No, the 320M is not more powerful than the 8600M. Neither is the 330M 2x as powerful.

[mt229431]

After seeing those 15" base model numbers, I'm strongly considering choosing it as my new laptop... are there any other benchmarks/3Dmark tests around? I need to be 100% convinced...

Also, how about the mid 15" upgrade, and the effect of the 512 MB video card...I wonder what kind of performance increase those will have compared to the base model...

 

[Yixian]

After seeing those 15" base model numbers, I'm strongly considering choosing it as my new laptop... are there any other benchmarks/3Dmark tests around? I need to be 100% convinced...

Also, how about the mid 15" upgrade, and the effect of the 512 MB video card...I wonder what kind of performance increase those will have compared to the base model...

Considering 1gb vram is the industry standard in decent GPUs these days, maybe have to "go all out for a 512mb" card is a sign that this revision isn't for anyone with graphics in mind.

 

[faith4more]

Raw power does not always equal a faster computer. Think optimization. Apple is very good at optimizing. Heat plays a big part in slowing down these faster machines. You might get a more powerful graphics card that may or may not add more heat. If it adds to much heat everything slows down and battery gets killed.

If anyone is really serious about gaming. Build a desktop gaming machine. That is what I do and it can be done much cheaper and have a much better machine. If you need mobile these machines are perfect if you need high performance gaming they are not. It is that simple.

 

[alphaod]

Sorry no, the 330M GT is basically an 8600M GT, shrunk down with a few more shader cores.

It's ancient stuff really.

It's closer to a 8700M GT.

 

[cathyy]

It's closer to a 8700M GT.

Isn't the 8700M GT simply based on the 8600M GT with higher clocks?

 

[sporadicMotion]

Because the 2009 base model MacBook Pro had the Geforce 9400M and the new 2010 base model has the Geforce GT 330M.

It's a valid comparison.

Which is quite similar to the 2009 MacBook (Geforce 9400M) and the 2010 MacBook (Geforce 320M).

After all, both the Geforce 320M and the Geforce GT 330M has 48 "cores".

It would be valid if you were comparing the 330m to the 9600m GT. The old entry level 15" was a big 13" really so comparing the 9400m to the 320m makes way more sense.

 

[Eidorian]

Actually, the Geforce GT 330M (GT216) is a rebrand of the Geforce GT 240/230M (GT216). And that is it.

The core configuration of the Geforce GT 240M (48:16:8, GT216) and the Geforce GT 130M (32:16:8, G96) are totally different.

The GT216 is based off of the "newer" GT200 architecture and in 40nm. Though you are seeing 16 more shader cores over the older nVidia 8M/9M parts I haven't really seen much of a performance gain.

The are plenty of 32 shader based nVidia parts across several generations. I have a 9500 GT (Higher clocked 8600 GT) and it was relabeled for OEMs as the GT120. These are just the desktop parts.

Clock speed, manufacturing processes (65 vs. 55 nm) and PureVideo support are the only differences.

Isn't the 8700M GT simply based on the 8600M GT with higher clocks?

This is correct.

 

[Slappi]

So the 320m in the 13" 2010 MBP is essentially the same in terms of speed as a 8600m GT DDR2?

Good because that is what my 2.5 year old dell has in it right now so I can compare it to something.

10 hours of battery life is amazing in this package at an ok price. I can also play most non FPS games. Well done Apple.

 

[DeSnousa]

So the 320m in the 13" 2010 MBP is essentially the same in terms of speed as a 8600m GT DDR2?

Good because that is what my 2.5 year old dell has in it right now so I can compare it to something.

10 hours of battery life is amazing in this package at an ok price. I can also play most non FPS games. Well done Apple.

I agree, its great that the new graphics used can be used to play games. I know its not great but as long as it is usable I would be happy. Now if I only had the money

 

[cluthz]

There are two versions of 320M, one discrete with own memory and the 320M Apple uses, which is considerably slower since it uses system memory.

 

[Slappi]

There are two versions of 320M, one discrete with own memory and the 320M Apple uses, which is considerably slower since it uses system memory.

