6490 vs 330m (Apple offering new computer as replacement)

My 15" Macbook Pro had a small bright spot on the screen. I took it in and after 2 other screens had the same problem Apple graciously offered to replace it with a newer model.

However from Notebook check.net it looks like the 330m in my laptop is better then the 6490m. The main application where my computer was capped was Starcraft 2. I ran it on mostly high settings with my MBP 15". From what I"ve seen the 6490 can't do that.

Is this true? Should I just ask them to keep trying to fix the problem on mine, or would Apple give me the 6750 because the 6490m gives me unacceptable performance/is a downgrade? I mean I haven't been CPU capped so the 2ghz quadcore isn't going to help me. The only thing is a new computer should last longer.

 

The actual difference is very small.

The HD 6490m scores 5600 in 3dmark06 and the 512MB Apple GT 330m scores 6000. If you had the 256MB version of the 330m, it scores even less. They are equal, or the 330m is slower.

I'd say it's definitely a fair trade.

 

Hmm so on notebook check there seems to be about a 7fps difference, and this is significant because on high the 330 comes in around 30 which is playable and the other one comes in closer to 20 which is unplayable.

They say that at 1024 they were getting 30 fps on medium. I get 30fps with everything on mostly high. I don't know if that is 30fps minimum or average, mine is average. That seems kind of significant.

I don't really want to have to turn stuff down. My old computer when I put it in for repair had the condition listed as "new" because I treated it so well. But I mean a new computer is newer. In my entire life I have never seen a 1 year newer computer with lower/similar specs to the previous year's model. If Apple gave me the 6750 I would be ecstatic but I dunno about this 6490. I would like to run it at the same settings, same FPS at the minimum.

 

indeed that is really a fair trade

However, I would try to force for a 6750m, the 6750m is going to be 2x as fast as your gt 330m.

 

Yeah 6750 is insane. Do you think Apple would give me the 6750? I have the lower end 15" because from my research the 3-4 FPS you got from the 512 was not worth it but 6750 over 6490 is well worth it, I would have paid more for the 6750.

 

I would ask about perhaps receiving the high-end MacBook Pro for the downgraded graphics card isn't your cup of tea.... If they say no, then offer to throw in some money to upgrade.

Otherwise just accept it. Apple is being generous. I would rather take a slightly slower graphics card for the ability of thunderbolt, a quad-core processor, and better battery life.

Or what you could do is accept the low end MacBook Pro and get an external thunderbolt graphics card once they come out.

 

Yeah Apple is definitely being generous. I was surprised they even agreed to fix the screen with just a small bright spot on it.

However I don't know if any of those other features are useful to me. I was never CPU capped in anything other then Mathematica. I was only GPU capped in any application. Are Thunderbolt graphics cards going to become a reality? If so I would probably be happy with the replacement. Other then that I don't really have anything that uses Thunderbolt.

 

Apple downclocks their 330m to 500MHz. Notebookcheck averages the 3dmark06 scores of all laptops with the 330m.

Here's a review from notebookcheck with the 3mark06 score for the underclock 330m: Review Apple MacBook Pro 15-inch i7 2010-04 Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

 

3dmark06 is extremely inaccurate for performances today.

 

Crysis GPU Benchmark:

HD 6490m: 24.7(high) FPS

GT 330m: 20.1(high) FPS

I believe the HD 6470m is a bit faster.



HD6490m Macbook: Review Apple MacBook Pro 15 Early 2011 (2.0 GHz Quad-Core, Matte Screen) - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

GT 330m Macbook: Review Apple MacBook Pro 15-inch i7 2010-04 Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

The gaming section is 2/3 down.

Once again, if your old Macbook had the 256MB 330m, it will be a bit slower than the 512MB version in the review above.

 

Hmm well I don't really care about what score it gets. I only care about my FPS/settings in Starcraft 2.

Is the FPS lower in SC2? If it isn't its a great free upgrade. If it is, its kind of "I dunno" because I can't use much of the "upgrade".

 

Oh ok yeah I had the 256, the actual difference doesn't seem that bad then. Windows Experience Index rated it as a bit higher in that, but that doesn't really mean anything.

 

Oops, extra post

 

Even though you are worried that you are exclusively GPU blocked, the truth is that the 6490 is about the same as the 330m, and the processor is MUCH better, and the system as a whole will result in increased performance in games, including SC2.

 

Hmm well the thing is that isn't quite true all of the time. Crysis runs fine on a core 2 quad, it is mostly GPU locked.

Now Starcraft 2 is different as it draws a lot more load from the CPU then the GPU, but still a super powerful CPU and a weaker GPU can give you worse performance then a good CPU and a good GPU in games.

 

Does anybody have any real world results in SC2? Like what kind of settings are you running it on? That is pretty much all that matters to me.

 

this does not describe the scenario at hand. the new GPU is approximately the same. the CPU is much faster. you'll end up running at higher performance at the same settings.

you'll especially notice this in larger scale games like custom games or when you start to approach the unit cap, or in 4v4 games.

also, were you running starcraft 2 in os x or in windows originally?

