Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
For some reason MacRumors users are never happy, no matter what Apple does. Plastic MB users whined about cracks, yellowing, etc on their MBs and wanted alu bodies.

When MBs got those alu bodies, people whined it blurred the line between MBP and MB, so Apple renamed the MB while adding a couple of "Pro" features. Now, MB and MBP are separated by case material as it have been prior to Unibody. People whine that their 2000$ MBP has the same name as 1200$ MBP and so feel a need to whine a little more.

There was no Apple notebook larger than 13" under 2000$. People whined. Now Apple introduced such model and priced it at a very nice 1700$. Now people whine it doesn't have all the features of the 2000$ model.

I just don't get it :confused:
because appearently 50% of apple users dont use their computers to work.
if someone can afford to be without a computer for two weeks in order to get a 0.1ghz increase in CPU thats beyond me... i have a desktop and i know right now id be shaking because i couldnt work if someone took the laptop away.
so for most people, the 1000$ increase in 2" screen and 0.5ghz of cpu DOESNT MATTER. because Safari wont work any faster with it. not to mention 1.5 SATA controllers. for what, encoding home movie collections? thats hardly "pro", thats hardly anything, its a 1000$ worth of entertainment.
so dont try to justify the allegedly 300$ GPU, if you cant justify a 0.5 CPU increase for anything than recoding personal movie collections.

so this thread is pointless from the beginning, you can go so far that you can say that the more than half users that have a MBP DONT NEED more than eee PC for what they do.
 
Very Confused

I have read all the back and forth here and still have a question.

Personally, I am most certainly not a pro user. Computers are fun and they manage my 2 TB video collection. So the most "intensive" work I do is the video encodes to get everything into itunes.

So my question is, does the discrete video card help encode video today?

If Yes, is it an actual speed improvement or does it just offload the processes to the GPU a la a hardware encoder such as a the Turbo H.264 stick from Elgato.

If No, will it make a difference in Snow Leopard. And if it will make a difference, can we compare it again to the Turbo H.264.

For those not familiar with the Turbo stick. It is a bit faster than Handbrake, visualhub, etc. But it does not tax the computer at all.
 
I have read all the back and forth here and still have a question.

Personally, I am most certainly not a pro user. Computers are fun and they manage my 2 TB video collection. So the most "intensive" work I do is the video encodes to get everything into itunes.

So my question is, does the discrete video card help encode video today?

If Yes, is it an actual speed improvement or does it just offload the processes to the GPU a la a hardware encoder such as a the Turbo H.264 stick from Elgato.

If No, will it make a difference in Snow Leopard. And if it will make a difference, can we compare it again to the Turbo H.264.

For those not familiar with the Turbo stick. It is a bit faster than Handbrake, visualhub, etc. But it does not tax the computer at all.

Right now there's no difference if you're using 9400 or 9600 for that. Currently its all about CPU.

Snow Leopard might change that, but nobody can tell you how much of an improvement there will be, if any.
 
id say difference its negligable.
ill do the evan benchmark with logic with both cards running just for kicks
 
I personally use the faster GPU for tasks designed for the GPU, such as Folding at Home. It's much faster at "folding" proteins than the CPU, even the Core 2 Duos / Quads.

I think what the OP is saying, "The GPU does NOT matter" is a broad term. For most users, like web surfing, and word processing, the GPU doesn't do much. But for those who actually stress their machines much, it does matter, and the performance is great. I tried CoD4 with the 9400M, it can't touch the framerates of the 9600MGT, let alone playing at the same quality settings.
 
GPU matters for certain tasks (F@H, 3D Work, Quality Movie playback). Im new to Mac but learning as I go, but i know this much from working on Linux, you dont need a super hardcore gfx card to do cpu tasks. Stuff like web surfing, email, etc. do NOT use the GPU, they use CPU. Snow Leopard might change how some of these tasks are handled (Example would be Flash in Safari being handled with GPU instead of CPU, etc.). Personally I have a HBP (Hack Book Pro) and running without QE is like using GMA950, it doesnt help when running iWeb or VLC. GPU matters for video and gaming but not for the basic tasks...
 
GPU matters for certain tasks (F@H, 3D Work, Quality Movie playback). Im new to Mac but learning as I go, but i know this much from working on Linux, you dont need a super hardcore gfx card to do cpu tasks. Stuff like web surfing, email, etc. do NOT use the GPU, they use CPU. Snow Leopard might change how some of these tasks are handled (Example would be Flash in Safari being handled with GPU instead of CPU, etc.). Personally I have a HBP (Hack Book Pro) and running without QE is like using GMA950, it doesnt help when running iWeb or VLC. GPU matters for video and gaming but not for the basic tasks...

Could you please tell me how does GPU matter in video playback in OS X?

The only thing that comes to mind is new nvidias accelerating H.264 in quicktime.
 
Could you please tell me how does GPU matter in video playback in OS X?

The only thing that comes to mind is new nvidias accelerating H.264 in quicktime.

That and certian HQ video, plus if QE isnt supported/enabled for some reason, your up sh** creek if you want to use anything like Time Machine (the graphical part to select your backup) or any full screen video app.
 
