NVIDIA GeForce 9400m good enough to run Diablo III?

Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by ViolentHero, Jan 13, 2012.

  1. ViolentHero macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    #1
    So, have any of you played the beta with this card installed? Is the game playable under low settings at least?
     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    You need to see if the 9400m is even supported, I notice many new games just dont support that gpu that apple used for awhile from intel. Many of us just shook their heads when apple went for that thing.
     
  3. CubeHacker macrumors 65816

    CubeHacker

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    #3
    The 9400m is made by Nvidia, not Intel. Nobody shook their heads when they used that chip - most people actually cheered when Apple moved away from intel integrated graphics.

    As for the 9400m, it should be adequate to run the game on low settings. You might want to look around the net to see how the game runs on that chip for the lucky few that got into the beta.
     
  4. Ungibbed macrumors 6502

    Ungibbed

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    Boy do I remember the day when I was excited to see how much "better" my 2007 model MacBook would be compared to the Ati Radeon 9700 in my PowerBook G4. Disappointment was an understatement even for an older game like Halo. I even bought the Intel update to see if my Core 2 MacBook with the Intel X3100 and it's far newer hardware would blow away my old PowerBook G4 on gaming... what a blow... I was even more disgusted that the older GMA 950 performed better even with the 32 bit Core processors.

    I bought a new MBP a while back when the Nvidia320m was the new base line GPU... Finally, I was impressed on how my games should have been when Apple moved to Intel processors. The Intel "GPU" should have never been slapped in a Mac... Ever...

    Especially when the iBook G4 with it's Radeon 9550 (and 32MB of dedicated memory) was replaced by the entry level MacBook and the GMA 950. At that time, my iBook was my WoW machine while my old white MacBook was the road warrior along with my 17" PowerBook for WoW and Photoshop since I liked the matte screen
     
  5. malman89 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #6
    Thanks for the link. As expected, I guess I can't hope for my ancient integrated GPU to work. I still pre-ordered the collector's edition though :p I've been waiting too long not to get it. I hope to buy a new machine in the next year anyway.
     
  6. ViolentHero thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    #7
  7. one1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN
    #8
    Wasn't the 9400 offered in one revision with 256mb vram and in the next with 512mb? (2007) if so it may be relevant to gameplay.
     
  8. Cougarcat macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    #9
    No. There were 15" models with a dedicated 512 MB 9600M card and a 256 MB 9400M. That's probably what you are thinking of.
     
  9. one1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN
    #10
    That seems to sound like what I said. Two different setups with the 9400, correct? No particular order.
     
  10. paradiselost macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    #11
    Haha, the beta does not even get close to this with my 2009 13'' mbp. It is decent enough in small areas with little special lighting effects, but most areas it is a pain to play through. This is on 1024x768 resolution, native resolution was just too painful.

    The graphic options seem quite limited (compared to Starcraft2), so I think (hope) they are going to include lower graphic settings. The card is supported on their official list, but the system requirements for macs are higher so I'm not sure what to think about it.
     
  11. dakwar macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    #12
    not quite. the 9400 has 256MB, while the 512MB is the 9600. ;)
     
  12. one1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN
    #13
    Very cool. That's the one thing I couldn't get enough info on before to be certain about.
     
  13. Sweetfeld28, Jan 17, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2012

    Sweetfeld28 macrumors 65816

    Sweetfeld28

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Location:
    Buckeye Country, O-H
    #14
    I think it's shared memory. At least thats what it is in my MBP with the 9400m.
     
  14. AcesHigh87 macrumors 6502a

    AcesHigh87

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Location:
    New Brunswick, Canada
    #15
    Blizzard likes having low requirements. Hell they "Suggest" only a dual core processor and 2 GB of RAM. I'm sure you'll be fine.

    Also, as a note, the beta is awesome so far and the game seems like it will be great. I can't wait for the full release.
     
  15. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #16
    Correct. The 9400m does not have VRAM, it uses shared memory.

    I think if you increase your RAM, it increases the amount of memory the 9400m will use.
     
