They must have a contract with Nvidia, however maybe Nvidia's GPUs really do offer better battery life than ATI's. Apple seems to be pushing battery life over power these days. Nice for the 13", not so much for the larger laptops.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New 13" Graphics results: Pretty impressive, near 9600M GT
- Thread starter gordonyz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They must have a contract with Nvidia, however maybe Nvidia's GPUs really do offer better battery life than ATI's. Apple seems to be pushing battery life over power these days. Nice for the 13", not so much for the larger laptops.
Those are some damn fine results. Does it surpass the 8600GT 128 MB I'm replacing it with?
Can't wait until my order arrivesthis might be a pretty sweet Steam system after all.
Those Windows 7 experience figures are almost exactly the same as on my '08 MBP with the 8600GT 512MB - it gets 5.2 overall, beaten by this new 13" on the basis of hard drive performance....
For non-gamers the graphics performance is completely irrelevant. My MacBook does everything absolutely fine with a 24" monitor attached with a GTA 950 (slowest integrated graphics you can find). Not a gamer, obviously. But many gamers don't care either, because their XBox 3 is fast enough. And GTA 950 is what 90% of Windows laptops sold are using.
But maybe you missed that the new MBP 13" has ten hours battery life. Maybe, just maybe, someone at Apple checked what the battery life would be with a more powerful graphics card and decided that battery life is more important than graphics performance. It is to me.
Not a bad card I suppose. However nothing entirely impressive either. It seems like the ATI 5450 manages to beat it slightly. Other notebook manufacturers have been able to cram much more powerful cards into a 13" chassis.
Not likely, from what I've seen from the latest generation of Nvidia and ATI cards, the TDP of the ATI cards are lower while performing better. The TDP of the 320M hasn't been reported yet, however the TDP of the 5450 is 11W, compared to the 9400M's 12W. Since the 320M is the successor of the 9400M, I figure it's somewhere in the range of 10W to 12W.
You mean GMA950, not GTA950.
I'll like to know how you got that statistic of 90%. The GMA950 is a very old, piece of crap graphics chip made by Intel in 2005. Seeing how it's 5 years old, it probably hasn't been sold on any Windows laptop in years. The GMA950 has been replaced by the X3100 and the 4500MHD, and now the GMA (HD) which is in your Arrandale laptop.
Anyway, Intel's market share of the graphics market was 40% in 2005. There's no way that the GMA950 could have been in 90% of the laptops sold that year, and much less today. Most of the laptops bought n 2005 probably have been replaced by now as well.
Not likely, from what I've seen from the latest generation of Nvidia and ATI cards, the TDP of the ATI cards are lower while performing better. The TDP of the 320M hasn't been reported yet, however the TDP of the 5450 is 11W, compared to the 9400M's 12W. Since the 320M is the successor of the 9400M, I figure it's somewhere in the range of 10W to 12W.
You mean GMA950, not GTA950.
I'll like to know how you got that statistic of 90%. The GMA950 is a very old, piece of crap graphics chip made by Intel in 2005. Seeing how it's 5 years old, it probably hasn't been sold on any Windows laptop in years. The GMA950 has been replaced by the X3100 and the 4500MHD, and now the GMA (HD) which is in your Arrandale laptop.
Anyway, Intel's market share of the graphics market was 40% in 2005. There's no way that the GMA950 could have been in 90% of the laptops sold that year, and much less today. Most of the laptops bought n 2005 probably have been replaced by now as well.
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
for reference, my 8600GT 128 mb gets about 3500 on the 3dmark06 test..so yes this is faster. The 13" also has a lower native resolution, so that'll make fps in games even higher.
I just ran SC2 on my machine. It runs perfect on medium settings. At this resolution and with the beautiful screen, I really can't tell the difference at medium settings vs ultra on my desktop (radeon 5770).
Thank you very much for posting these benchmarks! I am suprised positively and I am looking forward for my ordered 13" just more.
I'd say, 4700 3DMark06 points are quite impressive as this is an integrated GPU. Of course there are dedicated GPUs outperforming the 320M - but battery life would dwindle, there would be more heat and noise. I don't want that; I want a portable small and nice notebook and I'm very glad to hear it will probably play some of my favourite games at 25FPS and higher.
I'm beginning to think it was a good decision to keep C2D. This energy efficient and well performing IGP could not have been used together with iX CPUs.
Disclaimer: No, I am not a computer hardware engineer (but a computer scientist after all) and it could have been possible to reach, well, more. But I don't KNOW and I guess most of you don't either. Comparisons with Vaio Z (or something) seem quite frustration for MBP at first, but: Battery life? Noise? Heat? This all may be good at Vaio (just as an example), but is it as good as in the 13" MBP? Yes? Do you _really_ know? How so? I don't, I admit that. But I am convinced that our 13" MBP is quite a very fine machine.
