Can the New Mac's NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M equal in performance as compared to the mobile 9800GTX ???
or is the 330M worst off ???
what actually is the 330M's performance like ???
![]()
-
-
-
also no call of duty modern warfare too ???
-
jackluo923 Notebook Virtuoso
It can, but you'll be probably playing it on the lowest setting on almost everything.
-
Yea you might be able to eke out medium settings on a very low resolution. The refresh was hardly and upgrade for those seeking some decent gaming capability.
-
ltcommander_data Notebook Deity
I am disappointed with the GT330M too, but it seems most people have unrealistically low expectations of the GPU.
Some benchmarks are here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-330M.22437.0.html
Modern Warfare 2 should be playable at native resolution (1440x900) with medium settings with some tweaking. Crysis probably playable at native resolution on low, seems like 1024x768 with medium settings. -
Its essentially the same as the 9600m, but more power efficient. Its adequate for old games, but if your a "gamer" then you probably better off with a gaming notebook, or a desktop/netbook combo.
Modern Warfare 2 is pretty much the upper limits of what you can play, be it at low resolution and detail. -
the MBP's have dual-core i5/i7 solutions + 512MB GT 330M's.
I expect that to impact the performance. -
In a graphics card as weak as the 330M, 512MB vs 1GB should be pretty much irrelevant. The CPU difference also won't matter for most games.
1GB is more appealing on a spec sheet, but it's a smart decision by Apple to save some cash by going 512MB when there pretty much won't be a difference in performance. Of course, they're not passing along those savings to the consumer. -
well in that case...I had a 9600M GT in my Vaio. it could handle most games, but not at default resolution. it'll have to drop down a couple notches.
in other words: it's not a gaming machine. -
ltcommander_data Notebook Deity
-
The 330 can pretty much handle any light game, enouph to satisfy the wow player, or the Guy who doesn't have an Xbox buy wants to play call of duty, well he can play cod4 on his MacBook. -
word.
well...I hope you're right (about the lack of significance). -
-
so yea, we're all gonna be down-rezing for games. -
The difference is actually 230 400 pixels, mind you. Nothing in the thread gave me the impression it was only about the 17", either.
In any case, they're not gaming machines, but the 330M makes the 15" MBP a decent all-rounder, though rather overpriced - consider the Acer AS5740G, with similar hardware and the more powerful HD 5650 at $800. Sure, the MBP has vastly better battery life and a much better screen, but does that justify over $1000 extra? I can agree that the 17" definitely should've had a better card, though. -
Gamers also want best power for the price, which apple can't offer. Its better off for the macbook to get 8 hour battery with a 330, then 5 hours on a mid range card and still preform less than the $600 PC tower. -
16:10 Ftw!!!!!
-
The 17" definitely should've had a better GPU, Mac or no. -
Even if they did it would still be a midrange card at best in the MacBook form factor. Nothing compared to a high end notebook card or mid range desktop card. -
They could've done a lot better if they had switched to ATI; a lot of mainstream notebooks are managing an HD 5650 nowadays, even some future 13" notebooks seem to have it on offer, while the VAIO Z has the same GPU in 13.3". Thin as it may be, considering Apple's pricing the 17" MBP has no excuse - a redesign of the thermal system would be paid for pretty quickly.
Go up to 15" and there's offerings like the HP Envy 15 and MSI GX640. Sure, neither is 0.95" thick like the 15" MBP, but the Envy 15 is lighter than the MBP, and the MSI GX640 isn't far off in weight at 6 lbs, while managing a Mobility HD 5850.
EDIT: When you look into it, the 330M is operating with basically the same TDP as the 9600M GT, so its inclusion in the MBP is no surprise. The fault lies mostly with Nvidia, though if Apple had gone with ATI, they'd have gotten the Mobility HD 5650 with similar TDP, but far better performance. -
-
yea man. I don't even know what to say, but "ugh".
glad I wasn't waiting for a 13" or 15". -
For shame, Apple. -
I'm not even convinced that 256MB vs 512MB would make a difference in the 330M except possibly at high resolutions, to be honest.
At the standard 1440x900 there likely wouldn't be any, though it's possible that at 1680x1050 the 15" MBP might be a little jerky with 256MB instead of 512MB.
As for MacBook Pro killers, I suspect the Acer TimelineX will be the first, and the most important. -
I waited 3 months for this news.
*facepalm* -
-
True, but without the battery life of the MBP the Envy isn't truly a MBP killer, even though it's a great machine. HP really should have thought to include switchable graphics in the Core i5 Envy 15 models, as well as picked better battery options than the weak 53Wh 6 cell or the heavy slice.
