Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT vs 9400M

C

CaffeMacchiato

macrumors member
Original poster
Nov 10, 2008
66
3
Guys,

I would like to ask if anyone noticed any difference between the 9600M and the 9400M graphics card for norm web surfing, text editing, spreadsheet applications, and even watching DVDs.

Is it true that the only difference comes when one is play 3D games which requires rendering? Where the number of frame rate per second is important.

Thanks.

Caffe
 
Thanks for the replies.

So apart from the 'frames per seconds' in games/rendering, there are little or no difference at all?
 
Everyday tasks are fine with 9400M. Okay, the iTunes visualizer (Magnetosphere) chugs somewhat, but you wouldn't know it unless you compare it to the 9600M GT or a more powerful card on another computer.

You really only need it for hardcore tasks that use OpenGL, like video editing or gaming. I don't use it very often on mine. The whole machine runs about 5-10C hotter with it turned on, and it eats up battery, and since there is little need for it most of the time....
 
The fact that it runs 5-15 degrees warmer is a little irritating for me. Worse if there are no visual improvement!
 
CaffeMacchiato said:
The fact that it runs 5-15 degrees warmer is a little irritating for me. Worse if there are no visual improvement!
Click to expand...

That's why you have the option to turn it off. People seem to often forget big GPUs are power-sucking hot plates that aren't needed most of the time. Doing everyday tasks on a gaming PC is even more amusing.....
 
CaffeMacchiato said:
Does it make a difference when watching DVDs?
Click to expand...

Nope. You don't need a powerful card to watch DVD's ;) . Film movies are only recorded at around ~30FPS anyway.

Unless you're doing heavy duty "pro" stuff such as gaming, video editing, or other various visual work, the 9400M is plenty. The others pretty much said it, the 9600M GT is only useful for pro stuff. Now, if you don't do any pro stuff or computationally intensive work I would recommend you get the MacBook. It's smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the MacBook Pro. And, unlike previous MacBooks, the new MacBook can actually be used for gaming. That said, if you are a stickler for screen quality, go with the MBP. It's well documented that the MacBook screen is pretty bad compared with to the MBP screen.

Also, a faster video card doesn't make things look "better." It wont take you screen and make it look better somehow. A better card will make things run faster. The 9600 can render images faster than the 9400, but the images are still the same.
 
the 9400 should be used when you're on the go, You need to save battery life and you're not running anything that graphics intensive ( that isn't to say it can't run them ).

Switch to the 9600m GT when you know you can hook it up to the mains. You will notice a improvement in the fluidity of OSX, animations, exposes, spaces. Specially once you start running more and more windows.
Also if your left hand is a little cold, it does wonders making sure it stays warm :p
 
Warelin said:
The blacks on the 9600 look richer and the whites look more white.
Click to expand...

Utterly false, you might be thinking about the Macbook's screen compared to the MacBook Pro's, in which case the MacBook Pro's screen is better in the ways you described, but it has nothing to do with the graphics card.
 
I have a quick, related question. Does the GPU play any role in video rendering/compression in say, Toast? I was wondering if rendering a DVD would be any faster with the 9600M GT switched on.
 
Coolnat2004 said:
I have a quick, related question. Does the GPU play any role in video rendering/compression in say, Toast? I was wondering if rendering a DVD would be any faster with the 9600M GT switched on.
Click to expand...
I suppose it would depend on the codec, although I can't see it making much of a difference... however, with Snow Leopard, this could change due to Grand Central and offloading some processing to the graphics processor instead of the actual CPU.
 
I ONLY use the 9400 when in leopard.

Don't see why I'd need anything more for my work. Anything graphically intensive (games, 3d modeling) is all done in windows.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)

CaffeMacchiato said:
Guys,

I would like to ask if anyone noticed any difference between the 9600M and the 9400M graphics card for norm web surfing, text editing, spreadsheet applications, and even watching DVDs.

Is it true that the only difference comes when one is play 3D games which requires rendering? Where the number of frame rate per second is important.

Thanks.

