Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Also, after activating the 9600 under OS X it seems to generate 10C more heat, keeping my average at 71-72C unless I turn the fans up to 4000rpm from the default 2000rpm. then it drops to 53C (versus 43C on the 9400). For general browsing, ofc and and e-mail there is no difference in performance. I will put it back to 9400.

Cheers,
 
Also, after activating the 9600 under OS X it seems to generate 10C more heat, keeping my average at 71-72C unless I turn the fans up to 4000rpm from the default 2000rpm. then it drops to 53C (versus 43C on the 9400). For general browsing, ofc and and e-mail there is no difference in performance. I will put it back to 9400.

Cheers,

yeah , it does produce significantly more heat.
 
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).

Well, yea. The 9400M is barely powerful enough to power an LCD of that resolution. The thing is, as resolution increases, more powerful video cards are needed. That said, the 9400M is probably barely strong enough to power a screen of that size.
 
Will people PLEASE stop whining about how the new low-end MBP has the 9400M and not the 9600 GT? It kills me to see people claiming that the 9400 M suits their needs for "video editing". Video Cards do NOT have ANY performance impact on ANY processes except those strictly visual. These strictly visually intensive tasks include 3D design/Auto-Cad and heavy duty gaming. A 9600GT will NOT enhance the color quality or performance of working in Photoshop, LogicPro, or any other non-gaming, non-3D program. For almost the majority of you, the 9400M is MORE than enough video processing power.

Another common misconception is that the Memory on a video card has a heavy impact on performance. VRAM (GPU memory) has less than 5% of a change in GPU performance as well. The architecture of the GPU is MUCH more important than the memory strapped onto it. A 9400M with 512mb shared will still be a worse GPU than a 9600GT with 256mb.

That said, can people please stop complaining about the lack of the 9600GT in the lower end MBP's, and more importantly, start understanding what GPU's are actually used for?

I think it's obvious that (until recently) the graphics chip has been only truely useful for graphics based tasks.

You are wrong to say performance is less than 5% with more VRAM, because it depends on what you're doing. Games that can saturate the texture ram (with huge uncompressed textures) will perform better with more VRAM.

The 9400M actually shares the main system RAM, which is much slower due to the way motherboards are (currently) designed. This is changing though and there are many possible solutions being researched.

Reasons why the 9600 GT is good for the 'non' pro consumer

I think you're missing an important point, nVidia, Apple and Intel are all currently working towards making their hardware/software utilize the GPU extensively. Whether or not people realize the benefits today is a moot point, many Mac users also buy with the mindset to future proof their laptops for a 3-5 year time horizon (I do). With the current crop of laptops, it makes ideal sense to buy the 9400M + 9600 GT because Apple has promised to support it with OpenCL. This will make a difference, I fully expect Apple to integrate OpenCL in all their iLife applications, the iPhotos face recognition feature, garage band, Movie Maker will all see performance increases with the 9600 GT over a 9400M.

You can expect to see nearly 4x performance in OpenCL on a 9600 GT compared to a 9400M.

Whether or not these features are worth the money to you or someone else is up to them. But to simply say there's no benefit at all is plainly wrong.

Reasons why the 9600 GT is good for the pro consumer

It's been pointed out already Photoshop has some built in GPU enhancements. With Snow Leopard (as a mac developer myself) it's clear Apple is sending a message to developers that it fully intends to foster support for a truly multithreaded/multi-core environment that blurs the lines between GPU/CPU. Pro's can expect more of their applications to use the GPU in more inventive ways, that's a fact.

I can think of many Financial softwares than (already) use GPU enhancements, I was testing some Econometric software that does this.

It's simply naive to think an inferior GPU is 'more than enough power' for all people

Choice is good.

Having said this, I personally find the 9400M a very capable graphics chip (its one of the reasons that made me upgrade from my 15" PowerBook G4).
 
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.
It might have been on battery, yeah. I'm on the 9600M right now, charging and with too much unsaved stuff open to log out at the mo, so I can't check. But it sounds plausible.

It's a mystery to me how the energy saving mode works... in Windows you can micro-manage every aspect but I have no idea what's going on with the Mac when it's running off battery, since it's designed in Apple's typical "the less you know the better" fashion. There's a video performance vs battery life switch, a couple of adjustment sliders but what's going on behind the scenes? Speedstepping? Reducing WiFi power consumption?
 
I think it's obvious that (until recently) the graphics chip has been only truely useful for graphics based tasks.

Obvious? Really? Because a LARGE amount of threads posted in this division revolve around the questions, "Do I need the better GPU?", or, "is 256mb VRAM enough?".

Maybe obvious to you and I, but it is not, obviously, well known among the general.

You are wrong to say performance is less than 5% with more VRAM, because it depends on what you're doing. Games that can saturate the texture ram (with huge uncompressed textures) will perform better with more VRAM.