 

Wow never mind Apple has the best customer support I have seen in my entire life. They gave me the ATI 6750m without me asking anything AND they gave me an extra 1 year of warranty. I was running in OSX before however.

 

just a thought, you might want to experiment with windows for games.

you'll be surprised how much more performance you can get out of SC2. it's kind of a joke how wide the gap is.

I used to use a 330m mbp and I had a windows partition literally just for SC2 and a few other games, even though there were mac versions available.

 

You are not alone.

 

sure was nice of them

 

Wow I had no idea, I should definitely try that out then. With the 6750 I was getting around 30 FPS on Ultra but that was just at game start. Maybe on Windows I would be able to run it on Ultra all of the time. The only thing is with Windows I'm always afraid of overheating if I game too long. I do the trick where I have the SMC go into 6000 RPM but Windows + gaming = massive heat.

 

That's not true. Idling windows runs hotter -- that's Apple optimization at work. But when both the GPU and the CPU is stressed to their fullest and fans identical, their temps should be identical. It's a hardware thing. Stressing CPU 100% in Windows is no different than stressing CPU 100% in OS X.

That said, I've never been able to get the fans to run at 6200 RPM in Windows. 6000 seems to be the max.

 

I don't think there's anything to worry about with windows gaming. It's definitely true that the idle heat is higher than the idle heat in os x, but at load it should basically be the same.

I've found (especially with SC2, but also with other games) that the mousing mechanic is MUCH better in windows, and that the performance is much higher in windows. Worth a try. If you have a large hard drive and can dedicate some space to experimenting with windows for gaming performance, go for it. I would only recommend windows for games and only while plugged in with an external mouse.

 

Yeah I definitely agree about the mouse, my gaming mouse doesn't work properly in OSX (not all features are supported) and for some reason it just doesn't feel as "responsive".

I'll definitely try gaming in Windows more often then. I have a 750gb hard drive now, so I definitely have the space.

About the point of stressing, yes it is true, but I don't think SC2 stresses my computer to the max because I stay at about 60 to 70 degrees celsius on SMC at 6000 rpm even after a long gaming session in OSX. The GPU might be getting stressed but if you don't run it on the max settings its capable of the GPU isn't always maxed, and the CPU is definitely not getting maxed out unless its like a 4 v 4 with 200 units and even then my previous i5 2.4ghz handled that just fine so I doubt I am maxing a 2.2ghz quadcore sandy bridge. On the other hand in Windows I think I would reach throttling temperature after like a long game session of something like Heroes V....which is old.

I think OSX keeps the computer a lot cooler/doesn't maxout the CPU/GPU as much as Windows even while I'm gaming which is nice, as long as I'm not pushing everything to max.

Regardless I think I'll game in Windows to try and check out the higher settings/use my gaming mouse.

 

USBOverdrive helps with the mouse thing a bit.

But I still can't get it to detect the middle thumb button properly on my G500.

And SC2, while CPU heavy, only utilizes two cores max.

 

It's a mouse acceleration issue. I've tried using a variety of programs including USB overdrive, terminal commands, others, and I have never had the issue resolved with SC2 in particular.

On my macbook air (totally different hardware, but you'll get the point) the difference between OS X and windows is 30 fps vs 70 fps on many maps. Some maps have closer performance, but it's good and steady in windows.

Also, I think you may have a misconception about "maxing" the CPU. The faster CPU is going to help you. A lot of computation time is spent waiting on the processor to finish it's job. Even if you aren't using all cores, and even if your task manager doesn't say "100%", the faster CPU is going to contribute to higher performance.

 

If you're not maxing the CPU anyway, then you really don't have to worry about overheating do you? Which was the main fear of "gaming + windows". Apple's heat management isn't THAT bad.

 

Yeah I have the same mouse acceleration issue, its weird how OSX handles a gaming mouse. The acceleration works great for a trackpad but not a gaming mouse.

I don't know, I think from what I've seen in many games a much better CPU with the same GPU = only moderate FPS difference.

@Bill Nye, I've been throttled in Windows after like an 8 hour game session of Heroes V (it was a turn based hot seat game) and I had to turn down settings and boot into OSX to cool down the computer/check the temperature back form 100degrees Celsius. I've never been throttled in OSX/gone over 70.

 

Did you use a custom fan control program or did you let Apple's non-existent fan management take over?

Sounds like the latter if that's the case. Did you also monitor CPU usage at all?

You're leaving out a lot of key factors.

 

I had SMC at 6000 rpm. It might have been a bit more then 8 hours, and I didn't monitor CPU usage. All I know was I had a massive frame rate dip, I had to go from high settings to the lowest. In OSX I got a cpu temp that was very high I think it was around 100 celsius.

It might have been caused by gaming for so long in a straight period, I don't usually do that, Heroes V is just a good hot seat game and me and my friends were playing from like 5-6 the previous day to well into the next day.