I'd say, 4700 3DMark06 points are quite impressive as this is an integrated GPU. Of course there are dedicated GPUs outperforming the 320M - but battery life would dwindle, there would be more heat and noise. I don't want that; I want a portable small and nice notebook and I'm very glad to hear it will probably play some of my favourite games at 25FPS and higher.
I'm beginning to think it was a good decision to keep C2D. This energy efficient and well performing IGP could not have been used together with iX CPUs.
Disclaimer: No, I am not a computer hardware engineer (but a computer scientist after all) and it could have been possible to reach, well, more. But I don't KNOW and I guess most of you don't either. Comparisons with Vaio Z (or something) seem quite frustration for MBP at first, but: Battery life? Noise? Heat? This all may be good at Vaio (just as an example), but is it as good as in the 13" MBP? Yes? Do you _really_ know? How so? I don't, I admit that. But I am convinced that our 13" MBP is quite a very fine machine.
NVidia 320M Hardware ID?
I hate to be a pain with all my questions, but could someone please tell us what the hardware ID of the NVidia 320M is listed as (found under properties in the device manager). The 9400M, for example, has a hardware ID (the second number in the drop-down list is the most important) of
PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0863&SUBSYS_00B9106B
I'm asking so that I can verify that the NVidia Verde drivers (197.16) released this month can be used with this GPU. The NVidia website doesn't list this card as being applicable, but a quick modification of the .inf file will take care of that problem!
Thanks again!
I hate to be a pain with all my questions, but could someone please tell us what the hardware ID of the NVidia 320M is listed as (found under properties in the device manager). The 9400M, for example, has a hardware ID (the second number in the drop-down list is the most important) of
PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0863&SUBSYS_00B9106B
I'm asking so that I can verify that the NVidia Verde drivers (197.16) released this month can be used with this GPU. The NVidia website doesn't list this card as being applicable, but a quick modification of the .inf file will take care of that problem!
Thanks again!
Could someone provide also the Windows 7 Experience index of 15" HD Display MBP i5/2,40 GHz in BootCamp?
Thanks in advance,
P.
Thanks in advance,
P.
Sorry, I should have given instructions:
In Device Manager, double-click the NVidia 320M display adapter and you will bring up the Properties field. From there, click on the Details tab and you will find a field named Properties. Roll down this field to the second entry "Hardware IDs" and note the second value.
Also, could you let us know if the Cirrus Logic 4206A audio controller is installed? You'll find that one under Sound, Video and Game controllers in Device Manager.
Thanks again!
used ATi cards...Good news all around, 320M seems like a really nice chip for casual gaming.
SC2 = Star Craft 2?
Could anybody report Mass Effect 2 and/or Crysis performance on the new Macbook Pro 13'?
SC2 = Star Craft 2?
Could anybody report Mass Effect 2 and/or Crysis performance on the new Macbook Pro 13'?
5000 points is not impressive by today's PC standards, but for 10h laptop it is very cool. I am waiting for my order to arrive so much...
Could you run other tests? For example, some of the standard tests from notebookcheck.net to make easy comparison.
3DMark05?
Cinebench R10?
3DMark Vantage?
Could you run other tests? For example, some of the standard tests from notebookcheck.net to make easy comparison.
3DMark05?
Cinebench R10?
3DMark Vantage?
Sounds impressive so far, for a chip without dedicated memory..
Can more people who got their hands on a 13" weigh in please?
Can more people who got their hands on a 13" weigh in please?
As a gamer/SC2 player, would you recommend if I got a 15" MBP over an Asus G73 with the ATi 5870 1G GDDR5?
You must be joking, right
The 5870 is at least 2x faster than 330M. In fact, 5870 is the fastest single core graphics solution to date. It would do some very terrible stuff to 330M...
Looks like the new 13" GPU is about the same as my present 15" MBP with 8600M GPU. It runs the game Elder Scrolls Oblivion reasonably well at native resolution. This is pretty impressive to me. But due to weight and a desire for better performance, and the fact that I already have a 15" MBP I opted for the new Sony Z and I am very happy with it. Nevertheless this is very good news about the new MBP 13".
You must be joking, right
The 5870 is at least 2x faster than 330M. In fact, 5870 is the fastest single core graphics solution to date. It would do some very terrible stuff to 330M...
Heh, I'm not joking, I'm just deciding between a MBP and a Asus G73.