The one we are comparing here is the apple one in the MBP 13". Those are the numbers we are using.

What it comes down to is the 320m apple IGPU is = to the 8600M GT DDR2 and 15% slower than the 8600M GT DDR3 that some older MBPs used.

Is that about right?

 

[cathyy]

The one we are comparing here is the apple one in the MBP 13". Those are the numbers we are using.

What it comes down to is the 320m apple IGPU is = to the 8600M GT DDR2 and 15% slower than the 8600M GT DDR3 that some older MBPs used.

Is that about right?

Yea, that sounds about right.

 

[ssn637]

Considering my overclocked MacBook Pro 13" Mid-2009 model (NVidia 9400M 575/1265 MHz) scores around 2600 points in 3D Mark 06 at 1280x800 native resolution, the 320M is a damned good GPU. Doubling my frame rates in IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 makes a big difference and might just entice me into picking up the new machine. The outstanding battery endurance has also been confirmed...who needs i3?

 

[cathyy]

Considering my overclocked MacBook Pro 13" Mid-2009 model (NVidia 9400M 575/1265 MHz) scores around 2600 points in 3D Mark 06 at 1280x800 native resolution, the 320M is a damned good GPU. Doubling my frame rates in IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 makes a big difference and might just entice me into picking up the new machine. The outstanding battery endurance has also been confirmed...who needs i3?

If you even cared about gaming in the first place, why would you even touch a Macbook 13"? Those things have horrible graphic cards.

 

[ssn637]

Good question.
But since when are men rational? Any excuse is a good one to buy the next best thing...and since IL-2 Sturmovik is the only game I play and the rest of the time I bring the MacBook with me to the office (and airport, and train station, and hotel...) I prefer the smaller form factor.

 

[cathyy]

Good question.
But since when are men rational? Any excuse is a good one to buy the next best thing...and since IL-2 Sturmovik is the only game I play and the rest of the time I bring the MacBook with me to the office (and airport, and train station, and hotel...) I prefer the smaller form factor.

Well if you only play that one game then I guess that's alright. I always thought women were less rational than men when buying stuff though. I tend to be thrifty with money, but when it comes to buying clothes, shoes, etc., I'd just ask myself one question: if it looks nice. If it does, I'll buy it.

Anyway the 320M may be 2x more powerful than the 9400M, but I think it's a complete, absolute waste of money. Unless you have a lot of money to spend, I wouldn't recommend anyone with a 13" Macbook/Pro to upgrade to this.

 

[TiberiusXavier]

I currently own a MBP 13 with the 9400M and 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo (bought it last January). I am considering upgrading forward to the newer 13 MBP (I like the lightness and portability of the smaller frame). I realize that both generations have only the low-end GPU sharing the main memory.

Outside of benchmarks, has anyone actually done the move (and used both machines) that can say whether the newest 13 MBP is worth the incremental increase?

Thanks.

 

[asphyxiafeeling]

So anyway, a bunch of people are using the notebookcheck.net 3DMark06 score of 3300 as the average score for the 8600M GT. Due to this, a lot of people are getting the wrong impression that the 320M is faster than the 8600M GT, and that the 330M is 2x more powerful.


There are several consistency issues which need to be addressed:

1) 8600M GT (DDR2) vs 8600M GT (GDDR3)
While they both have the same name, there are actually 2 different variants of the 8600M GT card. One with DDR2 memory and one with GDDR3 memory. (Note: this is NOT the same as system memory) The GDDR3 variant is between 20% - 30% faster than the DDR2 variant. Majority of the 8600Ms tested used DDR2 memory, while all the 8600Ms in Apple notebooks use GDDR3 memory.

2) 3DMark06 scores take the CPU into account
Your points are largely affected by how powerful your CPU is. Majority of the notebooks tested were also using the older Merom CPUs, and hence the average is lower. Just using a similar clocked Penryn CPU instead of a Merom CPU adds a few hundred more points.

3) Resolution difference
This is a very important factor. The standard testing resolution for 3DMark06 is 1280x1024, whereas the 3DMark06 test in this thread where the 320M scored 4700, was done at 1280x800. While 224 more vertical pixels doesn't sound like much, it actually makes a huge difference in points with benchmarks, possibly boosting the score by as much as 25%.


