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 New 320M vs. the Old 9400M
- Thread starter Jolt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So when you have no arguments left, you can make blanket statements, eh?
(Anyways, I need to sleep, so enjoy your 320M that's "almost" as fast as the 9600M GT)
Yeah, I'm totally making blanket statements.
Enjoy thinking a 20% increase is somehow a lot.
Also "my" 320m? I don't own a single computer with a 320m, thanks for asking.
I dunno, 20% more money can be a lot, 20% in a race is a lot, heck 20% faster for processor speed would be considered significant, so why can't we say 20% is a lot for graphic cards? The difference between the slowest Core i5 and the i7 in the MacBook Pros is less than 20% yet people can actually justify the cost difference which is 22%.
comparing an actual video card to others that are no more available is not relevant
most people would agree to say that 320M is better than 9400M
so why the hell comparing it to 9600M or older?
the 13" MBP is not a gaming machine anyway...
most people would agree to say that 320M is better than 9400M
so why the hell comparing it to 9600M or older?
the 13" MBP is not a gaming machine anyway...
People justify because they haven't seen the benchmarks. If a lot of people had known that the 512MB of VRAM in the 330M GPU performs no better than the 256 MB VRAM, and also that the Arrandale i7 is hardly any better than the i5, then you can bet that people would be saving their money.
I agree it's not a gaming machine, but I sure do hope that I can play StarCraft 2 on it!
And saying that it's not relevant is completely beside the point (and admittedly off-topic).
There are plenty of refurbs with the 9600M GT (which look exactly as new and come with the full one year warranty from Apple) and plenty more on eBay, brand new and used.
So a user might want to decide between computers with those two graphics cards.
Actually, I believe lots of people here already know that the i7 advantage is nearly as little as you cited yet they see it as big enough to justify the 22% extra cost. Lots of people here ask for advice on that very question. Even Anand from Anandtech seems to think the i7 is worth it for that 11-15% which is more than the benchmarks you provided. So what I'm saying is, in light of all this, 20% is quite significant in perspective.
There are plenty of refurbs with the 9600M GT (which look exactly as new and come with the full one year warranty from Apple) and plenty more on eBay, brand new and used.
So a user might want to decide between computers with those two graphics cards.
Actually, I believe lots of people here already know that the i7 advantage is nearly as little as you cited yet they see it as big enough to justify the 22% extra cost. Lots of people here ask for advice on that very question. Even Anand from Anandtech seems to think the i7 is worth it for that 11-15% which is more than the benchmarks you provided. So what I'm saying is, in light of all this, 20% is quite significant in perspective.
So just because they say it's worth it means that it is? You really think a 400 dollar trade off for a couple of seconds off of encoding time is worth it?
So just because they say it's worth it means that it is? You really think a 400 dollar trade off for a couple of seconds off of encoding time is worth it?
Oh come on now, the only way you'll save a couple of seconds encoding is if the video's length is in seconds too.
Look at the link I provided; 15% quicker encoding time between the i7 and i5. What would take the i5 3 hours would take the i7 27 minutes less.
If you are doing any heavy 3D rendering (which is what that benchmark was about) then you are going to need more than a MacBook Pro in general.Oh come on now, the only way you'll save a couple of seconds encoding is if the video's length is in seconds too.
Look at the link I provided; 15% quicker encoding time between the i7 and i5. What would take the i5 3 hours would take the i7 27 minutes less.
And that is a REALLY specific benchmark.
If you are doing any heavy 3D rendering (which is what that benchmark was about) then you are going to need more than a MacBook Pro in general.
And that is a REALLY specific benchmark.
Dude, you're shifting the goal posts on me. I provide a counter-argument to a point you make and you then proceed to deem the point irrelevant or limited in application. So really, beside the point, beside the point.
Actually, that 15% I quoted is for video encoding so look again.
Look for Quicktime X. I'm far from a media professional; I don't even freelance. I do make YouTube videos and use iMovie so 15% can be seen there. I have an EyeTV that records digital TV. I like to archive shows and encoding in h.264 is very processor intensive so more 15% of time saved that can add up. I don't personally rip DVDs, but many MacBook Pro users do and again, video encoding, yada yada.Do I REALLY need a Mac Pro for all that? I could get an i5/i7 iMac but I like being able to carry my computer around with me.
So I DON'T see how that's a REALLY specific benchmark.
Now we're really off topic.
You haven't provided jack. You've posted one synthetic benchmark out of god knows how many and the only one that showed any marginal improvement was Quicktime X, an application that no one in their right mind would touch for doing any serious encoding. Maybe in 3-4 years when every application has Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL implemented you will start to see your amazing 15% improvement, but by that time the computer will be old and you'll be ready for a new one.Dude, you're shifting the goal posts on me. I provide a counter-argument to a point you make and you then proceed to deem the point irrelevant or limited in application. So really, beside the point, beside the point.
