What card will the new MacBook Pros have?

Some are saying that the new MacBook Pros being announced tomorrow will feature the 9600M GT, which would be extremely disappointing considering it only scores a few FPS (like literally 2 or 3) higher than the 8600M GT in the current MBPs in most games.

However the 9650M GT is 55nm and has the same power draw as the 9600M GT, so I see no reason why Apple wouldn't opt for that card which appears faster.

So my question is, how will the 9650M GT perform in comparison to the 9600M GT in gaming eg. Crysis, COD4 and in the future, FarCry 2 and Fallout 3.

If the 9600M GT can't really manage much out of those games then I might consider getting a MacBook and an iMac or even Mac Pro (hmm.. if I can afford that..).

And are there any other possible cards for the new MBP? 9700M GT too hot? How about the ATI HD 4850? What about a new refresh from Nvidia?

 

I doubt anything higher than the 9700M GT, As for 9650M GT it's basically a higher clocked 9600 with a die shrink, The performance is not very significant. But we will more likely get 9600M GT or possibly 9650M GT of course Apple could always surprise us with a 9700 or maybe even a 9800! We'll just have to wait and see...

 

A 9600m GT DDR3 wouldn't be bad at all...

After all, Apple isn't trying to making a gaming notebook, it's just updating the MBP to the latest components in the same performance class.

 

But if the 9600M GT offers almost no improvement in actual performance over the 8600M GT, surely the improvement in graphical performance would be miniscule as opposed to the large leaps in chipset/processor/optical drive that are predicted?

I mean, why use a 9600M GT and not a 9650M GT? And why call a laptop that cripples itself with either of those two cards "Pro"?

 

Because 9650 gets maybe 1% better performance than the regular 9600 and something can be "pro" and not play video games.

 

It's pretty stupid to call something with a low midrange card that costs as much as the MBP does and that will soon be running an OS with an emphasis on OpenCL, "Pro".

 

The 9600m GT DDR3 does offer a nice boost over the current 8600m GT in the MBP.

 

the 9500M GS is actually the rebranded version of the 8600M GT, so if the new MBP's were to use 9600M GT, that would be a very nice upgrade, better than the 8700M GT.

 

Not when there are better cards that draw no more power on the market.

 

Mac's are hilariously overpriced

The new one's will probably look something like this:

9600m GT
2GB DDR3 Ram (make it 4GB for only $400 more)
P8400

Total-$2,500

 

New Macbook pros are suppose to start at $1799
and for that you get an awesome build quality and #1 customer service satisfaction in the US and some good specs: ( just my speculation)
T9400
4Gb ram
320Gb 5400
9600GT

So its not that bad. Mac are more expansive but u get what u ve paid for, rather then being constantly on the phone with HP, Toshiba or Dell rep

 

Is someone going to attempt to explain why the 9600M GT is more likely than the 9650M GT???

 

Its the same reason that HP, DELL, Toshiba and other manufacturers dont put 9650 in their laptops. - Money

 

To be honest Apple is not very predictable, they could put in the 9600M GT like everyone would expect but not want. Or they could surprise us with a 9700M or something better. As far as GPU is concerned it's going to be in the Thin and light or Performance & Multimedia segment of Nvidia GPUs hopefully in the 9M series. Apple may even stun us all further and just keep the 8600M.
If/when the update the GPUs it will atleast be a 9600M GT at the very minimum, you can be sure of that

Personally I think since the whole notebooks overall are getting a power overhall (Macbook Nvidia Chipset, Faster Macbook Air) They Pro may get the fastest of the thin and light options like say a 9700M optional, bluray drive, and possibly 2.8Ghz CPU
But at this point we can only hope. Whatever the case everything will be clear tomorrow.

 

yes if you look at the config
but most ppl who buy MAC are looking at its brand name + design .......

 

Apple denounced gaming not so long ago... now you guys are debating the 9600MGT? I'd get a DV5T for $1000-$1500 less.

 

I am curious, approx. how long would the battery time be if the new Macs were equipped with the 9600M GT?

 

Knowing Apple, the cheapest model would probably have a P8400, 2GB of RAM and 200GB 5200rpm HDD.

 

Latest rumors say "2 full blown nVidia GPUs".

2 x 9700m GTS anyone?

 

Lol you wish... Imagine the combined heat of 2 9700m GTS dispersing through that aluminium shell (and melting it at the same time)

 

Yeah I know, it looks like it's going to be the crappy 9600M GT. ****.

 

Have you guys read this?

So, the rumours are saying that the MBP 15" will have a 9400M, while the 17" will have both 9400M and 9600M (?).

 

No, the 8700M GT is the 9650, and the 9700GT at stock is the 8700m overclocked. (the overclock nearly every 8700m will reach)

The 9600m is a slightly better 8600m DDR3.

 

Are you sure? From the 3D scores I've seen 9600M GT scores worse than 8600M GT (DDR3) but 9650 is scoring about the same as 8600.

 

i bet they will put a 9600 in it or skip the 9 series. I don't see it as an good investment for Apple to get something better. Do you guys? Just take a look at 95% of the Macbook consumers.

 

The GPUs are indeed as I said, although they may be pairing the 9650 and 9600 with DDR2 instead of DDR3.

Also, some people are posting scores without resolutions or details or accounting for processor bias (3dmark06).

For instance... if we were to lightly compare our two systems:
your sig lists a 5619 with a T7250 and 8600GT (I assume at stock)
My sig lists a 5556 with a T7100 and 8700m GT OC'd to 9700m GT levels.

