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.
Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT vs 9400M
- Thread starter CaffeMacchiato
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Depends on what you do and who you ask.
Bridge and Photoshop utilize the GPU for tasks such as preview, zooming, panning and rotating. If you have a workflow like me where you have 200 to 300 photos from an event or portrait shoot and you need to find the winner and do minor adjustments in a couple of layers, this is a good thing. If you are doing significant post-production on a single image, with 30 layers and loads of filters, it won't do much for you at all.
Some people say there is no difference between the 9400 and the 9600. I disagree; whether the difference is due to more available system resources (VRAM instead of shared RAM) or GPU processing is moot to me. I just observe that my Bridge + Photoshop workflow is snappier with the 9600 over the 9400.
While the 9400M isn't a beast at gaming, on my MBP I've been able to play the Sims 3, Sims 2, COD4, and GH3 easily on low-med settings. It's a decent card.
The higher graphics card will have to use more battery, but you see a big difference in the frame rates during simple Mac animations. And there is not a difference presently with Photoshop/encoding, because they are CPU intensive tasks.
The 9400m should be fine for those things. I've even done some light editing in Final Cut Pro with the 9400m.. I'm too lazy sometimes.
The only time I've noticed a real difference is when playing CoD4. The 9600m GT has a much greater FPS.
I know the 9400M isnt the ideal card for gaming, so the 9600M GT would be for that, normal everyday crap is what the 9400M is for. Just note and think of it like this: 9400M = IGP (intergrated graphics proccessor), 9600M GT = Discrete graphics card... While the 9400M is a step up from the Intergrated Intel graphics, its still not a dedicated card, so thats going to limit you.
Transcoding
I am interested in using the mac to play H264 video content and stream the transcoded video at 1080p over WiFi to a third party device hooked up to my TV. Is it necessary to step up to the 9600M?
I am interested in using the mac to play H264 video content and stream the transcoded video at 1080p over WiFi to a third party device hooked up to my TV. Is it necessary to step up to the 9600M?
I have tried hard to see if I could tell if I was using the 9400M or 9600M GT at any one time - but no, it doesn't make any difference at all. No difference in colors or DVD playback. The only time I switch over to the 9600M GT is when I feel the want to play Sims 3 
No. Not on a screen running at 1440x900. But if you plan on connecting to an external 24-inch ACD or similar; you may (maybe?) have an advantage in 512MB video memory.
No. Not on a screen running at 1440x900. But if you plan on connecting to an external 24-inch ACD or similar; you may (maybe?) have an advantage in 512MB video memory.
I think anandtech did a test on the amount of RAM on the GPU and how it affected your work. You had to have many windows (70-80? can't remember exact) open to use up the ram on high resolution or manipulate a very big picture in Photoshop. Then you would see a difference.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3602
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3602
You know, I was completely surprised at the performance of the 9400. I was used to the anemic intel integrated GPU, so I was blown away with the 9400. So much so, if I had known how well it performed beforehand, I'd probably gotten a MB (back in oct 08 it was still a mb )
I've perceived no advantage the 9600 provides, since I don't play games and it does generate more heat then the 9400
)I've perceived no advantage the 9600 provides, since I don't play games and it does generate more heat then the 9400
Here's my 1 cent because I don't even have 2....
I use Maya professionally on a MacPro
However I do some of my work
on 3 year old MBP with an ATI X1600 128mb
I'm actually very pleased with the performance on my MBP as
far as the working environment goes.. Rendering is a different
story but that's more about the processor than the GFX card.
I'd be surprised if the 9400M is less that adequate for 90% of the people
out there..even professionals
I use Maya professionally on a MacPro
However I do some of my work
on 3 year old MBP with an ATI X1600 128mb
I'm actually very pleased with the performance on my MBP as
far as the working environment goes.. Rendering is a different
story but that's more about the processor than the GFX card.
I'd be surprised if the 9400M is less that adequate for 90% of the people
out there..even professionals
I have the latest Macbook Pro 13" and I love my 9400m GPU. It handles Call of duty 4 on almost max settings (sometimes i turn off shadows and speculars), and on Bootcamp I play Call of Duty 5, FSX, and Americas Army 3 fine.
I know I already asked this but would the 9400M on the highend 13" macbook pro struggle with final cut studio 3 e.g. Final Cut Pro, Motion , Color and Adobe After effects
I have a 13" MBP with the 9400, and it kind of sucks playing diablo 2 on medium graphics. Is there any way i can add the 9600 or am i stuck with the 9400?
Your stuck with the 9400m im afraid but its still ok for most games over 2-3 years old. I have a unibody macbook with the same card and i play Age of Empires 3 and Civilisation 4 no problems. First person shooters are usually the most high demanding ones.
wow that's an outright lie. there is no way you're maxing cod4 at almost max. what exactly do you mean by "almost max" and what fps are you getting?
The 9400m is worlds better than any of the Intel Integrated you may have used.
A few points
1. The color will be no different with the 9600, that's mostly dependent on the screen.
2. Both will be fine for daily tasks, remember, the 9400m has x264 video decoding support in hardware.
3. OS X will not feel more "fluid", nor will the GUI effects be. The OS is designed to work on machines with GMA 950 and X3100, which are worlds less powerful. If it runs smoothly on them, which it does, it will run fine on the 9400m, to the point where there's no way it would see improvements on the 9600.
4. The 9600 runs warmer and uses more power. There's no reason to use it unless you are: Gaming, doing video, doing something that requires GPU power. Daily tasks will see next to no improvement.
A few points
1. The color will be no different with the 9600, that's mostly dependent on the screen.
2. Both will be fine for daily tasks, remember, the 9400m has x264 video decoding support in hardware.
3. OS X will not feel more "fluid", nor will the GUI effects be. The OS is designed to work on machines with GMA 950 and X3100, which are worlds less powerful. If it runs smoothly on them, which it does, it will run fine on the 9400m, to the point where there's no way it would see improvements on the 9600.
4. The 9600 runs warmer and uses more power. There's no reason to use it unless you are: Gaming, doing video, doing something that requires GPU power. Daily tasks will see next to no improvement.