Caffe
Click to expand...

honestly I didn't see a difference at all (mbp 2.53 ghz). I notice the 9600 runs hotter which it should since it has more power. I use the 9400 (better battery life in energy settings) and the 9600 is default in whatever windows version you use. I just use vista for games really.

Honestly I've had laptops with integrated graphics and absolutely hated them! This 9400 is nothing like any of the integrated graphics I've used.

The mbp does have a better screen than the mb. If you're wondering which one to get, it all depends on what you'd like to do with your machine. If you want to play any of the latest games get the pro, but if you won't do anything graphically intensive then get the mb. Apple doesn't make low end machines so you won't lose out with whichever you pick (if you're trying to decide that is)
 
Warelin said:
The blacks on the 9600 look richer and the whites look more white.
Click to expand...

ha ha ha ha ha.....ill assume u were being funny...made me laugh anyway.

Google benchmarks for a 9600M GT and 9400M and you will see what the diff is.

And....watch you battery drain alot faster with 9600M GT, Apples clained Battery life is based on the 9400. I ran benchmarks on my 9600GT and i was surprised how fast the battery went down under load.
 
It is true, not all integrated graphics card are the same.

I could not see any difference between 9600 and 9400 on the mbp. It will make a difference when one is drawing some 3D objects in a simulator. Not sure about simple screen animation.

Has anyone compared the performance for the 9400 graphics card on the new mb and mbp? Does it still looks the same, despite the difference in screen size.

I've tried playing games on the mbp, using 9400, medium detail level. It works fine. I rather have a warm machine than a hot (literally) machine.
 
CaffeMacchiato said:
It is true, not all integrated graphics card are the same.

I could not see any difference between 9600 and 9400 on the mbp. It will make a difference when one is drawing some 3D objects in a simulator. Not sure about simple screen animation.

Has anyone compared the performance for the 9400 graphics card on the new mb and mbp? Does it still looks the same, despite the difference in screen size.

I've tried playing games on the mbp, using 9400, medium detail level. It works fine. I rather have a warm machine than a hot (literally) machine.
Click to expand...

I've always been wondering the same but I think this is the general thing here: Gaming = 9600M GT, everyday tasks = 9400M
How hot do the two get though? I have a Hell (the one in my sig) with a old 7300 and it gets 70-ish on full load, which sucks because its a leg-burner...
 
Running the 9600M certainly raises the temperatures - I have the CPU A temp setting showing 63-66 now, it used to be 70 and up with the 9600M enabled, plus fan speeds are now down to 2k vs. 3k and up for the 9600M.

9600M for gaming though, and we'll see how applications start using OpenCL once Snow Leopard comes out. Its nice to have choices in this case.
 
neteng101 said:
Running the 9600M certainly raises the temperatures - I have the CPU A temp setting showing 63-66 now, it used to be 70 and up with the 9600M enabled, plus fan speeds are now down to 2k vs. 3k and up for the 9600M.

9600M for gaming though, and we'll see how applications start using OpenCL once Snow Leopard comes out. Its nice to have choices in this case.
Click to expand...

yeah I know what you mean there... So what would using the 9400M and stuff like iLife (iWeb) or Photoshop be like? I dont think it would be any more laggy then my old 7300 with 128mb...
 
nullx86 said:
How hot do the two get though? I have a Hell (the one in my sig) with a old 7300 and it gets 70-ish on full load, which sucks because its a leg-burner...
Click to expand...

I notice the 9400 runs around 36-38C, whereas the 9600 runs at 60-64... this is at idle. Considerable difference in temps.
 
the 9400 is awesome. Thus far it has handled everything I've thrown at it without me having to switch the the 9600. So i would say for most people's needs (except gaming) it'll more than suffice.
 
fehhkk said:
I notice the 9400 runs around 36-38C, whereas the 9600 runs at 60-64... this is at idle. Considerable difference in temps.
Click to expand...

I know the 9600 is an 8600 in a smaller die package, so i know its prone to high temps, but thats on idle? I thought OS X would have slightly lower temps on idle compared to Vista (my 9600M in my M1530 hits around the same, maybe a degree or two lower). Hmm, this is making my decision on what mac to get a bit harder....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back