On a 15"MBP, 512mb VRAM will NOT show performance boosts in any sort of way, above 5%. On a higher resolution laptop, or an external display, it will make a difference. Even then, the resolution increase must be significant, and in gaming, the AA must be in the higher ranges. GOOGLE this, it is another well known fact. A 6600GT 128mb was always faster than a 6200 256mb.

The 9400M actually shares the main system RAM, which is much slower due to the way motherboards are (currently) designed. This is changing though and there are many possible solutions being researched.

Please .. the RAM interface is just as fast, if not faster, than PCI-express. That said, having to "share" RAM does NOT slow down the GPU - it is the crappy GPU architecture itself that slows things down.



Reasons why the 9600 GT is good for the 'non' pro consumer

I think you're missing an important point, nVidia, Apple and Intel are all currently working towards making their hardware/software utilize the GPU extensively. Whether or not people realize the benefits today is a moot point, many Mac users also buy with the mindset to future proof their laptops for a 3-5 year time horizon (I do). With the current crop of laptops, it makes ideal sense to buy the 9400M + 9600 GT because Apple has promised to support it with OpenCL. This will make a difference, I fully expect Apple to integrate OpenCL in all their iLife applications, the iPhotos face recognition feature, garage band, Movie Maker will all see performance increases with the 9600 GT over a 9400M.

I agree with you - the GPU MAY will show performance gains across NON GRAPHIC INTENSIVE apps IN THE FUTURE (key words are highlighted for those with poor reading comphrehension.

That said, where is your proof that performance gains in those certain applications will be recognized? Do you work for Apple? Doubt it.

You can expect to see nearly 4x performance in OpenCL on a 9600 GT compared to a 9400M.

Why thank you Steve Jobs for that official information! Oh wait ...

Whether or not these features are worth the money to you or someone else is up to them. But to simply say there's no benefit at all is plainly wrong.

Wrong. I never said there is/will be no benefit. I said that for the majority of users who don't utilize graphic intensive applications and use the Macbook for it's name and for simple usage - they won't realize any benefits, even after SL's release.

Reasons why the 9600 GT is good for the pro consumer

It's been pointed out already Photoshop has some built in GPU enhancements. With Snow Leopard (as a mac developer myself) it's clear Apple is sending a message to developers that it fully intends to foster support for a truly multithreaded/multi-core environment that blurs the lines between GPU/CPU. Pro's can expect more of their applications to use the GPU in more inventive ways, that's a fact.

Sending a message? Nvidia went about this on their on - for PC's and Mac's. Sorry, this was not Apple pushing this.

I can think of many Financial softwares than (already) use GPU enhancements, I was testing some Econometric software that does this.

I'm not doubting you, but which software are you talking about?

It's simply naive to think an inferior GPU is 'more than enough power' for all people

It's simply naive for people to buy a computer with a GPU they don't and won't ever need. That's wasteful in terms of money and energy.

Choice is good.

It is America!

Having said this, I personally find the 9400M a very capable graphics chip (its one of the reasons that made me upgrade from my 15" PowerBook G4).

It's 5x faster than the integrated GPU it replaced - it always pales in performance benchmarks because it's stacked up against the 9600GT M.
 
Obvious? Really? Because a LARGE amount of threads posted in this division revolve around the questions, "Do I need the better GPU?", or, "is 256mb VRAM enough?".

Maybe obvious to you and I, but it is not, obviously, well known among the general.

LOL, I'm saying that you completely misunderstood why the faster GPU is relevant. Maybe it wasn't so obvious to you?

On a 15"MBP, 512mb VRAM will NOT show performance boosts in any sort of way, above 5%. On a higher resolution laptop, or an external display, it will make a difference.

Exactly, depends what you're doing right? For someone with the Hi-Res display, it's useful.

Please .. the RAM interface is just as fast, if not faster, than PCI-express. That said, having to "share" RAM does NOT slow down the GPU - it is the crappy GPU architecture itself that slows things down.

That is plainly wrong, anyone with a modicum of computer science knowledge knows how inefficient the current GPU --> system ram calls are.

Wrong. I never said there is/will be no benefit. I said that for the majority of users who don't utilize graphic intensive applications and use the Macbook for it's name and for simple usage - they won't realize any benefits, even after SL's release.

What's the title of this tread again?

Sorry but I've got work to do, have fun with this thread =P
 
I'm not ashamed to say i only use the 9600gt in windows (for catia and games), but hardly ever in osx. It does feel snappier when I use 9600gt when playing HD video on an external secondary display at the same time I'm doing work with many (20+) open windows across 4 spaces. Seems like a weird thing to do but I often play movies while tooling around on my mbp.

Of course the performance difference in the aforementioned case is minimal between the two cards, just smooths the animations.

By the way it's cute how worked up everyone is getting.
 
