Whats the performance on the New Mac's NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M Card ?

Can the New Mac's NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M equal in performance as compared to the mobile 9800GTX ???

or is the 330M worst off ???

what actually is the 330M's performance like ???

 

It's worse off by far. 9800M GTX is more than 2 times the performance of stock 1gb video ram 330M.

 

that means that them new macs wont be able to play crysis or the likes ???



also no call of duty modern warfare too ???

 

It can, but you'll be probably playing it on the lowest setting on almost everything.

 

Yea you might be able to eke out medium settings on a very low resolution. The refresh was hardly and upgrade for those seeking some decent gaming capability.

 

I am disappointed with the GT330M too, but it seems most people have unrealistically low expectations of the GPU.

Some benchmarks are here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-330M.22437.0.html

Modern Warfare 2 should be playable at native resolution (1440x900) with medium settings with some tweaking. Crysis probably playable at native resolution on low, seems like 1024x768 with medium settings.

 

Its essentially the same as the 9600m, but more power efficient. Its adequate for old games, but if your a "gamer" then you probably better off with a gaming notebook, or a desktop/netbook combo.

Modern Warfare 2 is pretty much the upper limits of what you can play, be it at low resolution and detail.

 

those figures (the benchmarks) are based on submissions from people using quad-core i7 laptop processors + GT 330M's that have the full compliment of 1GB in vram.

the MBP's have dual-core i5/i7 solutions + 512MB GT 330M's.

I expect that to impact the performance.

 

In a graphics card as weak as the 330M, 512MB vs 1GB should be pretty much irrelevant. The CPU difference also won't matter for most games.
1GB is more appealing on a spec sheet, but it's a smart decision by Apple to save some cash by going 512MB when there pretty much won't be a difference in performance. Of course, they're not passing along those savings to the consumer.

 

well in that case...I had a 9600M GT in my Vaio. it could handle most games, but not at default resolution. it'll have to drop down a couple notches.

in other words: it's not a gaming machine.

 

The submissions I'm basing things on, Modern Warfare 2 and Crysis (40fps medium settings one) were done on 2.4GHz Core i5, the slowest of what Apple offers. And as lackofcheese said, 1GB VRAM is likely irrelevant on this performance class GPU. Even a desktop HD4850 isn't significantly limited by 512MB of VRAM.

 

That extra video ram could be useful in 3d DDC and CAD, more so than for gaming. Although what 3d graphics designer designs on a macbooks anyway?

The 330 can pretty much handle any light game, enouph to satisfy the wow player, or the Guy who doesn't have an Xbox buy wants to play call of duty, well he can play cod4 on his MacBook.

 

word.

well...I hope you're right (about the lack of significance).

 

Yes, but the default resolution of which you speak was 1920x1080, no? That's 60% more pixels than 1440x900.

 

while I agree, we're talking about this chip in 17" MBP's. that means it's a couple hundred pixels more than my 1920x1080 unit (1920x1200) by default.

so yea, we're all gonna be down-rezing for games.

 

The difference is actually 230 400 pixels, mind you. Nothing in the thread gave me the impression it was only about the 17", either.

In any case, they're not gaming machines, but the 330M makes the 15" MBP a decent all-rounder, though rather overpriced - consider the Acer AS5740G, with similar hardware and the more powerful HD 5650 at $800. Sure, the MBP has vastly better battery life and a much better screen, but does that justify over $1000 extra? I can agree that the 17" definitely should've had a better card, though.

 

I guesses apple thought if you have the money for $3k 17inch MacBook you either have the money for a $600 gaming desktop, or don't game and therefore don't have an expensive gaming rig, leaving you the money for a 3$k 17inch MacBook.

Gamers also want best power for the price, which apple can't offer. Its better off for the macbook to get 8 hour battery with a 330, then 5 hours on a mid range card and still preform less than the $600 PC tower.

 

16:10 Ftw!!!!!

 

Actually, the 8 hour battery life is mostly due to the GMA HD; that's what switchable graphics is about. Even a high-end GPU won't consume any power when it's switched off.
The 17" definitely should've had a better GPU, Mac or no.

 

Yeah your right about the battery, I think a higher end gpu would be impossible with the heat issues in the current macbooks. Apple would have to redesign the thermal system which would be a huge design overhall.

Even if they did it would still be a midrange card at best in the MacBook form factor. Nothing compared to a high end notebook card or mid range desktop card.

