X4500 or Nvidia 8600

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I'm wondering how do people think the X4500 in the new montevina macbooks will perform in comparison to the current macbook pro's 8600? I'm asking because I'm trying to decide between purchasing a new macbook (when it's released) or a refurbished macbook pro. I'm leaning more towards the new macbook mostly because the pro is a bit pricey for me, even at the refurbed price. I'd like to play games occasionally...mostly spore when it comes out, possibly diablo 3. I'll be using the cpu mostly for music making/ djing...but also some video work.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 6
    The X4500 uses system ram. The 8600 has it's own faster ram. Also the bigger screen in the mac pro is plus as well.
  • Reply 2 of 6
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,195moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by homelessfrog View Post


    I'm wondering how do people think the X4500 in the new montevina macbooks will perform in comparison to the current macbook pro's 8600?



    Performance is one thing, compatibility is another. Typically, although integrated graphics perform ok (in the low end range), they tend to not be supported in a variety of applications.



    The X4500 is supposed to be 6 times faster than the GMA 950. The 8600 is well over 10 times faster. I'd estimate that the X4500 won't be more than half the speed of the 8600. It should be a decent improvement but we still need to see some real world tests.



    Faster memory speeds with Montevina should help a bit. I think it will make a capable casual gaming platform.



    Edit - I found this benchmark:



    http://www.notebookjournal.de/praxis/79/2



    It doesn't look as promising as I'd hoped but that was with beta drivers so maybe the final release will be better. Basically it's slower than an 8400M GS and that card is close to 1/3 the performance of the 8600M GT:



    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...ist.844.0.html



    Still a nice improvement for the Mac Mini and I'd say it's a good low end chipset.
  • Reply 3 of 6
    futurepastnowfuturepastnow Posts: 1,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I'd estimate that the X4500 won't be more than half the speed of the 8600.



    It won't even be close to that. X4500 should be competitive with Nvidia's current IGP, the Geforce 8200.
  • Reply 4 of 6
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    No reason to consider integrated graphics if you have any intention to play a game. They have never performed even decently, and that goes especially for Intel's chips. Every time they put out a new chip, it looks good on paper, and people start wondering if this will be the one that bridges the gap between "old" integrated, and more costly dedicated memory parts. So far, no dice. Either the hardware isn't as powerful as it appears, Intel can't make well-performing drivers, or most likely both.



    X4500 looks to compare decently in some of the preliminary benchmarks Marvin found, but that may be more of an indication that the low end nVidia chip they are comparing to isn't much good either.



    What games work well with the chip is what matters most, not how the chip compares to some other chip in some game neither can run enjoyably. The WiC results look unplayable to me.



    Also, the average framerates do not tell the whole story. Intuitively, chips without dedicated memory would be vulnerable to having bad *minimum* framerates, and that's what destroys playability in most games. Out of two chips, one of which achieves 41fps average and 10fps minimum, and the other 29fps average and 25fps minimum, the latter is a lot more useful. Usually, it's exactly the moments where graphics are strained that you need to do the fastest decisions and have most accurate control.
  • Reply 5 of 6
    I guess it's pretty obvious that the macbook pro is still better for games than the x4500... I just read that the minimum requirements for spore are x3100, and the x4500 seems to be a big improvement over that...so being a very casual gamer, I'm probably going to wait for the new macbooks to come out. If I feel the need for better gaming I could always just get a wii.
  • Reply 6 of 6
    futurepastnowfuturepastnow Posts: 1,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by homelessfrog View Post


    I guess it's pretty obvious that the macbook pro is still better for games than the x4500... I just read that the minimum requirements for spore are x3100, and the x4500 seems to be a big improvement over that...so being a very casual gamer, I'm probably going to wait for the new macbooks to come out. If I feel the need for better gaming I could always just get a wii.



    The X4500 should be fine for Spore at the Macbook's 1280x800. Games from 3-4+ years ago should also run well enough. Modern shooter and action games will need the resolution and details turned way down.
Sign In or Register to comment.