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.
Seriously, all BS aside, how much better really is the 9400M?
- Thread starter olikid
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3432&p=4
9400 can run Crysis at a playable 30.1 FPS 1024x768 low detail
9400 can run Crysis at a playable 30.1 FPS 1024x768 low detail
Benchmarks people, benchmarks.
The 9400 is just a "blabla" with a new name ect. will not help most of us. Benchmarks are clear numbers that give a clear indicaiton of a systems performance. A 3dMark06 test of the new MB would be great... more "as I stated earlier, this card sucks" will not help much.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be an ass here. Opinions are different, where raw numbers are easier to trust.
The 9400 is just a "blabla" with a new name ect. will not help most of us. Benchmarks are clear numbers that give a clear indicaiton of a systems performance. A 3dMark06 test of the new MB would be great... more "as I stated earlier, this card sucks" will not help much.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be an ass here. Opinions are different, where raw numbers are easier to trust.
I can't seem to pull up your link..but I have a feeling that this is the discreet 9400 graphics card, not the integrated one. Different cards...different results.
I just want to know how well I will be able to play CoD4 on the new macbook. I'm not looking for intense gaming, just smooth, none or very few skips, just playable without struggling or getting frustrated. Thanks
MBP will have 2 chips. The integrated 9400M for lower power consumption and then a discreet 9600 chip for gaming apps with either 256 or 512mb.
I don't think anybody knows yet. All just speculation. Wait a few days till it gets into the hands of benchmarkers and actual users that can share their experiences with you.
I have question that is not related to gaming.
How much improvement would I get from the new MacBook (9400M) over the old white MacBook (intel X3100) in Adobe's Creative Suite 3 and 4(if it is possible to guess that)?
How much improvement would I get from the new MacBook (9400M) over the old white MacBook (intel X3100) in Adobe's Creative Suite 3 and 4(if it is possible to guess that)?
I read that Anantech article but I'm still confused. Maybe it's with the naming schemes.
How would the 9400M in the new Macbook, being still an "integrated" graphics core, compare to say a 9300M GS with 512MB of memory discrete graphics core in, say, the HP dv3500t?
I'm thinking the discrete core will still be loads faster on things like games?
How would the 9400M in the new Macbook, being still an "integrated" graphics core, compare to say a 9300M GS with 512MB of memory discrete graphics core in, say, the HP dv3500t?
I'm thinking the discrete core will still be loads faster on things like games?
While we wait for some usermade benchmarks, I just wanted to post what was said on notebookcheck.com earlier today:
"The new body is accompanied by brand new components in the inside. Especially the integrated chipset from Nvidia is noteworthy. It is called Nvidia GeForce 9400M (sadly the same name as the combination from 9100M + 9300M GS) and should be up to 6x faster than the old Intel GMA X3100 (from the old MacBook). Sources speak from 2000 3DMark06 points which should place the graphics card a bit above the 9300M GS (dedicated!)."
The 9300M GS (dedicated) scored 1832 points in 3dMark06 in notebookcheck.com's test. Other people have compared the 9400M to the older 8400M GS, but that card (dedicated) only scored 1380 points.
As i said, we should wait for some real benchmarks before making any decisions, but this looks good so far.
Source: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Newsentry.153+M5cdbb6dc000.0.html
"The new body is accompanied by brand new components in the inside. Especially the integrated chipset from Nvidia is noteworthy. It is called Nvidia GeForce 9400M (sadly the same name as the combination from 9100M + 9300M GS) and should be up to 6x faster than the old Intel GMA X3100 (from the old MacBook). Sources speak from 2000 3DMark06 points which should place the graphics card a bit above the 9300M GS (dedicated!)."
The 9300M GS (dedicated) scored 1832 points in 3dMark06 in notebookcheck.com's test. Other people have compared the 9400M to the older 8400M GS, but that card (dedicated) only scored 1380 points.
As i said, we should wait for some real benchmarks before making any decisions, but this looks good so far.
Source: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Newsentry.153+M5cdbb6dc000.0.html
When Apple was talking about nVidia's 9400M is 5x faster then intel's X3100, is that only for 3D applications/games or also normal 2D applications like Firefox or even just the appearance of MacOSX?
I am considering getting an white MacBook -> I only need to be able to run the Adobe Creative Suite Web Premium (probably CS4) on it - but no games at all.
I am considering getting an white MacBook -> I only need to be able to run the Adobe Creative Suite Web Premium (probably CS4) on it - but no games at all.
This has probably been posted elsewhere but Macworld has posted some benches here http://www.macworld.com/article/136214/2008/10/macbookbenchmarks.html?lsrc=top_1the new books can play quake 4 the old ones cant. 39 frames vs 8. Intelcrapographics are history!
Really? That good, huh? ... Were there any dips from the 40fps that are worth mentioning? Sounds like this Macbook might be a strong contender for a LAN party machine...