Please .. the RAM interface is just as fast, if not faster, than PCI-express. That said, having to "share" RAM does NOT slow down the GPU - it is the crappy GPU architecture itself that slows things down.
but its shared. you have less ram for system, and you have less bandwidth for ram because they share a common bus with 9400m.
wait, nehalem is suppose to be better on ram bandwidth? than 1600mhz of macpro was? hm. if 1600mhz is not enough , 1066mhz cant be either, and then, its hogged by the gpu
 
Exactly, depends what you're doing right? For someone with the Hi-Res display, it's useful.

Right, which is what I said. Except the screens in the MBP line - no - any of Apple's displays are not exactly "hi-res" displays. Apple's displays are average if that.

That is plainly wrong, anyone with a modicum of computer science knowledge knows how inefficient the current GPU --> system ram calls are.

Ah, I see, I guess they rest of our posts are inferior to Gods like yourself.

What's the title of this tread again?

It's to grab people's attention. If you are incapable of understanding that an entire argument cannot be summarized into a third-grader reading level
of a five word thread title - maybe forums are not where you should be?

Sorry but I've got work to do, have fun with this thread =P

My you are important? Gosh fordbid those of us who can afford Macs, have jobs of our own!

I'm not ashamed to say i only use the 9600gt in windows (for catia and games), but hardly ever in osx. It does feel snappier when I use 9600gt when playing HD video on an external secondary display at the same time I'm doing work with many (20+) open windows across 4 spaces. Seems like a weird thing to do but I often play movies while tooling around on my mbp.

As it should be, external/large/multiple monitors are one reason that GPU's are needed (aside from gaming/3d apps)

Of course the performance difference in the aforementioned case is minimal between the two cards, just smooths the animations.

In which applications or situations? I have the Integrated GMA in my Blackbook, and aside from gameplaying - visual performance has never been an issue.

By the way it's cute how worked up everyone is getting.

Huh?

but its shared. you have less ram for system, and you have less bandwidth for ram because they share a common bus with 9400m.
wait, nehalem is suppose to be better on ram bandwidth? than 1600mhz of macpro was? hm. if 1600mhz is not enough , 1066mhz cant be either, and then, its hogged by the gpu

Wait? You're saying that because the integrated GPU takes RAM from my system, my system will have less RAM overall? No way!

RAM bandwidth is not being hogged by the GPU, it can only borrow a percentage (256mb/total system RAM).
 
I do remember an old G31 benchmark where with the IGP enabled there was a noticeable drop in synthetic memory tests and a few percentage points in others.

Dropping on a discrete video card brought it up to par with other P Series chipsets without any IGP.

I remember doing some research with my coworkers that around 1 out of 4 memory refresh cycles would go to the IGP to at least redraw the display when we looking at ordering some workstations.
 
Anyone using CS4 for basic photography workflow (Bridge as a light table, Photoshop to finish) will tell you that the dedicated graphics matter. That is why most of us were excited about Adobe finally utilizing the GPU to get us snappier previews in Bridge, smoother zooming and quicker redraws. Might not be a big deal for those who are not doing event photography and need to run through 500 images, but historically the Macbook Pro line was marketed to the top x%.

It does not matter for someone taking snapshots with a point and shoot, but then again, if you are just using Word, Excel, browsing the internet and watching YouTube, why would you buy a Mac? Save some cash and buy a cheap PC with Windows XP.

...and Pro Tools users know that the dedicated graphics afford you better/quicker waveform drawing and much smoother scrolling. It works with the integrated Intel X3100 on my white Macbook, but it is much nicer with dedicated graphics in either Windows or Mac OS X.
 
Wait? You're saying that because the integrated GPU takes RAM from my system, my system will have less RAM overall? No way!

RAM bandwidth is not being hogged by the GPU, it can only borrow a percentage (256mb/total system RAM).

nehalem was developed because memory bandwidth was supposed to be a "bottleneck" in a modern system, yet you are here fighting technology stating that normal ram for video through fsb will work as fast as from pciexpress. thats true, probably faster, BUT...
the minute youll try to access both video portion of the ram and normal ram, the "bottleneck" will kick in, with a dedicated vram chip, system would be faster, as it would not share the same memory bandwidth for both video and normal ram, and not only in graphically intensive applications.

265mb/total system is not bandwidth, its quantity of ram.

so, it hogs 256mb of system ram, and probably a % of the memory throughput.
while using a discrete gpu leave all system ram and ALL memory throughput for, guess what, non-graphical applications.

its not only about what it GIVES, its about what it DOESNT TAKE AWAY.

...and Pro Tools users know that the dedicated graphics afford you better/quicker waveform drawing and much smoother scrolling. It works with the dedicated Intel X3100 on my white Macbook, but it is much nicer with dedicated graphics in either Windows or Mac OS X.
i seriously doubt thats true
 
I noticed this too. The internet gives uninformed people rights that they dont deserve- in this case, spreading BS information about technology they have no concept of.
 