Actually, that 15% I quoted is for video encoding so look again.
Do I REALLY need a Mac Pro for all that? I could get an i5/i7 iMac but I like being able to carry my computer around with me.
So I DON'T see how that's a REALLY specific benchmark.
Now we're really off topic.
You've got to be kidding me! Actual video encoding which is an ACTUAL, COMMON, REAL-WORLD PRODUCTIVE USE of a computer is a "SYNTHETIC" benchmark!? That entire page showed a range of apps with 11-15% improvement so it is far from the only one. What you're also slyly implying is that some apps don't show any improvement at all, and of course! Why would running TextEdit show any measurable improvement!? The point is improvement for apps that make full use of the processor, of which there is a range of apps, and that that improvement for those apps justifies the higher cost.
And now you say no one in their right might would touch Quicktime X for any "serious" encoding? WTF is "serious" encoding? Encoding that is done by professionals? Now who's the one giving really specific benchmarks. In fact, why must we limit ourselves to "serious" encoding? Quicktime X encoding would be one of the most common encoding apps to be used by Apple's user base so it is a completely valid and very applicable benchmark. There are many many more casual YouTube encoders than "serious" encoders in the world and they will experience this 15% benefit. If I export video using EyeTV, it uses Quicktime. If I export video using iMovie, it uses Quicktime. And are those "synthetic" or do you not understand its meaning with regards to benchmarks?
That link I provided provided hard, reproducible numbers that showed 11 - 15% improvement and you're telling me we'll have to wait for Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL to see this 15% improvement!? Er, you're really all over the place here, and you're making no sense because when I say 15% improvement, it means the i7 is 15% quicker than the i5. So if you reject that and say we need GCD and OpenCL, won't both systems have GCD and OpenCL and thus show no 15% disparity then!?
I've provided more than you have so if I'm providing jack, you're in the negative.
I realize now that I'm just wasting time discussing this with you. Good bye.
LMAO!
Every application you listed is still using the Quicktime 7 framework that doesn't even have GCD or OpenCL implemented. What a joke.
Quicktime X has three export options. THREE. And you can't customize them. I love arguing with people who have no idea what they are talking about.
Sooo... if you don't care about cames and aren't editing HD video, would netflix run significantly better on the 320M?
Good luck getting 10 hours with your 9600M Gt enabled, you probably only get 2 hours or even less?
With the integrated GPU of the 320M that is almost as fast, you can get 10 hours
Oh come on now, the only way you'll save a couple of seconds encoding is if the video's length is in seconds too.
Look at the link I provided; 15% quicker encoding time between the i7 and i5. What would take the i5 3 hours would take the i7 27 minutes less.
That's still really slow. Better go for a desktop then.
I hate to nitpick (not really) but it would make more sense to see the minimum framerates in the applications tested, which these days are much more important to consider.
This may show a much larger difference than what is presented here.
It's weird, however, that Barefeats didn't test at the native resolution (1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050).
They ALWAYS try to test on an external monitor at the same resolution so you can compare the graphics performance with other Macs.
Oh and you should've read a little more on how they do the benchmarks.
"Using Titan Performance addon, we are able to capture min, max, and average frame rate."
"we used the Terminal app to benchmark"
"We used the built-in timedemo"
I'm playing TF2 on my "last modle" 13in Core2 and the 9400m.
It's "ok"... I wish it to be better. The game loaded MUCH faster after I went from 2GB to 4GB of DDR3.
I found this thread in hopes of some answers. It seems you guys are talkin about WoW, which is more CPU intensive. Anyone els do Steam/HL2/TF2?
I'd like to see if it's justified selling this MBP and getting the new 13in. I don't want it to be physically larger.. so if TF2 will play better on the new one, then I'm game. I also edit 1080p 60p video.
I do have a real gaming computer at home.. I just like to play at work too.
It's "ok"... I wish it to be better. The game loaded MUCH faster after I went from 2GB to 4GB of DDR3.
I found this thread in hopes of some answers. It seems you guys are talkin about WoW, which is more CPU intensive. Anyone els do Steam/HL2/TF2?
I'd like to see if it's justified selling this MBP and getting the new 13in. I don't want it to be physically larger.. so if TF2 will play better on the new one, then I'm game. I also edit 1080p 60p video.
I do have a real gaming computer at home.. I just like to play at work too.
At my overclocked settings running win7 x64, I maxed a 5401 score in 3dmark 06 on the 320m. That's pretty damn good for an integrated card.