 

They could've done a lot better if they had switched to ATI; a lot of mainstream notebooks are managing an HD 5650 nowadays, even some future 13" notebooks seem to have it on offer, while the VAIO Z has the same GPU in 13.3". Thin as it may be, considering Apple's pricing the 17" MBP has no excuse - a redesign of the thermal system would be paid for pretty quickly.

Go up to 15" and there's offerings like the HP Envy 15 and MSI GX640. Sure, neither is 0.95" thick like the 15" MBP, but the Envy 15 is lighter than the MBP, and the MSI GX640 isn't far off in weight at 6 lbs, while managing a Mobility HD 5850.

EDIT: When you look into it, the 330M is operating with basically the same TDP as the 9600M GT, so its inclusion in the MBP is no surprise. The fault lies mostly with Nvidia, though if Apple had gone with ATI, they'd have gotten the Mobility HD 5650 with similar TDP, but far better performance.

 

It's actually kind of funny, but only the 17" and the highest end 15" have 512MB of VRAM. The low and mid end 15" only has 256 MB of VRAM, lol.

 

yea man. I don't even know what to say, but "ugh".

glad I wasn't waiting for a 13" or 15".

 

Yeah and if an i3/i5 update for the m11x is true, that little sub-$1k netbook is going to outperform the top-of-the-line macbook pro in every area.

For shame, Apple.

 

I'm not even convinced that 256MB vs 512MB would make a difference in the 330M except possibly at high resolutions, to be honest.
At the standard 1440x900 there likely wouldn't be any, though it's possible that at 1680x1050 the 15" MBP might be a little jerky with 256MB instead of 512MB.

As for MacBook Pro killers, I suspect the Acer TimelineX will be the first, and the most important.

 

I waited 3 months for this news.

*facepalm*

 

I actually bought a Envy15 recently but regretted it upon news of a new MBP refresh. Now that I see what happened, I do not regret my purchase. The TimelineX looks pretty good, but imo, the Envy15 already beats the MBP15 and 17 in pure specs, while being decently similar in aesthetics and build quality.

 

True, but without the battery life of the MBP the Envy isn't truly a MBP killer, even though it's a great machine. HP really should have thought to include switchable graphics in the Core i5 Envy 15 models, as well as picked better battery options than the weak 53Wh 6 cell or the heavy slice.

The TimelineX is even looking to be an m11x killer. Unless Nvidia manages to come out with some power efficient GPUs in the near future (If the GTX 480 is representative of their new generation, I rather doubt it), or Alienware switches over to ATI, the TimelineX will probably beat the refresh as well. If I were responsible for it, the successor to the m11x would have a 13" screen, and a Redwood (ATI HD 5650, 5730, 5750, 5770) with GDDR5.

 

I can see that happening and its going to be a yet another great gaming day at Alienware.

 

The writing on the wall about the quality of the video card was there since August last year. When the war between NVidia and Mac over the Intel intergrated gpu. I got my MBP then because I was not going to chance what was in the works.

Good thing I did.

 

The pros are they are now officially rocking the biggest and baddest i7 dual cores available.

The M11x will not have a 620M under the hood. So enough of that.

The bad thing is I was hoping for at least a 250M level GPU @ 28w if they weren't willing to go with ATI's 5000 series of beauties.

But the 330 is better than the 9600 (48 shaders vs. 32), so it is a mild upgrade within their own product line.

So outside of the GPU, the MBP refresh is a winner it appears?

 

no offense.

Sorry but I can't help giggling at this. i7-620 is the biggest and baddest i7 dual core because it's the only i7 dual core.

 

No, anyone who recently bought a MBP should feel like an idiot. In spite of the refresh not having an exciting GPU, it still has a better GPU than the old machine, better battery life, and something like 50% better peeformance than yours.

So unless you got a good discount, I'd feel pretty bad. I'm only frustrated because i could have been in an even more powerful machine already. We'll see what happens. I'm gonna head to the apple store today. I need to return/exchange my ipad anyway.

 

Stop looking at the glass half empty man.

They could have restricted the new refreshes to i5s and i3s.

While sticking to the dual core model (I never once thought we'd see a quad core MBP, especially after they declined to go with the Q9000 in the C2D MBP) they are embracing the newest offered like they did previously with the C2D as their last C2D MBP uses the T9900 which was as good as it got with the Core chips.