That and certian HQ video, plus if QE isnt supported/enabled for some reason, your up sh** creek if you want to use anything like Time Machine (the graphical part to select your backup) or any full screen video app.

This is done smoothly even by my GMA950, so you point?
 
not true, not smooth on GMA950 on Hacks, and can 950 play BR rips? I dont think so.

Why would I lie about it?

I never tried actual BR rips, but I've watched plenty of 1080p videos with bitrates over 10 Mbit and they all were smooth. As is Spaces animation with 6 spaces full of windows, Expose, CoverFlow, etc.

Anyway, remember, this thread is about Geforce 9600 vs 9400, so what 9600 does compared to 9400 in these tasks to make it worth the upgrade cost?
 
Why would I lie about it?

I never tried actual BR rips, but I've watched plenty of 1080p videos with bitrates over 10 Mbit and they all were smooth. As is Spaces animation with 6 spaces full of windows, Expose, CoverFlow, etc.

Anyway, remember, this thread is about Geforce 9600 vs 9400, so what 9600 does compared to 9400 in these tasks to make it worth the upgrade cost?

I'm not saying your lying about it, im just saying that GMA950 cant handle bluray. Thats a known fact. Doesnt matter that its in OS X. GeForce 9600 vs 9400? All depends on the architecture. Hell, a well architectured 8600 could beat a 9600 hands down. Personally Ive never used the 9400 or 9600, but I would say 9400 is probably better for the common end user.
 
I'm not saying your lying about it, im just saying that GMA950 cant handle bluray. Thats a known fact. Doesnt matter that its in OS X. GeForce 9600 vs 9400? All depends on the architecture. Hell, a well architectured 8600 could beat a 9600 hands down. Personally Ive never used the 9400 or 9600, but I would say 9400 is probably better for the common end user.

/thread
 
I'm not saying your lying about it, im just saying that GMA950 cant handle bluray. Thats a known fact. Doesnt matter that its in OS X. GeForce 9600 vs 9400? All depends on the architecture. Hell, a well architectured 8600 could beat a 9600 hands down. Personally Ive never used the 9400 or 9600, but I would say 9400 is probably better for the common end user.

The 9600 is essentially a 8600 with a die-shrink [with a few enhancements], so I don't know why you would make a preposterous statement suggesting that the 8600 could be better than the 9600—unless you're looking for a space heater.

---

Again going back to the discussion, the 9400M should be adequate for most tasks, but just because not every needs it all the time does not make it useless; this is why Apple is taking away the ExpressCard slot for a less-desirable SD slot and not offering matte displays on the 13" and 15" models.

The 9600M is a lot more powerful the 9400M and don't forget you are not using RAM when you use the dedicated video card; and GPU accelerated applications will performance a lot better.
 
Please, get your head out of your butt.

The hardware itself never made the divide between MB and MBP. You know what did? The imaginary line in people's minds.

I find it laughable that so many people are angry that there is a MBP offering without a graphics card, when many people with a MBP NEVER USED IT. People that are calling this stupid, are sour towards them no longer having the 'best' MBP, or are downright tools.

Just because many people who bought a MBP never used the graphics card doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been labeled a MBP and those with integrated graphics card shouldn't be a MB. What kind of argument is that?

Those people just bought a MBP because they wanted the name. That doesn't mean it's not worthy of the pro model name all of a sudden.

Relax dude. Your argument is emotional, not logical.
 
Originally Posted by Dwalls90
Please, get your head out of your butt.

The hardware itself never made the divide between MB and MBP. You know what did? The imaginary line in people's minds.

I find it laughable that so many people are angry that there is a MBP offering without a graphics card, when many people with a MBP NEVER USED IT. People that are calling this stupid, are sour towards them no longer having the 'best' MBP, or are downright tools.

dude, i get the discrete graphics card even though i dont use it
i simply get it to show it off and make other people feel inferior

as a matter of fact, this reminds me.. i am pissed that apple introduced the MBP 13" line... now the pro name had deteriorated...


dude, no one uses discrete graphics card, everyone uses it simply for the name...
 
Same if you're just going to be using Internet, iTunes, iPhoto, and typing up some notes, you don't need the very best laptop or keep waiting.
 
Obviously the OP is a rather ignorant person by simple virtue of thinking the 9600GT is merely a little better than a 9400M.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9600M-GT.9449.0.html

The 9600GT is close to 2x the performance of the 9400M in some applications. ;)

OP obviously has no use for it though, and doesn't know enough about it to be making any intelligent comments either. :rolleyes:

At least the OP knows what he's talking about. The 9600M GT (not GT, that's a desktop card genius) is 2x faster blah blah blah. But ONLY in certain conditions. Photoshop won't benefit from it. FC won't benefit from it. The GPU is used for displaying things on the screen. High FPS applications like gaming will tax the GPU a lot.

