or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Benchmarks of 2009 iMacs, Mac minis show negligible speed-ups
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Benchmarks of 2009 iMacs, Mac minis show negligible speed-ups - Page 7

post #241 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Young View Post

So am I correct in seeing that all the base model Macs (iMac, mini, MacBook) now use the exact same NVIDIA GeForce 9400M chip with memory shared --well, allocated really-- from main RAM? In an amount of 256 MB, excepting for the ham-strung 1GB base mini, which shifts to 256 MB graphic RAM allocation as soon as you put in a second GB of main RAM.

That (to me) really points out that the base mini model configuration is intentionally 'dumbed' down with only 1 GB RAM.

As my ancient (and no longer working ) iMac G5 (ALS/2005) had a Radeon 9600 with dedicated 128 MB video RAM, I am wondering how much better (if any) the GeForce 9400M shared is.
I am trying to figure out what my best option for a Mac replacement is now, given the recent minor speed revisions in the Early 2009 releases. (Yes, the new mini has big graphic improvement over old mini,,, but I am comparing to how it would seem to me visavis my iMac G5.)

Are there any sites that do generalized Mac Video chip comparatives?

It's not intentionally dumbed down. It's a cost issue. If it were dumbed down, then you couldn't add that extra DIMM at all.

Try Barefeats. They do speed comparisons. You would have to look fairly far back for the G5.

Macworld also does this. they will compare older machines with newer ones, but not across several generations. You would have to look at the older numbers, and assuming that the testing procedures haven't changed, compare them with the newer ones.
post #242 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It works faster in a number of apps besides Motion. From my own experience, it's faster in Archicad as well.

Since many pro apps use Core Image, yes, poor performance is important. As many 3D pro apps use Core Image, its important for them.

Even after the patch, it was still no better. Worse in some tests still. Not a good buy for pro users.

We have one set of tests here:

http://www.barefeats.com/harper10.html

The later ones here.

http://www.barefeats.com/imp04.html

As Barefeats said, it would be better to buy the 3870 than the 8800GT for faster performance, and the 2600 Pro would still be equal.

That was 10.5.3. We're at 10.5.6 and the Motion 3 performance for the 9400M is 1.4x as fast as with the 2400XT so nVidia OSX drivers appear good now. And as noted above, ATI just hosed up their OpenGL 3.0 support in their latest drivers.

Quote:
A more modern ATI card such as the 4870 still is much better than the currently best Nvidia for this purpose. Far better than a mid Nvidia.

Unless you have current benchmarks for the 4870 1GB vs GTX 260/216 you can't say that for sure. Especially with the current state of the Catalyst drivers.
post #243 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

That was 10.5.3. We're at 10.5.6 and the Motion 3 performance for the 9400M is 1.4x as fast as with the 2400XT so nVidia OSX drivers appear good now. And as noted above, ATI just hosed up their OpenGL 3.0 support in their latest drivers.



Unless you have current benchmarks for the 4870 1GB vs GTX 260/216 you can't say that for sure. Especially with the current state of the Catalyst drivers.

I agree that driver support gets screwed u with everyone. but, as you have shown, thats a temporary situation, and can't be used to evaluate the boards themselves over the long term.

I don't have any tests for the 260/216 yet. I'm just going by what I've read on the sites that check these boards. I'm sure we'll see tests soon.
post #244 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Macworld: Benchmarks: New Mac minis http://www.macworld.com/article/1392...mini_2009.html

Thanks for posting this. I'm betting the iMacs and new Mac Pros will see a similar improvement (for similarly priced models) when MacWorld posts their benchmarks.

Not that that will shut any of the doom-and-gloomers who want to bitch about clock speed.
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
post #245 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcalpin View Post

Thanks for posting this. I'm betting the iMacs and new Mac Pros will see a similar improvement (for similarly priced models) when MacWorld posts their benchmarks.

Not that that will shut any of the doom-and-gloomers who want to bitch about clock speed.

I'm hoping for a bigger improvement from my Mac Pro, which Apple has JUST informed me has been shipped!
post #246 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcalpin View Post

Thanks for posting this. I'm betting the iMacs and new Mac Pros will see a similar improvement (for similarly priced models) when MacWorld posts their benchmarks.

Not that that will shut any of the doom-and-gloomers who want to bitch about clock speed.

Mostly we're bitching about the pricing with regards to the Mac Mini and iMacs
post #247 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Mostly we're bitching about the pricing with regards to the Mac Mini and iMacs

People are also bitching about the Mac Pro price.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Benchmarks of 2009 iMacs, Mac minis show negligible speed-ups