 

Not a winner on the 13inch line, the 15inch is a winner. 17inch mostly uninteresting, besides i7s it doesn't offer much for what they want for it. The 15inch with the high res screen is very attractive, besides the awful GPU, I guess they went with nVidia for the brand name, even though ati could of offered them much more.

EDIT: Actually after looking at the HD 5650, compared to the 330m, wow... I don't know why they went with nVidia. The HD 5650 is DX11, preforms better than the 330m, and uses only 15-19watts. The 330m is DX10, slower, and I believe uses 23 watts. The only reason they went nVidia is for the brand, very, very disappointing.

 

What is the difference between the new 15 inch screen and the older one? Was the higher res. not offered before?

Also, for game playing (and internet surfing, itunes, etc), will most people notice much diff. between an i5 and i7?

 

The i5/i7 can be as much as 50% faster than the old core 2, gaming however will be mostly the same, newer games that take advantage of the features of the i5/i7 will run faster. The 330m graphics card is about the same speed as the old 9600m, all in all you will get a couple frame difference, and a noticeable difference in newer games.

As for the screen, the 15 is still the 1440x900 screen on the old one, although there is an option for a 1680x1050 screen for $100, anti-glare is available too.

 

Is there much actual diff. between the i5 and i7 though?

 

Not much, they are both quad threaded duel cores.

 

the 13" is a winner for keeping the same exact design and trying to bump up performance some. They would have to do a major redesign to fit anything i there properly except integrated graphics. If they put in a i3, 5, or 7 they would have no choice but to use Intel HD graphics which are a major downgrade in performance from the Geforce 9400m used previously. Until nvidia and Intel get out of their lawsuit over chipsets, nvidia cannot make chipsets for the Intel i3, 5, and 7... the only way to keep decent graphics in the 13" without a major redesign, was to stick with Core 2 Duos.

ATI cards are horrid for gaming on Macs. Mac ports always have to add work arounds just for ATI... gaming under anything Wine based (including Cider ports) is usually also horrid on ATI cards, where nvidia runs great. DX10 and 11 makes no difference at all to Mac OS X since it doesn't use DirectX. nvidia support OpenGL improvements historically a lot sooner and better than ATI.

 

I don't think the macbook pro is a gaming notebook therefor it doesn't necessarily need a high end GPU. The 330m is fine really I mean if you look at previous generations they have always used mid-ranged cards. Why stop now?

 

as has been cited, the 9600M GT was not a "midrange" card when it originally launced in the MBP. it was high-midrange card. even a low-highrange card (as far as consumer cards go). Few cards were its superior.

Now? there are about 50 cards better, and it can be fairly considered an upper-low end card or a very low mid-range card now. If Apple had went with a "midrange" card of similar relative quality to what was on the market at the time the 9600M MBP's launched, we'd see something in the realm of the 350M or 360M.

I'd like to think the problem has more to do with Nvidia's inability to keep their better chips cool nowadays.

 

The problem with this, is that video cards aren't just used for gaming.
Professionals doing design work and 3D renders/modeling need a decent graphics card to be able to work seamlessly.

This was the original intent of the Macbook Pro years and years ago, to be a design laptop.

That's why I want to hear some reviews on using the Geforce 330M in em before I send in my order.

 

i think its crazy that the AW M11x has a more powerful graphics card than $2000 a 17 inch Macbook Pro.
It has a GT 335M. and its an 11incher.
Apple needs to step up the graphics card, Im satisfied with the processor though.

 

They should have went with ati but they didn't. They have them in there imacs why not the macbooks? The ati 5650 would have been amazing in the macbook pro. Lower TDP then the 330m and ATI are generally cooler.

 

I'll wait for University back to school sales and will they have a minor hardware update?

 

Heh don't blame Nvidia their 3XXM chips are alright.
It is Apple that decides the SKU of the Chips they want.

 

No, Nvidia definitely needs to work on power efficiency, and the GTX 480 isn't a step in the right direction in that regard. ATI is going to dominate the mobile market unless Nvidia makes some improvements.

 

It is the 4XX you are talking currently we still at 3XX with laptops.

 

That's obvious, but the GTX 480 still represents the direction Nvidia is going with their GPUs. Unless Nvidia intends to come up with a whole different new architecture for mobile chips, they're either going to adapt their 4xx series, or just keep adjusting old designs.

Quite simply, short of an entirely new design, Nvidia's efforts aren't up to scratch.