More than likely your score is a lower resolution and your faster processor is awarding you 200-300 points additional due to the processor bias in the 3dmark06 benchmark. This isn't anyone's fault, its just not a good comparison due to not using similar settings and a flaw in the 3dmark06 benchmark.

While I understand this example is "not a good comparison" this IS a good example of honest information being used improperly as a comparison and is done all too often.

As for the new macbook pro... A single 9700m GTS would be about perfect and likely able to be cooled properly given macs' tendency towards "pretty over performance". A 9600GT would do... but let's be honest...
Given Apple's disdain for gaming, and attitude towards "cutesy > performance," a 9400 is probably the most likely candidate.

A reminder, the vast majority of Apple's customer base would rather have a thin and pretty casing than any level of functionality. People like those who usually post here are rare. Most of Apple's customers would pay $3000 for a pretty case with entry-level components in it and an "Apple" brand name on it.

 

u'll know in 5 min

 

They've dubbed it the NVIDIA GeForce 9400 M -- it's an amazing chip. Chipset and GPU on one die -- 70% is the GPU, 16 parallel graphic cores, 54gflops of graphics performance. It's a sunner."

 

9400 M? what is that for a name? dont tell me its worse than 9500 and comparable to 8400 GT?

 

iii have no idea, just copy and pasted

 

Haha looks like solintered vision was basically right. for $2000 get a measley 2gb ram, 2.4 ghz processor, and a 9600. What a ripoff considering my brother just bought an asus g50v with a 9700gt, 4gb ram, 400gb hard drive, and a p9600 for $1700. It upsets me because ost of apples customers think they are getting a deal on these new products.

 

again just copy and paste:

"This delivers up to 5x faster graphics than the chips we've been using. So what's it look like when we take it into the real world? up to 6x performance."

 

5x faster in what?

A 9600m GT isn't even 1.3x faster than the 8600m GT DDR3 they have been using previously... in anything.

To be fair, we need to know where the quote is from... if it's what is implied, they are on some very VERY good drugs.

I honestly feel sorry for the mac people... this update is a pretty big let-down performance-wise.
The macbook pro is their top-of-the-line and it cannot outperform my 15-month-old PC laptop.
Current PC laptops with 9700GTS, 8800, or 9800-series GPUs will completely bury the macbook pro.

Back when the 8700m GT/7950GTX were the best, the 8600m GT DDR3 was a good choice.
At this point they shot a lot lower than before...

 

hahahahahha it's wat steve jobs said

here u go

http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/14/live-from-apples-spotlight-turns-to-notebooks-event/

 

I'm pretty sure it mean 5x faster than intels x3100 integrated chip. Basically, it had the power of a very low end dedicated card.

 

9600m GT DDR3 (stock) scores over 1000 points higher than 8600m GT DDR3(stock). 9650m GT scores (according to Zepto) up to 20% higher than 9600m GT.

 

Why are we talking abouth the 9650? The macbook pro has an 9600gt....

 

I was just pointing it out to the guy who thinks 9650m GT scores the same as 8600m GT..

 

oh ok. Yeah jsut co clarift its the 9650m gs That is the same as an 8600 gt

 

So its 5-6x faster than the "3d features are basically pointless" GPU.

And that statement applies to the budget unit and not the macbook pro.


I still feel sorry for the mac people, especially the ones who want to game.

The 9600GT isn't a bad card, but it just doesn't compare in the price range they will be asking.

 

It's official, the 9600M GT is the max for the Macbooks...at a horrible price...

 

So... how high can I clock these 9600M GTs? They are DDR3.

I have seen online people saying they've clocked this card to 700 core / 1700 shader / 950 memory and beyond. That's faster than a 9700M GT.

If they 9700M GT gets 25fps in Crysis on very high, can we expect the same from a 9600M GT clocked to those levels?

Also, is there any benefit in getting the 512mb over the 256mb?

 

The 5x argument was saying that the 9400M was 5x faster than the x3100, and half as fast as the 8600M. Honestly, that's pretty solid if it checks out. I'm also curious as to the 256MB vs. the 512MB. Looking at benches it seemed like the 9600M with DDR3 was a decent step up.

 

The 9600M GTs are DDR3.

 

Lucky enough in Europe it won't be to expensive (thanks to the Euro).

But even Apple is going green with Hybrid SLI

 

Oops sorry, typo typo typo!

As the 9600M GT is DDR3, doesn't that mean that when overclocked to 9700M GT frequencies.. it effectively IS a 9700M GT?

 

Is the 9700m gt also 128 bit? If no, then no way can an OCed 9600m gt be able to match the performance of that card.

 

It is 128bit yes.

 

Then the performance from an OCed 9600m gt will be comparable to the stock 9700m gt. However if OCed, the 9700m gt will again have the edge.Moreover I think the MBPs already run hot with the 8600m gt. It may not be advisable to OC the new GPU as architecturally it is not much different from the 8600m gt.

 

If the 9600M GT isn't architecturally much different to a 8600M GT doesn't that mean the 9700M GT isn't much different to a 8600M GT either?

I'm gonna get a cooling mat and give it a go, it's the only way this card won't suck for me, I was assuming 6 months ago that with the cards around then the MBP would provide enough to run Crysis pretty well, ut now 6 months later I don't think that'll be the case without overclocking like HP pavillion users are.