Regarding Pro Tools...

i seriously doubt thats (sic) true

Watch the waveforms while tracking in Pro Tools; similarly spec'd Mac OS with and without dedicated graphics, and the waveforms are on the white Macbook are much further behind a machine with dedicated graphics. This is exacerbated in Windows, and digidesign will not even support a Windows system without dedicated graphics. I have successfully used machines with integrated graphics on Windows, but waiting for the waveforms to catch up is like watching paint dry.

Tracking audio in Pro Tools is not CPU intensive, so a system with similar RAM and disk speeds should perform the same.
 
It's simply naive for people to buy a computer with a GPU they don't and won't ever need. That's wasteful in terms of money and energy.

Why don't you mind your own business about what people buy. This is a really pointless thread. If people have the money to buy something they should buy what they want. Give it a rest.
 
Wait? You're saying that because the integrated GPU takes RAM from my system, my system will have less RAM overall? No way!

RAM bandwidth is not being hogged by the GPU, it can only borrow a percentage (256mb/total system RAM).

Actually he's right. Any logically thinking mind realizes that if 1 memory is being accessed by 2 devices its slows down compared to if only 1 devices is accessing it.

Similarly, when one copies 2 different files instead of one from 1 external HD the transfer speed of each file drops dramatically.
 
yea that makes no sense....

video editing , photography , engineering , music editing/recording

those are things macbook pro's are targeted and mostly used for.

i see 3 of 4 that would highly benefit from discreet GPU's

Sorry, but I disagree. I would say more like 1 or 2 out of four. GPU's are NOT made for composing music!:eek: (Hey, that's what the CPU is for:))
 
Why don't you mind your own business about what people buy. This is a really pointless thread. If people have the money to buy something they should buy what they want. Give it a rest.

Yea, really, this is pointless. Let people decide for themselves how to live their lives:rolleyes:.
 
Regarding Pro Tools...



Watch the waveforms while tracking in Pro Tools; similarly spec'd Mac OS with and without dedicated graphics, and the waveforms are on the white Macbook are much further behind a machine with dedicated graphics. This is exacerbated in Windows, and digidesign will not even support a Windows system without dedicated graphics. I have successfully used machines with integrated graphics on Windows, but waiting for the waveforms to catch up is like watching paint dry.

Tracking audio in Pro Tools is not CPU intensive, so a system with similar RAM and disk speeds should perform the same.
thanks! nice read up
i always use HD on a crappy g5 thats about to die, so.. :) i didnt pay much atention to it
i remember someone once told me about graphics and protools. i mainly use logic where waveform draws awfully on every system
 
what about programs that come with osx, such as ilife, quicktime....


and even keynote...
 
The advantages for dedicated card:
1)Future proof. The OP wants you to think there will be no difference between a 9400m integrated card and the 9600M GT. He is wrong.


BLESS! Do some people seriously still think computers are future-proof ? Even if your GPU was not integrated, more often than not a non integrated GPU is still soldered onto / or part of the motherboard assembly. Your never going to upgrade that card, it is NOT future-proof regardless whether it is a 9600 or 9400.



Besides the last time I checked, the more GPU'cycles does not equal the slowing down of the passage of time :rolleyes:;) Hence computer GPU has no control on the 'future'.... :p



As of OPENCL performance. You all seemingly seem to think it's going to make a monumental difference in everything, and also auto-assume that OPENCL performance between 9400 - 9600 is going to be drastic. Let's wait until REAL WORLD BENCHMARKS show us what the benefit is rather than just assume a radical difference. I predict were going to get a sh*t load of people whining on this forum that OPENCL performance isn't as big as they thought it would be with graphics card A, as opposed to graphics card B.
 
getz76 said:
Anyone using CS4 for basic photography workflow (Bridge as a light table, Photoshop to finish) will tell you that the dedicated graphics matter. That is why most of us were excited about Adobe finally utilizing the GPU to get us snappier previews in Bridge, smoother zooming and quicker redraws. Might not be a big deal for those who are not doing event photography and need to run through 500 images, but historically the Macbook Pro line was marketed to the top x%

Dude you do realize that the 9400M integrated graphics card can also be utilized in Photoshop CS4, like you said "get us snappier previews in Bridge, smoother zooming and quicker redraws". Any gpu that support OpenGL takes advantage of it. Heck even an intel GMA integrated gpu can handle it.

Photoshop is really a cpu-intesive app. Photoshop CS4's GPU accelerated features are actually just for zooming, and panning as well as display. The actual image processing and running of filters uses cpu power exclusively. So basically for Photoshop CS4, any gpu that can handle Open GL is MORE than enough.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.