  16. Yebubbleman macrumors 68030

    Yebubbleman

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #17
    I'm in the beta and I've been playing it on a Mid 2010 Mac mini Server (in which, I've RAID 0ed the two 500GB drives to be a single 1TB volume and installed the client version of Snow Leopard for continuity from my last machine which maxed out at Snow Leopard; it's a transitional machine that I'm owning temporarily between an Early 2006 iMac and what will presumably be a Mid 2012 MacBook Pro, or whatever the next refresh will be called). As you might know, said Mac mini comes with the NVIDIA GeForce 320M, which is the successor to the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M of which you speak. Given that, the game runs a bit choppy; certainly not as smoothly as the same GPU runs StarCraft II. This could be due to the several memory leak issues that the current build of the Diablo III beta has. My guess is that performance will get better as they get closer to release (given that the StarCraft II main menu lagged like hell in the beta on the same machines that later ran it smoothly upon release). How much better, I'm not sure. I definitely get the feeling that the game would look and feel better on a machine with a better video chipset, let alone one with discrete VRAM.

    I'd say that if playing this game is important to you, build a PC tower. You don't need more than a Radeon 6770 to max out the video settings and that's reasonably affordable. As long as you use some form of Core i5, or an AMD Phenom II (both of which you can find for reasonably cheap nowadays) and a motherboard that doesn't suck, along with at least 4GB of RAM, you're set. And honestly, one of those won't set you back a whole lot at all. I suggest that as any GeForce 9400-equipped Mac, for anything other than GPU-intensive tasks, will probably still last you a long while yet.
     
  17. one1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN
    #18
    Does the 8600 do that as well by chance?
     
  18. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #19
    The 8600 is a faster, more pro card, with dedicated VRAM.
     
  19. Jeff Baker macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    #20
    Diablo 3 Beta

    I currently have a Macbook Pro 15'' with a 9400m nVidia and 8GB Ram & 500GB (7200rpm) HD and Diablo 3 beta worked fine in low settings with 1440X900, details were great but a little slow on walking that is all.
     
  20. Romeo604, Apr 28, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2012

    Romeo604 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    #21
    I can run Diablo 3 Beta on lowest settings with gameplay fine on my 2007 Macbook Pro 17, 8600GT 128 Ram (the graphics chip with all the problems and extended warranty till 2011).

    I can run Starcraft 2 Full Version on lowest settings with gameplay fine as well.

    You can use my computer as a benchmark :)
     
  21. ViolentHero thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    #22
    Haven't played the beta, I tried to last month but there was high cpu usage during downloading and installation, it didn't seem normal to me. I played Starcraft II starter edition (similar system requirements to Diablo III) natively on my mac and it works fine on low settings. The only thing I find unusual is that the fan speed increased to around 6000 rpm during gameplay. Usually when I play games it's like around 5000 rpm. Since some of you say it's normal, I guess I could let it slide. However, I plan to build a PC soon anyway. PC has more games to play.
     
  22. malman89 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #23
    Since this got necro'd and by chance my work iMac is a refurb with a 9400M, I feel free to comment on this. Since the beta launched on a dead Friday at work, I decided to install and run it.

    The iMac played Diablo 3 beta awfully. Native resolution isn't even close. I had to run it at 12xx x 7xx with everything low/off and even then it was only occasionally fluid gameplay in the beta. This would have to probably be knocked down even lower (like 1024 x 768 or 800 x 600, hello 90s?) to be truly fluid for true game play and hectic fights.

    Can it run? Yes. It's just a miserable gaming experience.
     
  23. Fraaaa macrumors 65816

    Fraaaa

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #24
    Did you have Low FX turned on by chance?
     
  24. malman89 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #25
    Everything was Low or Off by default. Also by default was native resolution, but that sure didn't work out well.

    I'm sure there'll be some optimization between beta and launch and even the first few months of live, but anyone with a 9400m on anything bigger than a laptop resolution will certainly struggle - and even then as shown still might need to dock the resolution down a bit.
     

Share This Page