Really? Underclocked 9600m GT in 17" Unibody MacBook Pro?

[RX64MACBOOKPRO]

I have the 2009 17-inch MacBook Pro w/ windows xp sp3 installed and here's what I've found:

GPU-Z reports the following:

Core Clock: 500 MHz
Shader Clock: 1250 MHz
Memory Clock: 792 MHz x2

BUT when I got to Nvidia's Control Panel>help>system information:

Core Clock: 393 MHz
Shader Clock: 786 MHz
Memory Clock: 700 MHz x2

When I run a 3D Game or demo, these above clocks don't change at all...
Using NVIDIA Driver 179.28

Does anyone know what's going on here?

 

[Zenor]

Same here, using MBP 15 unibody. Maybe it's a driver bug?

 

[kastenbrust]

No, its no driver bug, Apple purposely underclocks the 9600M in all its Macbook Pro's. Just search the forum, theres loads of threads on this, noone really knows why they do this, but its probably the same reason that the Macbook Pro 15" cant take more than 6GB of RAM when its designed for up to 8GB and we know 8GB works.

https://forums.macrumors.com/gtsear...of=FORID:11&q=9600+underclocked&sa=Search#961

 

[infernohellion]

You think is it possible to reclock it to normal?

If there is would it be dangerous? I think it would especially with the heat.

 

[J the Ninja]

Yes, RivaTuner should be able to force it back to normal. I always thought the GPU underclock was applied by the OS X driver though, and didn't work in Windows. Odd...

 

[be300test]

the graphics chip in the mbp 15 and 17" are custom designed for apple, there not underclocked, your program is just reading the 9600 as a standard 9600 in most laptops.

the gpu is a combined 9600GT and 9400M(on one die) designed for apple by nvidia

overclocking it is no advisable on the unibody.

 

[jjahshik32]

the graphics chip in the mbp 15 and 17" are custom designed for apple, there not underclocked, your program is just reading the 9600 as a standard 9600 in most laptops.

the gpu is a combined 9600GT and 9400M(on one die) designed for apple by nvidia

overclocking it is no advisable on the unibody.

Actually it's just underclocked because apple doesn't build their gpu nvidia does.

Also this is strange because the previous gen 17" mbp is not as underclocked as the unibody mentioned by the op. I remember the previous gen 17" mbp had around 50mhz downclocked from it's original specs. But very close to the factory specs.

 

[kastenbrust]

lso this is strange because the previous gen 17" mbp is not as underclocked as the unibody mentioned by the op. I remember the previous gen 17" mbp had around 50mhz downclocked from it's original specs. But very close to the factory specs.

Yeah and look how many 8600 GT's from the Last Gen MBP had failures.... Nearly all.

The phrase was, that if yours hadn't had a failure yet, it was going to...
https://forums.macrumors.com/gtsear...f2mulpm&cof=FORID:11&q=8600+failure&sa=Search

 

[Eddyisgreat]

The 17" has more surface area and allows for a higher core and mem clock speed, this is also why there is the higher cpu clock speeds available.

Then again, i've overclocked my MBP beyond spec with rivatuner and it works great. No artifacts or anything. If it dies thats why I have applecare.

 

[jjahshik32]

Yeah and look how many 8600 GT's from the Last Gen MBP had failures.... Nearly all.

The phrase was, that if yours hadn't had a failure yet, it was going to...
https://forums.macrumors.com/gtsear...f2mulpm&cof=FORID:11&q=8600+failure&sa=Search

This thread is not about the failure rates of any gpu it's about the current 17" unibody being underclocked which is a shame because previously the perks of owning the 17" mbp over the 15" is for the higher clocks on he gpu due to the bigger casing and more efficient/bigger heatsinks.

The thing that dissapoints me is that under osx it's most likely downclocked as shown from the ops test under windows. Luckily though it can be overclocked to the factory settings under windows which shouldn't hurt your mbp let alone even overclocking it a little higher than the stock configuration.

And don't lecture me on the gpu failure rates of the 8600m gt cards Im the one that started the big thread about it on, Are all nvidia 8600m gt card owners screwed?!?

Btw not all nearly all 8600m gt cards have failed. It's just has a higher failure rate than the norm %.

 

[kastenbrust]

This thread is not about the failure rates of any gpu it's about the current 17" unibody being underclocked which is a shame because previously the perks of owning the 17" mbp over the 15" is for the higher clocks on he gpu due to the bigger casing and more efficient/bigger heatsinks.

The thing that dissapoints me is that under osx it's most likely downclocked as shown from the ops test under windows. Luckily though it can be overclocked to the factory settings under windows which shouldn't hurt your mbp let alone even overclocking it a little higher than the stock configuration.