The TimelineX is even looking to be an m11x killer. Unless Nvidia manages to come out with some power efficient GPUs in the near future (If the GTX 480 is representative of their new generation, I rather doubt it), or Alienware switches over to ATI, the TimelineX will probably beat the refresh as well. If I were responsible for it, the successor to the m11x would have a 13" screen, and a Redwood (ATI HD 5650, 5730, 5750, 5770) with GDDR5. -
-
Good thing I did. -
electrosoft Perpetualist Matrixist
The pros are they are now officially rocking the biggest and baddest i7 dual cores available.
The M11x will not have a 620M under the hood. So enough of that.
The bad thing is I was hoping for at least a 250M level GPU @ 28w if they weren't willing to go with ATI's 5000 series of beauties.
But the 330 is better than the 9600 (48 shaders vs. 32), so it is a mild upgrade within their own product line.
So outside of the GPU, the MBP refresh is a winner it appears? -
Sorry but I can't help giggling at this. i7-620 is the biggest and baddest i7 dual core because it's the only i7 dual core. -
So unless you got a good discount, I'd feel pretty bad. I'm only frustrated because i could have been in an even more powerful machine already. We'll see what happens. I'm gonna head to the apple store today. I need to return/exchange my ipad anyway. -
electrosoft Perpetualist Matrixist
They could have restricted the new refreshes to i5s and i3s.
While sticking to the dual core model (I never once thought we'd see a quad core MBP, especially after they declined to go with the Q9000 in the C2D MBP) they are embracing the newest offered like they did previously with the C2D as their last C2D MBP uses the T9900 which was as good as it got with the Core chips. -
EDIT: Actually after looking at the HD 5650, compared to the 330m, wow... I don't know why they went with nVidia. The HD 5650 is DX11, preforms better than the 330m, and uses only 15-19watts. The 330m is DX10, slower, and I believe uses 23 watts. The only reason they went nVidia is for the brand, very, very disappointing. -
What is the difference between the new 15 inch screen and the older one? Was the higher res. not offered before?
Also, for game playing (and internet surfing, itunes, etc), will most people notice much diff. between an i5 and i7? -
As for the screen, the 15 is still the 1440x900 screen on the old one, although there is an option for a 1680x1050 screen for $100, anti-glare is available too. -
-
-
ATI cards are horrid for gaming on Macs. Mac ports always have to add work arounds just for ATI... gaming under anything Wine based (including Cider ports) is usually also horrid on ATI cards, where nvidia runs great. DX10 and 11 makes no difference at all to Mac OS X since it doesn't use DirectX. nvidia support OpenGL improvements historically a lot sooner and better than ATI. -
I don't think the macbook pro is a gaming notebook therefor it doesn't necessarily need a high end GPU. The 330m is fine really I mean if you look at previous generations they have always used mid-ranged cards. Why stop now?
-
as has been cited, the 9600M GT was not a "midrange" card when it originally launced in the MBP. it was high-midrange card. even a low-highrange card (as far as consumer cards go). Few cards were its superior.
Now? there are about 50 cards better, and it can be fairly considered an upper-low end card or a very low mid-range card now. If Apple had went with a "midrange" card of similar relative quality to what was on the market at the time the 9600M MBP's launched, we'd see something in the realm of the 350M or 360M.
I'd like to think the problem has more to do with Nvidia's inability to keep their better chips cool nowadays. -
Professionals doing design work and 3D renders/modeling need a decent graphics card to be able to work seamlessly.
This was the original intent of the Macbook Pro years and years ago, to be a design laptop.
That's why I want to hear some reviews on using the Geforce 330M in em before I send in my order. -
i think its crazy that the AW M11x has a more powerful graphics card than $2000 a 17 inch Macbook Pro.
It has a GT 335M. and its an 11incher.
Apple needs to step up the graphics card, Im satisfied with the processor though. -
Brendanmurphy Your Worst Nightmare
-
I'll wait for University back to school sales and will they have a minor hardware update?
-
It is Apple that decides the SKU of the Chips they want. -
No, Nvidia definitely needs to work on power efficiency, and the GTX 480 isn't a step in the right direction in that regard. ATI is going to dominate the mobile market unless Nvidia makes some improvements.
-
-
That's obvious, but the GTX 480 still represents the direction Nvidia is going with their GPUs. Unless Nvidia intends to come up with a whole different new architecture for mobile chips, they're either going to adapt their 4xx series, or just keep adjusting old designs.
Quite simply, short of an entirely new design, Nvidia's efforts aren't up to scratch.
Whats the performance on the New Mac's NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M Card ?
Discussion in 'Apple and Mac OS X' started by Rogue Tardis, Apr 13, 2010.