If they (discrete graphics) weren't available at all, who would be screaming bloody murder?
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.
The GPU Does NOT Matter
- Thread starter Dwalls90
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If they (discrete graphics) weren't available at all, who would be screaming bloody murder?
Hold on!! You started this thread claiming there will be no difference in snow leopard between the 9400m vs 9600m. Why should anyone listen to you? You are a random person on the forum spreading rumors but acting like you know everything. Move on, you made your point.
I forgot we should listen to someone that doesn't even own either of the cards.
Your response:
"Funny that I have a blackbook with neither GPU and do not plan on ugprading until Arrandale with a TRUELY strong GPU."
Classic I missed this one. You start a thread about how the GPU is not needed and then you claim you are waiting for an even more powerful GPU. LOL. Really, now go away.
Thanks for the interesting data.
What I see there shows basically what I would expect: the difference between the two GPUs is almost indistinguishable under an average desktop workload. As expected, the 9400M consumes slightly more CPU while performing the same graphics task - which I believe is largely attributable to the slower clock speed of the 9400 vs 9600.
At any rate, both are quite capable machines (just a couple years ago decoding a 720p video stream was a difficult task for most average hardware).
As you suggest, I would expect the performance gap to widen under heavier GPU workloads (although frankly watching a movie with a browser and mail client open is probably about as intense as your average user is gonna get). Isn't it great we have the choice available for those who might need it?
I learned that the GPU does matter after owning a Macbook for about a week. Using anything that was graphic intensive saw a major slowdown even coming from the Powerbook G4 (it had a Radeon 9600). I sometimes play golf on my computer and the 9400M would be a major setback.
Shared Memory
The 9600 graphics card has it own separate memory and its own separate processor. The 9400 has a slower GPU and shares the system memory with the main processor.
The main benefit of having the 9600 is that it will free up an additional block of system memory. Most normal use will not get close to needing this but it could effect system performance if you only have 2GB of RAM installed. Now that the base configurations for all the laptops, except the white one, have 4GB RAM, the need for the 9600 is narrowed to games and other 3d rendering needs.
So basically, it only matters if you know you need it. Also, with the 13" re-branding and that the base 15" comes without it, you can be in the 'MBP Club' without spending as much money.
The 9600 graphics card has it own separate memory and its own separate processor. The 9400 has a slower GPU and shares the system memory with the main processor.
The main benefit of having the 9600 is that it will free up an additional block of system memory. Most normal use will not get close to needing this but it could effect system performance if you only have 2GB of RAM installed. Now that the base configurations for all the laptops, except the white one, have 4GB RAM, the need for the 9600 is narrowed to games and other 3d rendering needs.
So basically, it only matters if you know you need it. Also, with the 13" re-branding and that the base 15" comes without it, you can be in the 'MBP Club' without spending as much money.
Core/shader clocks are 600/1200 MHz (9600) vs 450/1100 MHz (9400). The bandwidth is 25.6 GB/s vs 21 GB/s and the GFLOPS are 115.2 vs 52.8.
pwned
Because many people on this forum have no idea what they're talking about, and see "discrete graphics" as being better. The same way people buying cars assume 300 horsepower is better than 200, even if you never use more than 200hp in your daily commute.
The fact is, discrete graphics make no difference in Final Cut, and very little real difference in Photoshop. They do make a difference in Motion and Color, so you'll probably appreciate them, but the difference between 256 and 512MB of VRAM is nearly inconsequential. It's another misguided belief on the forum that "bigger is better".
There was a discussion above about whether discrete graphics are needed to push an external display. Honestly? What a load. Discrete graphics are not needed for that at all!
Overall, yes, discrete beats integrated. In some programs by a big margin. The question is, do you need them for your use? This forum tends to advise everyone just get discrete graphics, even though many, many users have no real use for them.
You could easily survive with the 15" MacBook Pro with the 9600 (for Color & Motion). If you want ExpressCard, the previous-gen 15" is a screaming deal right now. FWIW, you might appreciate ExpressCard since you could plug in another Firewire bus and run an external RAID hard drive array.
I want a MBP b/c I want my games to run better than my current MB =) and no don't tell me to get a desktop etc etc.
That's very interesting. I believe you're right, but do you have any benchmarks or numbers to show that 9600 vs 9400 does not really improve CS4 performance?
Gee, maybe the fact that Adobe and Nvidia/ATI never published such literature stating increased performance from GPU's
Wrong.
I never said there would be NO difference, I said the difference would NOT be worth $300 to those that DO NOT USE THE PROGRAMS WHICH RECEIVE PERFORMANCE BENEFITS. I never gave out facts, I never put out rumors.
Everyone is overseeing the key to this argument. OBVIOUSLY the 9600GT is a stronger card than the 9400M. OBVIOUSLY it's going to perform better and be worth the $300 to some users. HOWEVER, this performance boost is NOT needed by the majority of Macbook Pro customers! If you're on these forums, you're an enthusiast. You do NOT represent the entirety (nor majority) of Apple's customer base (sorry for the bad news!).
That said, just because YOU may find the 9600GT beneficial, does not mean everyone should have one. Apple has realized this, hence they released the 15" MBP without the 9600GT.
