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

We will let Nvidia worry about it.
Until then lets discuss about more relavant issues.

 

I agree that the despite all the fuss about the 13" MBP still using Core 2 Duos, it was the right decision. Ignoring graphics, with no Turbo Boost you would be stuck with 2.13GHz and 2.26GHz CPUs by going with Core i3s which realistically wouldn't be a huge benefit over 2.4GHz and 2.66GHz Core 2 Duos, especially if you program doesn't respond well to Hyperthreading, which some programs actually still give negative performance. As Steve Jobs said, in exchange for a bit of CPU power, the new 320M IGP is impressive for an IGP. Ideally, Apple will physically redesign the 13" MBP in the next refresh so it can accommodate low-end discrete GPUs where the problem is probably more a lack of motherboard space than thermals.

I don't agree with generalizing that ATI GPUs are bad on Macs. Especially given recent history of nVidia drivers on Mac. For example, the 8800GT was initially outperformed in Core Image acceleration by the lower end HD2600XT and required several OS updates to perform in it's class. In Modern Warfare nVidia GPUs should worse performance in OS X than Windows, whereas ATI GPUs show similar performance regardless of OS indicating that nVidia's OS X drives aren't as well optimized as they could be. When Bioshock was released, driver bugs caused nVidia GPUs to stutter when playing in 10.6.0 or 10.6.1 while ATI GPUs didn't have this problem and it wasn't fixed until 10.6.2 was released. In terms of OpenGL support, I believe as of 10.6.3 ATI GPUs are closer to full OpenGL 3.0 support with 22/23 extensions supported compared to 21/23 extensions for nVidia GPUs. ATI GPUs are only waiting for GLSL 1.30 support which I believe is Apple's responsibility since they write the common OpenGL front-end and the software renderer fallback. That's not to say ATI GPUs haven't had problems too, but I wouldn't default to preferring nVidia GPUs on the assumption of better driver quality.

 

A major redesign would have been better, but if it had to be integrated graphics, I agree that the 320M with Core 2 Duo was the best choice.

However, Apple's prices really needed to go down with this refresh.

 

1)You haven't seen the benchmarks even the lowest end Core i3 330M outperforms high end higher clocked Core 2 Duo in some benchmarks especially multithreading ones.
2)The OS manages the threads and any Decent OS worth its salt will utilise Hyperthreading efficiently.
In other words switching to Core i3s will only give more efficient and powerful performance so please do a sanity check on your logic analysis.

 

We have Core i3/i5s with soldered Nvidia graphics on Intel chipset from other OEMs so that argument is flawed.
There is nothing spectacular with nvidia chipset that makes it worth sticking to.

 

What exactly do you mean by "Soldered Nvidia graphics"? Dedicated PCI Express cards?

 

we have Core i5s/i7s with soldered nvidia graphics on an Intel chipset from Apple.. its in the 15s and 17s, so I think its pretty obvious thats possible, since Apple already did it.

what makes nvidia chipsets worth sticking to is their integrated graphics are MUCH better than Intel graphics.

of course you can add another GPU, but thats takes up a lot of space, not only for the chip, but the memory chips and the extra cooling for it.

 

I will show you a picture of my laptop internals.


This is Intel Chipset HM 55 with Nvidia Graphics no discrete Graphics PCB with G 310M Nvidia graphics (there is another model with GT 330M ).
If Acer can do it why can't Apple?
Are you able to spot the GPU?
It is diagonally topleft of the CPU Socket
The 4 VRAM are located just above the GPU
2 on the topside,2 on the bottomside 4 Chips probably 128MB each making it 512MB GDDR3 total

 

The integrated 320m is available with an i3 on other computers, why not the 13inch macbook? Reason: Core 2s are still cheaper, 13inch buyers won't care enough to warrant the processor up.

 

Maybe a little off topic, but say for the sake of argument we replace the phrase "330m" with ATi 5830m.

Making that ONE change, leaving everything else as it is hardware and price wise. . . is it a good buy now?

; )

 

No, the integrated 320M is not available on anything but the macbooks. The 320M you have in mind is probably the discrete GT 320M.

At the price they're charging for the Macs, it's still a poor deal. That would be the same specs as the HP Envy 15, and although the Macs have good battery life on top of the Envy, the Envy has been around $1000 with coupons.

 

Anandtech's benchmarking of the 330M

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3659/apples-15inch-core-i5-macbook-pro-the-one-to-get/6

 

I'd actually be interested to see direct comparison benchmarks between mobile Core i3 and mobile Penryns. I've only seen some synthetics.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

If filtering to include only the 2.13GHz Core i3 330M vs. the 2.4GHz P8600 and the 2.26GHz Core i3 340M vs. the 2.66GHz P8800, the synthetics show that the Core i3 doesn't really break away from the Core 2 Duo. Multithreaded Cinebench does show the benefits of Hyperthreading for the Core i3 over the Core 2 Duo to open up a definitive lead, but presumably Apple is thinking this will be offset by GPU acceleration in the long-term, which isn't unlikely since for instance Cinema 4D is moving to adopt Bullet Physics which AMD is helping to make OpenCL accelerated.

