It would also be helpful if you let us know what resolution you were running the 3dmark06 tests in. I know that the majority of tests found online are run at the native resolution, but 3dmark06 usually defaults to a standard (1024x768 or 1280x1024) resolution.
     
  4. fuzzielitlpanda macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    #4

    Windows 7 experience index with 13" MBP 2.4GHz: Overall 5.3


    Processor: 6.0
    Memory: 5.9
    Graphics: 5.3
    Gaming graphics: 5.9
    Primary hard disk: 5.8

    Nvidia control panel system information:


    Driver: 196.82
    CUDA cores: 48
    Graphics clock: 450 MHz
    Processor clock: 950 MHz
    Memory interface: 128 bit
    Total available graphics...1915 MB
    Dedicated video memory: 256 MB
    System video memory: 64 MB
    Shared system memory: 1595 MB
    DirectX version: 11.0 (very interesting!)
     
  5. iMacprobook macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    This sounds more positive, thanks for posting. Can you tell how this will compare in real world applications, such as powering a 24" acd, running Aperture 3, 1 or 2 external editors, firefox, etc all at once? Would increasing ram to 6 gb improve further?
    Many thanks!
     
  6. Daiken macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #6
    Whoa :eek: so from what's tested. I can both play some casual game and do my Photoshop work? :cool:

    thank you for posting this. I have been waiting for someone to benchmark the new mbp 13" :)

    guess I will place my order soon
     
  7. waloshin macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #7
    More info needed especially the screen resolution.
     
  8. gordonyz thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #8
    Just used 13" screen and default everything, may get a little bumped up because it was not 1280x800 resolution.

    EDIT: The default was 1280x800!
     
  9. Agnel macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #9
    Xbench

    I'm a noobie to Mac.

    Just ran some Xbench tool.. this is what I got on the new 13" MBP. Let me know if you guys understood something :p

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  10. maximus06 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    #10
    Thanks for posting these results, that is indeed very impressive.

    I'm surprised about DX11...the 330M is a DX10.1 card. Can't wait for the i7/330M to get benchmarked, should be interesting.
     
  11. waloshin macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #11
    Can't wait for this thread to explode into 25 pages +.
     
  12. ssn637 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #12
    Boot Camp Version?

    Hi again

    Could you also please right-click on the BootCamp icon in the taskbar and let us know what version is reported? Did your recovery DVD come with Version 3.1 as an integrated installation, or perhaps even a newer version? Up til now we've had to install Version 3.0 from the Snow Leopard disc and then update to 3.1.
     
  13. fuzzielitlpanda macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    #13
    It is version 3.1.
     
  14. gordonyz thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #14
    The disc labeled with year 2010. Not sure because this is my friend's machine, has to ask him.

    (the above post answered your question)
     
  15. ssn637 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #15
    OK, thanks for all the info!

    The default GPU frequencies of 450/950 for the 320M aren't higher than the 9400M (450/1100), which is surprising. Might not be able to overclock this one as well...right now I've got my 9400M running at 575/1265 with no problems.
     
  16. macuserx86 macrumors 6502a

    macuserx86

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    #16
    Any way we could get a straight up Geekbench or Xbench comparison of the previous generation 13" and the new one?

    I'm really tempted to buy a new 13" unless the performance increase is only marginal, then I'll get a used last generation.

    I need to update! I can't stand another second of using my PowerBook G4!! :D
     
  17. iOzzie macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Location:
    Melbourne
    #17
    This thread just made my decision, thanks allot for the info! :cool:

    How is bootcamp on WIN 7 64 bit, any issues?? All hardware picked up?
     
  18. fuzzielitlpanda macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    #18
    Bootcamp runs fine using the stock HDD. HOWEVER, there might be a big issue with 3rd party SSDs like Intel:

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=897323
     
  19. Cloudsurfer macrumors 65816

    Cloudsurfer

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #19
    Those are some damn fine results. Does it surpass the 8600GT 128 MB I'm replacing it with?

    Can't wait until my order arrives :D this might be a pretty sweet Steam system after all.
     
  20. iOzzie macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Location:
    Melbourne
    #20
    Great thanks, ill be sticking with default HDD a while anyway! :)
     
  21. riotgear macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    #21
    Yes, it is faster than a 8600GT. Most of the people complaining about the new MBP GPU don't know what they are talking about. They should spend some time on tomshardware or overclockers and look at benchmarks before posting false information.
     
  22. vasuba macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #22
    Isn't that nice a Laptop releasing in 2010 has a gpu that manages to beat out a GPU from 2007-2008
    Most people complaining about the GPU are doing so because for well over a grand we are entitled to expect more than an antique in it. The 320M that Apple is using is a shared memory GPU lowering its overall performance comparable to the 310M.

    The 330M is roughly twice as powerful as the 320M Apple is using. Thats the only bright spot in the blackhole
     
  23. macuserx86 macrumors 6502a

    macuserx86

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    #23
    To be fair, it's not like Nvidia has actually updated their GPUs since the 8000 series. Every GPU apart from the 400 series aka "Fermi" (lol 90ºC at load, 1.21 gigawatt PSU) has effectively been a re-name of the same hardware.

    Apple could have gone with ATI, but I don't think they've done that for a long time.
     
  24. vasuba macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #24
    You are right but there is quite the selection available all around that could have met thermal and power needs and be more powerful. They could have really gone wild with ATI but I suspect they have a contract with Nvidia.

    Its just an issue to me of whats being given GPU wise is well under the power that should be acceptable in 2010 even for non gamers.
     
  25. fuzzielitlpanda macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    #25
    3dMark06 results attached
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page