Seriously, all BS aside, how much better really is the 9400M?

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by olikid, Oct 14, 2008.

  1. olikid macrumors newbie

    olikid

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    #1
    So I've been looking forward to the MB/MBP update for a while now, and was *really* planning on getting my hands on one of the 15" models - trouble is, I honestly find the new 15" FUGLY. Don't ask why, but I think it just looks a bit goofy.

    They're also more expensive, and I like the portability and general form of the 13" so Im going to get one of those. I think.

    I'd like to have a dedicated graphics hard, having been unable to play pretty much any games on my current machine, so I was wondering if anyone had any idea - how much better is the 9400M going to be than the current Intel option?

    Also, I saw this on the MBP promo page - does it mean that there really isn't a lot of difference between the two cards?

    [​IMG]

    6.2x better - whatever, all I really care is that it's a marked improvement, and not only that, but I'll be able to play the odd game on it without being pissed at how bad it looks or how low the frame rate is...

    I'm not a big gamer so don't care all that much about it being incredible, just would like to know it's worth (some) of the premium I'll be paying for the machine so any help would be wicked. Thanks.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    You should have a graph of the $5.00 Integrated graphics from Intel or is that Mattel? Anyways Apple says they are 5 times faster then the integrated crap.

    At least Apple has seen the error and corrected it. Going Intel graphics was a huge step backwards. Now at least the new Books will be able to game and play todays games. Before was like you have integrated what?FORGET IT!:D
     
  3. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #3
    Sorry but the only way you'll be able to play modern games is on the absolute lowest resolution and detail settings.

    Unlike the GeForce 8400M GS which can play modern games at medium settings across the board.

    Apple claims their IGP is 5x faster than the Intel stuff. But their benchmark is flawed, using games that the Intel GPUs could NEVER run properly due to programming and drivers.
     
  4. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #4
    I don't know if these figures will help you at all. Seems like it will be substantially better than the intel integrated graphics, but still worse than the 8600 in the (now) last gen MBPs. So I'm guessing for "light" gaming, you'd be fine. Just don't turn those setting up too high on the newer games.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  5. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #5
    As I said in my post above yours, Apple's numbers are skewed. They're basing their numbers on a handful of games that Intel GPUs could never run playable at all.

    In real world situation, Apple's GeForce 9400M is not anywhere near as fast as the dedicated 9400M cards and its still nowhere near as fast as the previous generation 8400M GS.
     
  6. Phillyzero macrumors regular

    Phillyzero

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    #6
    Agreed, playing modern games will probably be on low settings (you're going to be running pretty low FPS on those).

    To say that it is X times faster than the Intel is meaningless, ANYTHING not integrated will run faster than the GMA3100x. Only now you 'could' play a modern game on low settings instead of burning out your integrated card playing WoW on low settings.
     
  7. mike... macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #7
    You must be working for nvidia or making that up. Or you have benchmarks to prove what you're saying...
     
  8. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #8
    Point well taken. I don't disagree, and I also tend to look at apple's benchmark figures with skepticism. Clearly a dedicated card is going to blow an integrated one out of the water. But, as to just how well it will play recent games with low settings? I guess "better than intel" is about all we can say with certainty. We might just have to wait until someone unbiased buys one and runs the games and gives us some more data.
     
  9. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #9
    Go look at nvidia's page.

    The 9400M is based on the 9100 IGP, just with controller chips thrown in too.

    The 9400M GS and 8400M GS are dedicated processors with dedicated memory, more processing cores, etc.

    Its common sense.
     
  10. kolax macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #10
    The NVIDIA 9400M is an integrated graphics chip..
     
  11. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #11
    The card Apple is using is NOT dedicated. It's an IGP based on the 9100. The 9400M GS and 9400M in the MacBooks are two totally different beasts and its obvious that Apple and nvidia used this naming scheme to introduce the confusion about the product that we're seeing now.
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    So could you actually bring some benchmark info for us or are you just gonna tell us wat its based on man?
     
  13. 103734 Guest

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    #13
    I just want to know if I can run Counter Strike Source and Team Fortress 2 on it!!
     
  14. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #14
    Are you freaking serious? Are you that much of an Apple fan that you have to demand benchmarks to show how slow the 9100 is compared to old dedicated graphics?

    The 9100 is basically a new version of the 8200M IGP. Go look up benchmarks on that.
     
  15. Winter Charm macrumors 6502a

    Winter Charm

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    #15
    The 8400M GS can play Crysis on decent settings at about 30-40 Fps... there are several youtube videos on this... and i'm speculating that the 9400M could do a lot better... maybe up to 50 Fps on same detail settings or 30-35 Fps on High setting in crysis..

    Here's the vid i'm talking about:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxEBMqcGMn4&feature=related

    so dont say that im not proving my point!

    seriously for the macbook pro thouhg, its not that huge of an improvement, but for the small macbooks.. the performance increase is amazing ... (the old x3100 cant even RUN crysis higher than 8 fps (i tried this on my friend's dell))

    Once again, i'm happy with what Jobs has given to us! :apple:
     
  16. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #16
    I know. Let me quote myself and fix it up for clarity.

     
  17. Winter Charm macrumors 6502a

    Winter Charm

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    #17
    Easily over 40 Fps =D
     
  18. powersurge macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Location:
    Pensacola, FL
    #18
    As I posted in another thread (same topic different sub forum) I'm waiting until I see some hard benchmarks (FPS) as I'm worried about the gaming performance of a GPU using SHARED memory. Something tells me the 9400 in the MB will be slower than the current 8400's with dedicated memory and if thats the case I'm going to just have to put aside some extra cash toward a MBP even though I'd rather have the smaller sized MB. (I have a Vista desktop for gaming but I gotta feed the fix a little on the go :D )
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    No im not that big an apple fan, Im that big a "dont listen to just one guy that based his answers on uncertainty" fan.

    I'm not up to snuff on my GPU tech, so i was asking you to explain. I also dont tend to beleive people when they are making assumptions. "basically a new version of the 82000M" - yea that really tells me alot. If its "basically" the same then that means at some point somethings different, so im asking what is it.

    I'm also looking for real benchmarks on the actual product, not just assumptions.
     
  20. olikid thread starter macrumors newbie

    olikid

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    #20
    Well, I've got a first gen 2.0ghz MB with 2gig of Ram, so I really want to make sure that it's a decent improvement when I make the upgrade.

    I know apple's 'benchmarking' is pretty much BS, and without wanting to wait until Tom's Hardware test it, can I assume then that if I have a look at any of the numbers for the 9100 IGP will tell me pretty much everything I need to know?

    Thanks for all the help!
     
  21. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #21
    That will definitely be a "decent improvement." :)
     
  22. PeterQC macrumors 6502a

    PeterQC

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    #22
    Actually, in the video it's a last generation MBP, which mean it has a 8600m (GT or not I don't know) with 256/512mb of Ram. Which mean you'll get worse performance with the 9400m, around half to quarter less power.
     
  23. olikid thread starter macrumors newbie

    olikid

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    #23
    Just what I needed to know... Thanks!
     
  24. 103734 Guest

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    #24
    either way im buying a macbook pro or a macbook tomorrow so I want to know!!!
     
  25. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #25
    As I already wrote in another forum...

    The 9400M appears to be similar to 9100M, but it will have double number of shader units. So, I take that half of the 8600GT performance is realistic, maybe more with shader-intensive (not bandwidth-intensive) applications. I guess most MMOs and older games can be played without any problems, probably even with some AA on. Newer games should also be playable on low settings (I played Crysis with 7900GS and it was, well, ok. I think 9400M won't be slower).
     

Share This Page