The New 320M vs. the Old 9400M

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Jolt, Apr 13, 2010.

  1. Jolt macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #1
    So the basic MBP graphics card has changed, does anyone have any idea how much better the 320M is over the 9400M?
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    Still integrated but I guess it's noticeably faster, maybe 30% or so
     
  3. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #3
    No one but Apple knows, and knowing how secretive they are, they won't publish any information about that issue.


    [​IMG]
     
  4. itommyboy macrumors 6502a

    itommyboy

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Location:
    Titletown USA
    #4
    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.
     
  5. chkenwing macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    #5
    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.
     
  6. dendritic cells macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Boston MA
    #6
    There's no benchmark or direct comparison with 9400m yet, although it is indicated the performance of 320M should be similar to 310M. (which is a dedicated card? :confused:)

    Can you indirectly compare them based on the 3D Marks? (7149 on 310M vs 3002 on 9400m)

    If it is true, sounds like a significant improvement to me. :D
     
  7. thirdykal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    #7
    Well if the 310 is anything to compare it to.. it's still bad. Albeit more power efficient, but still bad.
     
  8. macgeek18 macrumors 68000

    macgeek18

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Location:
    Northern California
    #8
    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.
     
  9. breathesrain macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    #9
    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.
     
  10. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
  11. macchiato2009 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #11
    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
     
  12. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #12
  13. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #13
    3D Mark 06 score 320M: 4754
    3D Mark 06 score 9600M: 5163

    Not even close?
     
  14. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #14
    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.
     
  15. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #15
    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.
     
  16. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #16
    Unless your display is only 1 pixel wide, you're looking at 224x1280.

    Oh okay.
     
  17. macchiato2009 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #17
    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:
     
  18. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #18
    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? ;)
     
  19. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #19
    Hence we should conclude our arguments are both moot.

    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.
     
  20. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #20
    No they aren't, I have actual benchmarks backing up my claims. You have provided zero information other then making blanket statements.
     
  21. LedCop macrumors regular

    LedCop

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    #21
    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.
     
  22. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #22

    Either way, they both still show similar performance and the 320M can be easily overclocked.
     
  23. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #23
  24. LedCop macrumors regular

    LedCop

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
  25. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #25
    Yeah, if you enjoy watching your laptop temperatures sky rocket.
     

Share This Page