And don't lecture me on the gpu failure rates of the 8600m gt cards Im the one that started the big thread about it on, Are all nvidia 8600m gt card owners screwed?!?

Btw not all nearly all 8600m gt cards have failed. It's just has a higher failure rate than the norm %.

Lol someones having a bad day. At what point was i specifically lecturing you?

 

[jjahshik32]

Lol someones having a bad day. At what point was i specifically lecturing you?

Well simply quoting me about something that's not even relavent to this thread and throwing a link at me as well.

Also there is no or shouldn't be any correlation between factory gpu clock=gpu failures. It should run the factory clock speed and still not fail. If anything if it does then we have another potential gpu crisis with the 9600m gt cards on our hands.

I would think apple underclocked the 17" unibody simply due to it being thinner and the newer casing + less heat due to complaints about it.

 

[kastenbrust]

I would think apple underclocked the 17" unibody simply due to it being thinner and the newer casing + less heat due to complaints about it.

The aluminum unibody has better cooling, everyone knows it, it even feels colder, so that theory = fail.
Run another one by me.
At least i had links for mine

 

[Quu]

the graphics chip in the mbp 15 and 17" are custom designed for apple, there not underclocked, your program is just reading the 9600 as a standard 9600 in most laptops.

the gpu is a combined 9600GT and 9400M(on one die) designed for apple by nvidia

overclocking it is no advisable on the unibody.

Ok you really do not know what you are talking about.

First of all the 9600GT and 9400M are not on a single die they are completely separate processors. The 9400M is an Integrated Chipset with Graphics co-processor on a single Die but the 9600GT is a completely separate processor on its own die separate from the 9400M IC.

Secondly it is not designed for these lower speeds. Apple purchase the chips in bulk from NVIDIA in a BGA socket design (Ball Grid Array) they then solder them to the Logic Board and apply the Clock rates that they want to be used. The clocks that NVIDIA reference are stable clocks for the chip but Apple choose to use lower clocks. That is their choice as they are not buying complete cards from NVIDIA they are just buying the Die.

You could put the clocks back to what NVIDIA reference for board designers but I wouldn't recommend it myself the thermals of the MacBook Pro have been tediously planned out by Apple, deviating from them (By increasing Clocks = Increases Heat) you could damage your notebook.

 

[jjahshik32]

The aluminum unibody has better cooling, everyone knows it, it even feels colder, so that theory = fail.
Run another one by me.
At least i had links for mine

Um no, nothing has failed. The unibody mbp is actually the same aluminum material as last gen. Also if anything the unibody mbp might run a bit cooler due to a better or more efficient chipset as to the previous gen mbp.

Also if you take account that the previous gen mbp has more loose or creaks in the casing and not 1 solid block it could have more areas for air to leak thus being cooler.

You have no proof that the unibody mbp has a better cooling system nor that it's cooler. I owned many previous gen and the current unibody 15" and to me it runs about the same in terms of heat.

Please stop shooting bs around these forums and your comments are so overly biased. I know I used to be like that with my own products thinking it's almighty superior.

Also judging by most of your comments you sound pretty immature, especially about fail?? Sounds like something a kid from a ps3 vs xbox 360 thread would counter with when someone saids one console is superior to another and in this case we all know that the xbox 360 is the better one. (this is a trap to see if you really are that immature).

 

[be300test]

Ok you really do not know what you are talking about.

First of all the 9600GT and 9400M are not on a single die they are completely separate processors. The 9400M is an Integrated Chipset with Graphics co-processor on a single Die but the 9600GT is a completely separate processor on its own die separate from the 9400M IC.

Secondly it is not designed for these lower speeds. Apple purchase the chips in bulk from NVIDIA in a BGA socket design (Ball Grid Array) they then solder them to the Logic Board and apply the Clock rates that they want to be used. The clocks that NVIDIA reference are stable clocks for the chip but Apple choose to use lower clocks. That is their choice as they are not buying complete cards from NVIDIA they are just buying the Die.

You could put the clocks back to what NVIDIA reference for board designers but I wouldn't recommend it myself the thermals of the MacBook Pro have been tediously planned out by Apple, deviating from them (By increasing Clocks = Increases Heat) you could damage your notebook.

hmm, maybe you should take apart your mbp , clear the paste off the gpu and read what it says...maybe some google research...might do you wonders....

