Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The New 320M vs. the Old 9400M

J

Jolt

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Mar 3, 2009
16
0
So the basic MBP graphics card has changed, does anyone have any idea how much better the 320M is over the 9400M?
 
All well said; nobody really knows until seat of the pants dyno's start coming in. I bet it will prove to be a noticeable and welcome overall improvement.
 
I'm curious as to the actual specifications of the 320M and the comparison of the 9400m e.g. fill rate, bandwidth.

I've been searching and all I've found is that it was made specifically for the 13" MBP.
 
Well if the 310 is anything to compare it to.. it's still bad. Albeit more power efficient, but still bad.
 
Dang,I thought the new 320M in the 13" was designated and not integrated,and I already uploaded my video to youtube.Oh well.I still like my 9400M though,still the best graphics I've ever had.
 
I saw a 320M on the notebookcheck site, but I suppose that's the non custom one...

Sigh...I would have gladly put up with extra heat and only 6 hours of battery life for a mediocre dedicated graphics chip in the 13"...I know there wouldn't be room for a dedicated + the nvidia integrated, but I bet there would be room for a dedicated and the intel GFX that comes with an i5 (even an i3).

:(

Oh well, at least the 13" is slightly better than before.
 
HD videos seem to be decoded faster and smoother on the 320M than on the 9400M

i used to own the former MBP13 and now i have the new one

the difference is noticeable, it also uses less resource, the machine is quieter and cooler than before :)

for games, i have no idea, i don't play on my mac
 
aiqw9182 said:
3D Mark 06 score 320M: 4754
3D Mark 06 score 9600M: 5163

Not even close?
Click to expand...

The 320M's benchmark is run at a resolution of 1280x800 whereas the 9600M's benchmark is run at 1280x1024.

That means the 9600M had to draw 28% more pixels compared to the 320M. If you look at the results, the instance where the 9600M is run at 1280x800 resolution the result is almost 6000.

So it's not even close.
 
alphaod said:
The 320M's benchmark is run at a resolution of 1280x800 whereas the 9600M's benchmark is run at 1280x1024.

That means the 9600M had to draw 28% more pixels compared to the 320M.

So it's not even close.
Click to expand...

20% more pixels? A 224 vertical pixel increase isn't going to change the results as much as you think they are. :rolleyes:

It is close, you are just trying to backpeddle on your statement. But just for good measure, there are multiple results on the 9600m notebookcheck page that score lower than the 320m and are running at 1280x800.
 
we finally got rid of the crappy GMA 950 then from the almost crappy 9400M

you guys should be happy instead of having useless talk about who's right or wrong about how many fps you'll get under Wolfenstein 3D :cool:
 
alphaod said:
Unless your display is only 1 pixel wide, you're looking at 224x1280.

Oh okay.
Click to expand...
9600M:
Pavilion dv7-1050eg ( 1280x800)
T9400
4096 MB
500 / 400MHz
512MB GDDR2 175.53
4419

320M:
MacBook Pro 13" 2010
P8600
4096 MB
4754

What were you saying again? ;)
 
aiqw9182 said:
But just for good measure, there are multiple results on the 9600m notebookcheck page that score lower than the 320m and are running at 1280x800.
Click to expand...

Hence we should conclude our arguments are both moot.

aiqw9182 said:
9600M:
Pavilion dv7-1050eg ( 1280x800)
T9400
4096 MB
500 / 400MHz
512MB GDDR2 175.53
4419

320M:
MacBook Pro 13" 2010
P8600
4096 MB
4754

What were you saying again? ;)
Click to expand...

You also need to note that DDR2 is slower than DDR3; especially when it comes to the GPU. There was a comparison about this, but I believe that was between two integrated GPU chipsets.
 
aiqw9182 said:
20% more pixels? A 224 vertical pixel increase isn't going to change the results as much as you think they are. :rolleyes:

It is close, you are just trying to backpeddle on your statement. But just for good measure, there are multiple results on the 9600m notebookcheck page that score lower than the 320m and are running at 1280x800.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, your statement was, "the 320M's performance is similar to that of the 9600M found in the previous generation 15" and 17" MacBook Pro's.."

The 15" and 17" MacBook Pros had 9600M GTs with GDDR3 which scored 5600+ while the ones that scored lower, i.e., in the 4000s had GDDR2.

I'm not sure whether to say a just under 20% difference is close or not though.
 
alphaod said:
You also need to note that DDR2 is slower than DDR3; especially when it comes to the GPU. There was a comparison about this, but I believe that was between two integrated GPU chipsets.
Click to expand...


LedCop said:
Well, to be fair, your statement was, "the 320M's performance is similar to that of the 9600M found in the previous generation 15" and 17" MacBook Pro's.."

The 15" and 17" MacBook Pros had 9600M GTs with GDDR3 which scored 5600+ while the ones that scored lower, i.e., in the 4000s had GDDR2.
Click to expand...

Either way, they both still show similar performance and the 320M can be easily overclocked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back