NVIDIA GeForce 9400m good enough to run Diablo III?

ViolentHero

macrumors member
Original poster
Jan 3, 2012
61
0
So, have any of you played the beta with this card installed? Is the game playable under low settings at least?
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,055
6
Yahooville S.C.
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.
 

CubeHacker

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2003
1,102
37
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.
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.
 

Ungibbed

macrumors 6502a
Dec 13, 2010
653
133
USA
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.
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
 

malman89

macrumors 68000
May 29, 2011
1,651
6
Michigan
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.
 

one1

macrumors 65816
Jun 17, 2007
1,145
25
Chattanooga, TN
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.
 

Cougarcat

macrumors 604
Sep 19, 2003
7,766
2,551
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.
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.
 

paradiselost

macrumors newbie
Jan 16, 2012
1
0
I hope it's playable. I don't mind if the framerate is like 30-40 fps.
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.
 

AcesHigh87

macrumors 6502a
Jan 11, 2009
954
294
New Brunswick, Canada
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.
 

goMac

macrumors 604
Apr 15, 2004
7,145
1,165
I think it is even shared memory. At least thats what it is in my MBP with the 9400m.
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.
 

Yebubbleman

macrumors 68040
May 20, 2010
3,062
379
Los Angeles, CA
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.
 

Jeff Baker

macrumors newbie
Apr 28, 2012
1
0
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.
 

Romeo604

macrumors regular
Oct 17, 2005
200
0
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 :)
 
Last edited:

ViolentHero

macrumors member
Original poster
Jan 3, 2012
61
0
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.
 

malman89

macrumors 68000
May 29, 2011
1,651
6
Michigan
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.
 

Fraaaa

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,081
0
London, UK
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.
Did you have Low FX turned on by chance?
 

malman89

macrumors 68000
May 29, 2011
1,651
6
Michigan
Did you have Low FX turned on by chance?
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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.