power of the 9600m GT?!

hey guys, I just want to get an idea of the power of the 9600m GT video card that comes with the macbook pro's. Now on my desktop computer I have a 3 year old ATI 1600x 512mb PCI-e video card which is definitely getting old. My question is can anybody tell me how the 9600m GT compares to the ATI 1600x,

is it better? this way I can get an idea of the power of the 9600m GT because I know pretty well what the 1600x is capable of.

thanks a lot.

 

GPUREVIEW.COM, I SUMMON YOU! SHOW ME THE ANSWER!

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=596&card2=350

THANKS BOSS

 

2-3 times faster.

 

Well they both have the same core clock at 128bit, but the 9600's memory is a lot faster. And the 9600 is about came out about 3 years after, so I figure it would be significantly faster. However unless your a gamer you don't really need the 9600m gt, you would use the 9400m most of the time, longer battery life and the preformance is more than adequate . But if you are a gamer, what games will you play? The 9600m gt can play most older games on high detail, and more modern ones on medium to low.

 

According to the benchmarks, 9600mGT is only around 20% faster than ATI x1600 desktop card. Right now, 9600m GT is pretty slow compared to what manufacturers are offering right now for highend laptops.

Here's an idea of macbook pro 15" with 4GB of ram + intel T9400 processor running crysis.

Settings: 1024*768 at high : ~15fps

 

Depends on what you're doing, but notebookcheck has an easy-to-view listing of mobile GPU's.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Graphic-Cards.130.0.html

Bear in mind however that driver performance differs between OS X and Windows irrespective of the GPU itself. As indicated with the driver situation with the 2008 Mac Pro where the ATI 2600XT card was actually better in some OS X based GPU operations than the (hardware at least) far superior 8800GT and more or less par in many other situations, it's been the case that ATI seems to have a better handle on writing OS X drivers than NVidia.

 

I dont' think notebookcheck has desktop gfx card benchmarks.

 

X1600XT scores about 2k-2.5k in 3dmark06. 9600m GT around double that. This is assuming the OP has the XT (the best).

 

Yeah the $2300 2.8GHz macbook pro scores about 5500 on 3dmark06, while similar pcs like the msi gt725 ($1600) score around 1100-1200, and the asus w90 ($2200) scores 1600+. Just to give you an idea. But benchmarks are just numbers, in gaming the 9600 is decent and can run most games.

 

Both 1600xt and the 9600m gt gets around 5500 points in 3dmark05.
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1940&page=3
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9600M-GT.9449.0.html
with 9600m gt taking a slight lead.

Even the mobile version of x1600 scores higher than 2-2.5k in 3d

For 3dmark06, 9600m gt scores around 4k points and 2.3k.

depending on which benchmark you use, scores varies a lot. But if compare the fps in games, the difference between these 2 cards is barely noticible.

 

3dmark05 of 9600m GT is 9k (avg) according to your link.

 

opps my bad

 

You also have to take into account the 9600m was tested in a 17inch macbook with a t9550 core 2 at 2.66Ghz and 4gigs DDR3 ram, while the x1600 was tested using an Athlon64 2.4GHz and 1gig of DDR (not even DDR2). The 9600 is faster though. Its memory clock is a lot faster, but both are 128bit, with 500mhz clock.

 

I think you got your numbers for 3DMark06 on the MSI and Asus mixed up a bit... maybe dropped a zero at the end?

 

Yeah I didn't notice I did that

 

The 9400M and the 9600GT in my new Macbook Pro are both significantly faster than the X1600 mobile in my other Macbook Pro, very noticeably faster.

 

He's comparing x1600 desktop graphic card against the mobile graphic card in Macbook Pro.

 

for a $2000 laptop, the 9600gt card is prett horrible.
in a pc for $2000 you can get a card seriously 3 times as powerful.

thats my only complaint about apple, is that they are behind the times with graphics cards

 

also I have the ATI 3870x2 card, which is
over twice as powerful and i can run most games easy on their highest settings.

so... the 9600gt is only decent at gaming.
expect to use it with modest resolution and graphical settings

 

For a vogue/form factor pc the 9600 is actually decently powerful, almost to much heat for the thin macbook pro to handle. However for $2300 you'd expect Apple not to cut corners to save money. The new GT 130m is faster and uses the same amount of power/heat as the 9600. That's why its disappointing, that Apple still uses a semi-outdated gpu in something that's advertised as "desktop class" graphics, its medium range at best. In the end expect to be able to game, modern games at medium to low, future games forget about it. However apart from the graphical power, the Macbooks are very fast for the portability, style, and brand name they offer.

 

Well then apple needs to make yet another notebook, for those or not concerned with thickness but with a gpu worthy of 2 grand.

 

Apple Macbook Pro Pro, slightly thicker with quad core support, Quadro FX 3700M graphics, duel HD/SSD bays, would be my dream laptop.

 

that would be kickass i would get one too

 

I might get the UMBP soon and I was wondering if anyone knows of the 2.4ghz, 2gb ram, 9600gt MPB can max out all source games at native resolution (1440x900) with full AA. Specifically TF2, Counter Strike Source, and Left 4 Dead.

 

No, Apple isn't. The MBP is not a gaming machine. There is no need for a much hotter and less energy efficient GPU in there. Apple needs to lower the prices some more, but it's not because of the somewhat limited GPU.

 

I can tell you that my MBP with a slightly slower GPU and CPU cannot even come close to maxing out TF2 at native resolution. Then again, I'm used to 60fps minimum with max settings at 1080p because I play on my desktop PC, which was designed for gaming.

 

I assume you're running the 8600. I'm also used to TF2 running at above 60-70 FPS @ 1920x1200 with full AA so anything less will be noticeable. I think if the AA is not at full, TF2 should be able to play well at native resolution with everything else maxed out.

 

Can i play cs source , cod modern warfare and fifa on the 15 inch MBP which costs 1700$?

 

That would be the one with only the 9400. You should be able to play all those games you listed but definitely not maxed out. Maybe medium or low to medium settings. Have you considered the refurbished one for $1349? Thats the one i'm looking at.

 

I never got sustained 30fps on TF2 with the 8600m, not even without AA and at 1280x800. In certain situations and some maps, 30fps minimum was possible.

Even my older 2600 Pro struggled to run TF2 much better. Frankly, I was shocked because a simple 320Mb 8800GT can easily crush this game at 1920 X whatever res.

I should note that I'm using Vista SP1 64-bit, so it's slower than XP.

 

Yes, of course you can play it, but not a max settings. Even those $250 netbook or 5 year old computer will be able to handle it. The source engine scales pretty good. Ie. it can play on extremely weak systems as well as produce stunning GFX with powerful computers.

 

Does the 9600m GT support DX10?

 

^^ Yes it does, according to gpureview dot com

 

You wouldn't want to use the 9600 for true DX10. In fact, I wouldn't want to use anything short of a GTX for that.