To back all this up further, we'll take a look at this old thread: Post your MBP Penryn 3DMark06 scores

If you read through this, the average 3DMark06 score for the Early 2008 MBP owners (8600M GT) is actually between 4200 - 4500. 3DMark06 tests on the 330M GT have been scoring close to 7000, which makes it around 60% better than the 8600M GT.

So far, the only 3DMark06 test on the 320M so far was done at 1280x800 so it's harder to compare, but yet it still gives us a rough gauge. Only one 8600M GT test was conducted at 1280x800 in that thread, and it scored 5500 points. This should place the 320M about 15% weaker than the 8600M GT.


I estimate this is roughly how powerful all the cards are relative to the 8600M GT, with an error of up to 5% per card:

9400M - 40%
320M - 85%
8600M GT - 100%
9600M GT - 110%
GT 330M - 160%

great thread. thanks for the info

 

[ssn637]

I currently own a MBP 13 with the 9400M and 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo (bought it last January). I am considering upgrading forward to the newer 13 MBP (I like the lightness and portability of the smaller frame). I realize that both generations have only the low-end GPU sharing the main memory.

Outside of benchmarks, has anyone actually done the move (and used both machines) that can say whether the newest 13 MBP is worth the incremental increase?

Thanks.

I should be picking up the 2.66 GHz 13" MBP this week and will let you know what my new benchmark is with the 320M. Someone with the base 13" model reported a 3DMark06 score of 4700: my current 2.53 GHz 13" MBP with the 9400M (CPU overclocked to 300 MHz FSB, GPU overclocked to 575/1265) is 2567. We should be able to expect a two-fold increase in benchmarking scores in Windows 7 compared with the mid-2009 model.

 

[DLovett]

Benchmarks were posted with the 320M scoring just around 5000 in 3dMark06, might have been the 2,66 GHz model though, but with overclocking the 5000 mark could easily be broken, and I'm sure it can attain the same performance as the GDDR3 8600M GT.

 

[DLovett]

I should be picking up the 2.66 GHz 13" MBP this week and will let you know what my new benchmark is with the 320M. Someone with the base 13" model reported a 3DMark06 score of 4700: my current 2.53 GHz 13" MBP with the 9400M (CPU overclocked to 300 MHz FSB, GPU overclocked to 575/1265) is 2567. We should be able to expect a two-fold increase in benchmarking scores in Windows 7 compared with the mid-2009 model.

Oh, what program do you use to overclock in Win 7?

 

[cathyy]

Benchmarks were posted with the 320M scoring just around 5000 in 3dMark06, might have been the 2,66 GHz model though, but with overclocking the 5000 mark could easily be broken, and I'm sure it can attain the same performance as the GDDR3 8600M GT.

The 320M getting around 5000 in 3DMark06 was done at 1280x800 resolution though. If you have an early 08 MBP and you test it at 1280x800, you should break 5000 easily.

 

[ssn637]

Oh, what program do you use to overclock in Win 7?

NVidia System Tools V6.06
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia_system_tools_6.06.html

Startup profile has been added with overclocked CPU and GPU settings.

Ensure Lubbo's Fan Control is also running to avoid overheating:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/lubbofancontrol/

Verify overclocked settings using GPU-Z

I don't yet know if I'll be able to overclock the 320M, however. Default frequencies have been reported as 450/950 MHz so we probably won't be able to go as high as with the 9400M. Overclocking of the new GPU may not be necessary, but I'll definitely increase the FSB CPU frequency to 300 MHz for 3.0 GHz total.

 

[ibd]

Here's some data you can compare to:

Not overclocked:

OC:

Note the resolution and clock settings.

 

[therealseebs]

Note also that the actual 3DMark scores listed in the 3DMark06 window do not correlate very closely with the underlined "3DMarks" numbers in the window to the right.

Specifically, the one where "4916 3DMarks" is boxed in reads "3DMark Score: 6015", and the one where "6015 3DMarks" is boxed in says "3DMark score: 4927".