Fact:
The 9600GT is marginally a stronger card than the 9400M, (marginally!) especially if we were to compare the 9600GT to a HD4780.
Fact:
No one knows the importance of GPU's come OpenCL with Snow Leopard.
Inference:
Based on the fact Apple has had NOTHING to show of OpenCL performance, and are telling us that the 9400M and 9600GT are both to be supported, it's fair to say that the difference in performance will NOT be astounding. OpenCL is a VERY young technology, and any gains seen from it will be experimental. Expect to see gains come another generation of GPU's, long after this generation of MBP's.
My friend has a MB with the 9400M and my aunt has the MPB with the 9600GT. I have encoded videos on both to stream to the Apple TV, and I have watched videos on both computers. The conclusion? No difference in encoding time nor viewing quality. To me - this says that whatever this "gain" in performance per Quartz is granting, is not useful nor obvious to the user. Does this unnoticeable gain to a scenario that is more than everyday usage warrant a $300 upgrade? No.
Was this supposed to be a flame or a sad excuse for an argument? I do not need a GPU at this time, and the only time I max out my CPU usage (2.0ghz C2D) is when I'm video encoding. And guess what? No benchmarks nor releases from Apple saying video encoding will benefit from a stronger GPU.
Oops, I'm sorry, "redraw" time. I run CS4 on my 2.0Ghz Blackbook and have NEVER been slowed down. That said, not sure at all as to why a GPU would ever be needed to speed up a process.
I'm talking about meaningful processes, like video encoding or playing a video game that is CPU intensive but not GPU intensive (like that would ever exist).
Sorry to little to late. Your argument makes no sense anymore. Move on there is nothing to see here.
so why are you bitchin about? dont you have anything better to do? it does not concern you in any possible way...
so, i shall not see a difference between 8800GT and 9600M because apple hasnt shown us anything... ?
why should we see gains in another generation of GPU's, gains may be shown when the next generation comes out, but that still doesnt mean that then there wont be MBP users, and that difference between 9400M and 9600GT will be that small when technology evolves?
i know people that still have powerbook G4's, and when you will want to squeeze the last juice out of your computer, you will appreciate that few extra of the processing power...
so, i shall not see a difference between 8800GT and 9600M because apple hasnt shown us anything... ?
why should we see gains in another generation of GPU's, gains may be shown when the next generation comes out, but that still doesnt mean that then there wont be MBP users, and that difference between 9400M and 9600GT will be that small when technology evolves?
i know people that still have powerbook G4's, and when you will want to squeeze the last juice out of your computer, you will appreciate that few extra of the processing power...
your friend has the 9400m and your aunt has the 9600gt?
you do realize the 9600GT also has the 9400 right? why not test on that one system to get "real results"
because why ?
what to do then
I am reading all those threads but still confused ...
I am thinking to get a MBP 15", because a want a bigger display.
Also I read somewhere that SNOW LEOPARD will be very demanding on graphics.
So do you think that it will be better to get the dual GPU MBP or the basic one, with 9400 will be ok ?
Can it be that future vesions of OSX will be very hard on graphics ?
As far as I know we can not expend the GPU ona MBP, so better go to the dual 9400/9600 ?
thank you, and keep this forums alive, they are so helpfull
I am reading all those threads but still confused ...
I am thinking to get a MBP 15", because a want a bigger display.
Also I read somewhere that SNOW LEOPARD will be very demanding on graphics.
So do you think that it will be better to get the dual GPU MBP or the basic one, with 9400 will be ok ?
Can it be that future vesions of OSX will be very hard on graphics ?
As far as I know we can not expend the GPU ona MBP, so better go to the dual 9400/9600 ?
thank you, and keep this forums alive, they are so helpfull
get the 9600 combo if you ever want to game and take real advantage of future os and programs.
or go with the 9400m and be stuck with integrated graphics.
Okay, the way I see it, there are two types of people posting on this topic: People who have bought their Mac and known that it was essentially a larger version of the Macbook. Then, there are those who bought their Macbook Pros, and then JUST figured out that there is not much difference between the two lines of computers. Guess who is attacking Apple, and who is defending.
you will have to ask a developer, but as far as anyone is concerned, snow leopard should run better than leopard on all machines that support it.
i doubt itll be more demanding than leopard... but it will take more advantage of 9600m than 9400
i dont know who are you pointing your finger to, but i bought my unibody as soon as they got out. i wanted to buy the previous penryn, but waited because new ones were just behind the corner, and i needed one badly.
i then decided to go with the 512mb 2.53 version.
i dont regret my buy, using it for 7months and couldnt care less for the update and price drop.
ive earned more with this laptop than the price difference anyway, and i wouldnt have pulled it off without it...
visually, what, honestly, 50% of mac users care about, they appear as the same machines, the rename was logical, they went with the pro because it makes people feel they are actually doing something with their computers or whatever... they might as well named them all "macbooks"
A 218% difference in GFLOPS is not a small amount.
Video encoding would see massive speed improvements. That's not "strictly visual".
Please don't give us this BS. You can claim anything on these forums. For all we know, you haven't even touched a MBP (not a MPB!).