In terms of efficient and powerful performance, I think the 25W TDP Core 2 Duo + ~12W TDP 320M IGP chipset (assuming similar to 9400M) combination offers better overall system performance/watt than a similar power envelope implementation with 35W Core i3 with integrated IGP + 3.5W southbridge.

On another note, it looks like Apple underclocked the GT330M quite a bit. Memory is fine at 790MHz versus up to 800MHz spec, but core clock is 500MHz versus up to 575MHz spec and shader clock at 1100MHz versus up to 1275MHz spec. In fact, Apple's underclocking means that the GPU is really clocked out of it's name since it is clocked identical to the GT230M and the related GT325M rebrand. A true GT330M should be clocked slightly higher than the older GT240M. If Apple had to underclock the 23W GT330M to maintain power and thermals, it really seems like they went out of their way to limit themselves to nVidia GPUs since the faster, cooler 15-19W HD5650 seems so much more ideal.

 

SuperPI isn't exactly the benchmark you will want to use. It is not exactly multithreaded which is the direction of the future.
I have Windows Experience Index (just for the sake of comparision)
Core i3 M 330 has a 6.2 score. (I was surprised by this when I got this laptop expected worse performance)
Are you sure of the full TDP calculations?

PS: I can think of 101 I am a PC I am a Mac ads for the jokes Apple pulled.

 

PC World: New MBP's not for serious gamers.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/194147/apples_new_macbook_pros_not_for_serious_gamers.html/

 

Lol, macbook pros were never serious for gamers to begin with.

 

yea, but there's a difference between "not serious" and "not applicable."

when your charts are



showing off 7-year old games, it's no longer an applicable category for you.

Now, I've talked to some people that are refuting the Anandtech GPU benchmark findings. I'm hoping that's the case and this machine really doesn't suck these kinds of balls. but the verdict is still out.

 

The 330M shouldn't be a slouch, but not exactly a powerhouse either.

The 335M has already shown itself to be an ample performer-handling games such as Modern Warfare 2 and Crysis very well-however that has the advantages of 72 shaders, over the 330M's 48 shaders.

In short and simple form, you'll be playing games, just not at the highest settings (and in the case of games like Crysis, at the lowest settings)

Legally, no i3, i5, or i7 processors should be coupled with ANY integrated nVidia chip-as that would require a full nVidia chipset, which is an illegal combination according to Intel.

 

the 335 is twice the card though, and IS a decent GPU. Spec for spec you cant compare a 330 and a 335.

1/3 more processing cores and higher clock speed

http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/product_geforce_gt_335m_uk.html

 

Last August was like 8 months back, not yesterday. At that time no one knew what was going to be in the next refresh let alone who was supplying the GPU.

Not wanting to gamble when I need a GPU that is proven is not foolish. I need it to work not play games. And it does what I expected so I am satisfied at what I have to date. I cannot sacrifice my business for something that has yet to be throughly examined.

If the new refresh proves itself then I will see.

 

So my laptop is illegal now according to you...
I AM EXPECTING MEN IN BLACK TO STOMP THROUGH MY DOORS AND SEIZE MY LAPTOP ANY MOMENT NOW...

 

Nvidia can make all the GPU's it wants for intel, where it comes into play is Nvidia can NOT make a motherboard chipset for the new i series which means no Nvidia system board chipset with THEIR IGP in it.
they can however make discreet cards that interface nicely with the intel cpu and chipset and even switch with the intel IGP on the CPU die

 

Doesn't it look like a Single PCB?

 

it is a single PCB like almost every laptop with a discreet Card ( excluding some MSI and acer machines sw well as gaming machines with MXM connectors)

on machines without MXM connectors the IGP is integrated into the motherboard southbridge chip ( older ), or in the case of the i series CPU's directly on the CPU die itself, the discreet card is then soldered right on the motherboard usually fairly close to the CPU to share the cooling pipe.

you can put quite a number of separate video subsystems on a single PCB. MAtrox for one had a system borad for MRI machines with 8 independant GPUs on a single motherboard.

 

I never said that an nVidia GPU cannot be combined with a new Intel processor.

What I said, is that a new Intel processor CANNOT be combined with an INTEGRATED nVidia GPU.