 

[alphaod]

I have the 2009 17-inch MacBook Pro w/ windows xp sp3 installed and here's what I've found:

GPU-Z reports the following:

Core Clock: 500 MHz
Shader Clock: 1250 MHz
Memory Clock: 792 MHz x2

BUT when I got to Nvidia's Control Panel>help>system information:

Core Clock: 393 MHz
Shader Clock: 786 MHz
Memory Clock: 700 MHz x2

When I run a 3D Game or demo, these above clocks don't change at all...
Using NVIDIA Driver 179.28

Does anyone know what's going on here?

How do you view the clock in the Control Panel when you're running the game?

The clock it shows is for the base clock since that's what it runs at when you're not doing anything graphic intensive.

 

[kastenbrust]

Please stop shooting bs around these forums

Also if you take account that the previous gen mbp has more loose or creaks in the casing and not 1 solid block it could have more areas for air to leak thus being cooler.

Theres a phrase called take your own medicine....

 

[Abstract]

Also there is no or shouldn't be any correlation between factory gpu clock=gpu failures. It should run the factory clock speed and still not fail.

That's right.

However, if the reason Apple underclocks its GPU is because the inside of the machine gets too hot, then perhaps it wouldn't be good to increase the speed of the GPU beyond where it's currently set. I see no benefit for Apple to underclock the GPU unless there was a hardware issue with doing so.

lso this is strange because the previous gen 17" mbp is not as underclocked as the unibody mentioned by the op. I remember the previous gen 17" mbp had around 50mhz downclocked from it's original specs. But very close to the factory specs.

Yeah and look how many 8600 GT's from the Last Gen MBP had failures.... Nearly all.

The phrase was, that if yours hadn't had a failure yet, it was going to...
https://forums.macrumors.com/gtsear...f2mulpm&cof=FORID:11&q=8600+failure&sa=Search

You're right about the 8600, but that was due to poor quality materials used that fell apart even under the heat produced through normal use.

Those did not fail because because Apple didn't underclock the previous 17" MBP as much as they did the current generation, as you imply. You shouldn't have to underclock the GPU so that it doesn't fall apart.

 

[Quu]

hmm, maybe you should take apart your mbp , clear the paste off the gpu and read what it says...maybe some google research...might do you wonders....

Or perhaps it would do you wonders and save yourself from looking uneducated when it comes to computer Hardware.

ifixit took their 17" MacBook Pro apart for me and snapped Pictures of all the components: http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/First-Look/MacBook-Pro-17-Inch-Unibody/618/3

I have composited there Images in to this easy to read slide which clearly illustrates the TWO separate NVIDIA processors, the 9400M (GPU+Chipset) in the Centre and the 9600GT (Discrete GPU) in the bottom left. I also pointed out the Intel CPU at the top with a zoom in on the company name.

 

[ayeying]

Owned.

Furthermore, the 15" is the same motherboard layout/style. It has the same 3 chips also. So don't say "oh, its the 17" so its different"

 

[RX64MACBOOKPRO]

How do you view the clock in the Control Panel when you're running the game?

The clock it shows is for the base clock since that's what it runs at when you're not doing anything graphic intensive.

OK, here are the screenshots that shows it:

-No 3D App or Games running
-3D Nvidia Demo App

When running a 3D App, the fans kick in when it hits 75+ Degrees Celsius

 

[jjahshik32]

Theres a phrase called take your own medicine....

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote because you posting the picture of the face palm (probably ripped it off from someone else, I've seen it posted by someone else many times) doesnt make any sense.

Incase you didnt understand my original statement, I have stated that since the previous gen mbp have creaks and more air can leave the mbp's casing the previous gen mbp runs cooler. Which is common sense.

 

[simonpickard]

Ok here's a question then....

If you change the video card settings back to their Nvidia default and your macbook pro overheats and dies have you done anything wrong / would apple be able to tell?

Regards,
Simon

 

[Hack On Wheels]

The aluminum unibody has better cooling, everyone knows it, it even feels colder, so that theory = fail.
Run another one by me.
At least i had links for mine

The fact that the casing feels cooler could actually mean that it has worse cooling. The casing would naturally be a pretty good heatsink, with decent thermal mass, pretty good surface area, and with the relatively good thermal conductivity of aluminum. Heat transfer is best done by direct conduction, not by radiation or convection. So the cooling might then actually be best if the processor and all the parts that give off a lot of heat had a direct thermal path to the housing. This would then mean that the unibody casing would feel much warmer/hotter, while the precious internals of the computer would be much cooler as the heat could transfer away better/faster. If the unibody casing does indeed typically feel cooler, this could actually be a result of the internals being thermally insulated, and actually having a lot of heat trapped inside them. This could then actually be a step in the wrong direction.

Stating hopeful-at-best possibilities as fact = fail.