The OP hasn't claimed the 9600M GT is merely a little better. You're just twisting facts. At least the OP knows what a GPU is used for and not just quoting some benchmarks he doesn't understand (you).
 
dude, i get the discrete graphics card even though i dont use it
i simply get it to show it off and make other people feel inferior

as a matter of fact, this reminds me.. i am pissed that apple introduced the MBP 13" line... now the pro name had deteriorated...


dude, no one uses discrete graphics card, everyone uses it simply for the name...

Wow, we need more people like you in the world. Our failing economy will be up in no time. People that buy simply to make other people feel inferior. If I drove a Porsche while you drove a BMW, would that make you feel inferior? The Pro moniker is just a name. Like you're just being a jerk and showing off to other people. There's tons of people who are richer than you with better stuff.
 
i believe that was a really poor attempt of sarcasm...

anyway, why are you only talking about the fact what 9400m doesnt give you in comparison with 9600?
what about what iT DOESNT TAKE AWAY? << significant.
sheesh
 
Why do people assume that because a notebook carries a Pro label that only professionals should use it?

'Pro' is a product line, not their target market. In the same way that the Xbox 'Pro' or 'Elite' are not aimed at just professional or elite gamers.

Stop getting hung up on a product name.

I personally opted for the 9600M GT, not necessarily because I need it now, but this Macbook is going to last me a fews years and who knows what I'll need my Macbook for in the future. People's needs change, don't mock people for paying extra for something that they'll use in the future, it's called 'planning'.
 
On my MBP 17" I notice a rather significant difference between the 9400M and the 9600M even in relatively menial tasks. It might not be as much of an issue with the 15" model, but the 17" has 78% more pixels to deal with and the 9400M often buckles under that weight.

You can see the difference on simple stuff like Exposé and Dock animations. For example, I've dragged the Applications folder to the Dock for quick access. Since this folder is crammed with stuff, I have to go with either Grid or List view, as the Fan view will only show a fraction of the contents. If I use the 9600M, either view looks fine. If I use the 9400M, the following happens:

Grid: When I click the App folder icon in the Dock, the animation looks like the 9400M is trying to say "AAARRGH MY HEAD.... MY BACK.... KILL ME PLEASE... JUST SHOOT ME.... HAVE MERCY". Visually it might be described as something that looks like a framerate of 3-4 fps, it goes chop-chop-chop before the grid finally appears in full view. Glitchy, ugly.

List: When I scroll up and down the list of apps, the 9400M can't keep up with redrawing, so I get these ugly chessboard artifacts (dark, square gaps appear in random places all over the white list until I stop scrolling).

Even Exposé animations are a little jerky with the 9400M if I have a lot of windows open. Scrolling in Safari is jerky too. I have a Logitech mouse with once of those free-spinning metal scroll wheels with momentum, it allows me to scroll really fast. The scrolling is relatively smooth with the 9600M but the 9400M barely bothers to redraw, it just kinda draft-dodges on me until the scrolling ends.

So no, I don't agree that you have to be a serious gamer or CAD nut to have any use for the 9600M. The difference is evident just in everyday Leopard UI animations and transitions. If you're not noticing a difference on your 13" or 15" you'll most certainly notice it if you plug in an external screen with 1920x1200 resolution (or, god forbid, 2560x1600).
 
On my MBP 17" I notice a rather significant difference between the 9400M and the 9600M even in relatively menial tasks. It might not be as much of an issue with the 15" model, but the 17" has 78% more pixels to deal with and the 9400M often buckles under that weight.

You can see the difference on simple stuff like Exposé and Dock animations. For example, I've dragged the Applications folder to the Dock for quick access. Since this folder is crammed with stuff, I have to go with either Grid or List view, as the Fan view will only show a fraction of the contents. If I use the 9600M, either view looks fine. If I use the 9400M, the following happens:

Grid: When I click the App folder icon in the Dock, the animation looks like the 9400M is trying to say "AAARRGH MY HEAD.... MY BACK.... KILL ME PLEASE... JUST SHOOT ME.... HAVE MERCY". Visually it might be described as something that looks like a framerate of 3-4 fps, it goes chop-chop-chop before the grid finally appears in full view. Glitchy, ugly.

List: When I scroll up and down the list of apps, the 9400M can't keep up with redrawing, so I get these ugly chessboard artifacts (dark, square gaps appear in random places all over the white list until I stop scrolling).

Even Exposé animations are a little jerky with the 9400M if I have a lot of windows open. Scrolling in Safari is jerky too. I have a Logitech mouse with once of those free-spinning metal scroll wheels with momentum, it allows me to scroll really fast. The scrolling is relatively smooth with the 9600M but the 9400M barely bothers to redraw, it just kinda draft-dodges on me until the scrolling ends.

So no, I don't agree that you have to be a serious gamer or CAD nut to have any use for the 9600M. The difference is evident just in everyday Leopard UI animations and transitions. If you're not noticing a difference on your 13" or 15" you'll most certainly notice it if you plug in an external screen with 1920x1200 resolution (or, god forbid, 2560x1600).
Are your results when you're plugged in or on battery? I've noticed that the GPU is actually underpowered on battery and the 9400m gets a tiny bit sluggish with leopard animations. Once the system is plugged in however the GPU goes back up to full speed and everything is perfectly smooth.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.