Because, if the IGP was from nVidia, then the whole chipset would be an nVidia chipset. The last time I checked, there's no such thing as an Intel chipset with an nVidia IGP; at least, I've never heard of it, and considering Intel's legal dispute I'm very doubtful that they'd allow it.

Yes.

The Alienware M11x is also on a single PCB, with its dedicated 335M chip.

Most low end laptops-and even most mid-end laptops-have all their parts soldered on, including their dedicated GPUs, onto the single PCB (excluding RAM, hard drive and the such).

 

Yep I mis read you sorry

 

Point being they can still put an Nvidia GPU and Core i3 on the same board right?
So why isn't it happening on 13 incher?

 

Ask Apple themselves, ASUS, Acer, Lenovo, Sony, HP, DELL all have i3 and i5 13" models out or coning out within the next couple months, many even have larger dicreet cards than the 330 and the same form factor as the MBP 13. I am at a complete loss for this as well I was going to snag a 13" MBP if it was i3 or i5, guess I will keep on with the UL30VT and upgrade to an ASUS or X201 for the speed good grief that machine caqn even have an i7 and its a 12 incher !!!

 

They can't put an integrated nVidia GPU and a core i3/i5/i7 on the same board.

If you don't know the difference between an integrated and a dedicated GPU, I suggest you look it up. Because of the very purpose of the MacBook Pro 13", putting in a dedicated GPU would be a bad move, from my perspective at least.

 

Because ?
Dedicate sucks power like drinking water?
Nvidia gave them bulk discount for the G 320M?
They had surplus Core 2 Duos left in their warehouse?
Optimus anybody?
Look at the 15 incher for answers?
Apple must use integrated because it says so in the books of Job?
Discrete Graphics have comparable power consumption compared to Integrated and Apple do have auto graphics switching right?

 

Discrete graphics have a significantly higher power consumption. In the case of 330M, it would be around 23W extra. That'd be around an extra 50% power consumption on top of what it'd normally use, not to mention that extra heat.

I think that Apple chose not to include a dedicated chip for several reasons; firstly, for the power and heat, and secondly, for cost. As their low end model, it seems a wise move to keep the 13 inch model at a lower cost, and upgrading the processor and adding in dedicated graphics could add a few extra hundred dollars onto the price; something that'd turn a lot of customers off.

 

1)Power and heat?!
Apple has Automatic Graphics switch SAYS SO ON THEIR SITE on 15 inchers.
The 13 inch could have switched between Intel HD and a discrete GPU like the 15 inchers.
2)Discrete GPU isn't expensive.
You haven't looking at other laptops other than Macbooks have you?
You mean other OEMS sold their laptops at a loss?

My conclusion is profit and surplus C2Ds.

Remember their original macbook white used Intel X3100 Graphics?
Halfway through they switched to Nvidia 9400M G, possibly they cleared the X3100 Mainboard stocks.

 

Thread has gotten a little off topic.

Can we keep it relative to the 330M?

 

The discrete GPU ITSELF might not be that expensive-$50 or so on top of normal price.

However, they'd HAVE to include an i3/i5/i7 for the IGP on board, or battery life would go to hell. THIS would increase costs significantly. And, just like you say, they likely have some surplus C2Ds and are trying to get rid of them.

Nevertheless, an i3/i5/i7 and dedicated GPU would add a few hundred extra dollars which could well turn some people off it.

The dedicated GPU WOULD eat power and create heat whenever it's on, which would kill battery life anyway.

 

The Macbooks are already expensive compared to their WinTel counterparts and automatic switchable graphics would reduce their power consumption just like their Macbook Pro 15 inch line with GT 330M so it is not because Apple can't it is they don't want to for the sake of profit margin.

 

Dell -- Vostro 3300, i5 and dedicated 512MB 310M GPU - $1100
Asus - U30JC - i3, dedicated 512 310M GPU AND rated for 9hrs - $880
Toshiba - M500 - i5, dedicated 512MB 310M GPU - $1000

Apple - c2d, 320 256mb integrated $1,200

And don't get me started on the 330m in the 15in. Sony has a i5/330m 512mb, 1600x900, 500GB with bluray for under $1000.

I cant find another 330m with 256mb on the market, I didn't even know it existed till Apple showed it. Anyone have a link?

 

I'm not sure I follow. Your saying that a $1200 laptop should run a core 2, because it's cheap out integrated gpu doesn't go well with an i core. First of all apple should of put the discrete 320m on the macbooks, then they could fit an i core. The i core would also have the integrated gpu on it, which would future increase battery life.

But no, they decided to clear out stock of core 2, while having an intigrated 320 thats much slower than the discrete 320, to possible confuse consumers who think it has discrete graphics and to make it appear more powerful than it really is. All while selling at unparalleled markup. And your defending this from a consumer (not shareholder) standpoint?