My computer refuses to run Diablo 2. 15 minutes into the game the computer freezes.
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
My computer refuses to run Diablo 2. 15 minutes into the game the computer freezes.
I ran the 9600M a few times during my first month with this 17".
Now I´ve had it for 7 more months and don´t think I´ve used it once
History must and will show that the double graphics card with a complete
log off required to switch card, is a weak solution. Bad move, Apple.
Now I´ve had it for 7 more months and don´t think I´ve used it once
History must and will show that the double graphics card with a complete
log off required to switch card, is a weak solution. Bad move, Apple.
I really have no idea how to find that information out for you, but if you tell me how, i would be more than happy to tell you. From what im reading, there is no fix for this, and Blizzard has done little to fix the problem.
i know this is a far fetched question, but do you think you will be able to run diablo 3 on max settings with the 9600m gt 512mb?
Maybe Diablo 2 is doing what WoW seems to do to my system-- not having the fans ramp up at all during gameplay. I have had to resort to using SMCFanControl.
Those of you with 9600s that now have Snow Leopard - any difference? That is, does SL utilize the discrete GPU better for everyday tasks in addition to graphically demanding tasks? I have been reading some other threads about open cl but as far as I know that is not actually used in anything yet.
I find the 9600M to be a strange card.
I can't figure out why the same tasks the 9400M run, causes the other card to run to hot and the fans kick into overdrive.
I just did a test where I did some sketching with both cards in Photoshop and the 9600M didn't have much of a performance increase, yet the fans were running at almost 4000 RPM.
It's almost like the card has no middle ground, it's like hard core, all the time.
Any ideas why this might be? Is there any reason to use the 9600 in PS at all?
I can't figure out why the same tasks the 9400M run, causes the other card to run to hot and the fans kick into overdrive.
I just did a test where I did some sketching with both cards in Photoshop and the 9600M didn't have much of a performance increase, yet the fans were running at almost 4000 RPM.
It's almost like the card has no middle ground, it's like hard core, all the time.
Any ideas why this might be? Is there any reason to use the 9600 in PS at all?
Probably not max, but decent at least. D3 is being developed for windows and mac at the same time, so we don't have to worry about a bad port.
The 9600 can run Red Alert 3 at max settings very well under Windows (mac port was bad, so it lags much worse). That's the most demanding game I've tried, so draw your conclusions from that.
I only play Civ 3, Civ IV and the various expansions. Whether in OS X or Parallels/XP I stick with the 9400. There really isn't a reason for me to have the 9600 except it came with the computer (I wanted the 17" screen).
Tom
I am going to get a lot of crap for this, but honestly only having the 9400 I do not feel like I am missing much. I was worried about this as well when I was getting my replacement computer from Apple to replace that blasted faulty 8600 that died on my machine more than two times.
First of all, I do game, whether it's on the Mac side or Windows 7, I play 3D games. These games have ranged from Portal, America's Army 3 and Combat Arms all while also using Aero graphics. I have not noticed any stutter performance on Windows playing games or performance wise with just the 9400.
Actually I notice that the 9400 runs cooler than what the 8600 did. And with now visible side effects, really makes the card a plus. I know I will probably be flamed by some 9600 lovers though who will argue their microseconds differences in benchmarks, but for me being on the consumer and pro side of the argument, the card is better than most dedicated solutions I have seen in the past and really blew me away. I was worried I would see a performance decrease with all I did when I 'upgraded' to the newer system.
On the Mac side, animations are still very fluid and the only time I get a stutter I usually when an application goes rogue and memory leaks and hogs the system's resources. I have played COD4 on the mac side, Guitar Hero 3, Half Life 2 through a Wine-like wrapper and have not experienced any slowdown with the graphics in mid-high settings. In fact, most of those games, are ports of Windows games that are wrapped in something else and in theory still run smooth even though they are not really running natively on the Mac.
Though games, say 2-3 years down the road I would expect to start having issues with graphics in the mid range and possibly on the lower settings. You really can't expect any card though to have a long self-life though now-a-days and in 3-4 years I'll probably be pricing a new Mac anyhow so I don't really expect to see that day when this card can no longer handle basic gaming.
I also had a demo of Maya on here for a project, Adobe CS4 and Final Cut Pro and have not experienced any major set backs in any of those applications with what I use them for. If you would try to render a scene from say the Transformers movie out from a program like Maya, I would say that the 9600 would definitely finish faster by a noticeable difference.
I am a Digital Media major in school. I only really experienced some hiccups in Maya. I had some issues in Photoshop for the first time the other day while editing four 24+ mb pictures at the same time. Photoshop's memory in Activity Monitor was registering at 1,000 +.
I may see a tad difference when I plug in my 20" external monitor as a desktop solution in a few weeks and change the resolution from the 1400x900 now to something larger. I will be shutting the lid and using the external as the primary monitor when I am at my desk at home. But I am not sure if I will really see any change there. Guess time will tell.
First of all, I do game, whether it's on the Mac side or Windows 7, I play 3D games. These games have ranged from Portal, America's Army 3 and Combat Arms all while also using Aero graphics. I have not noticed any stutter performance on Windows playing games or performance wise with just the 9400.
Actually I notice that the 9400 runs cooler than what the 8600 did. And with now visible side effects, really makes the card a plus. I know I will probably be flamed by some 9600 lovers though who will argue their microseconds differences in benchmarks, but for me being on the consumer and pro side of the argument, the card is better than most dedicated solutions I have seen in the past and really blew me away. I was worried I would see a performance decrease with all I did when I 'upgraded' to the newer system.
On the Mac side, animations are still very fluid and the only time I get a stutter I usually when an application goes rogue and memory leaks and hogs the system's resources. I have played COD4 on the mac side, Guitar Hero 3, Half Life 2 through a Wine-like wrapper and have not experienced any slowdown with the graphics in mid-high settings. In fact, most of those games, are ports of Windows games that are wrapped in something else and in theory still run smooth even though they are not really running natively on the Mac.
Though games, say 2-3 years down the road I would expect to start having issues with graphics in the mid range and possibly on the lower settings. You really can't expect any card though to have a long self-life though now-a-days and in 3-4 years I'll probably be pricing a new Mac anyhow so I don't really expect to see that day when this card can no longer handle basic gaming.
I also had a demo of Maya on here for a project, Adobe CS4 and Final Cut Pro and have not experienced any major set backs in any of those applications with what I use them for. If you would try to render a scene from say the Transformers movie out from a program like Maya, I would say that the 9600 would definitely finish faster by a noticeable difference.
I am a Digital Media major in school. I only really experienced some hiccups in Maya. I had some issues in Photoshop for the first time the other day while editing four 24+ mb pictures at the same time. Photoshop's memory in Activity Monitor was registering at 1,000 +.
I may see a tad difference when I plug in my 20" external monitor as a desktop solution in a few weeks and change the resolution from the 1400x900 now to something larger. I will be shutting the lid and using the external as the primary monitor when I am at my desk at home. But I am not sure if I will really see any change there. Guess time will tell.