HD 4670 graphics vs 320M

[beerglass007]

Hi all

With the current top of the range 21.5" imac running the ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics with 256MB memory if the new refresh comes with the 320M ( currently in the MBP ) will this be much better ?

I currently have a MBP 15" with a 9600GT 512MB and thinking of selling for a 21.5" Imac with the ATI Radeon HD 4670. But if the refresh coming out sometime soon I hope, will the 320M be better than a 9600GT and ATI Radeon HD 4670 ?

Thanks

 

[Hellhammer]

320M is integrated and the successor of 9400M currently found in low-end iMac. High-end 21.5" will likely get Juniper based GPU i.e. ATI 56xx or 57xx which is a lot faster than 320M but not much faster than ATI 4670

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Hey HellHammer is the 320M on par with the old 2600 pro?

 

[Hellhammer]

Hey HellHammer is the 320M on par with the old 2600 pro?

Nah, ATI 2600 "PRO" (aka underclocked 2600 XT ) is still much faster in every benchmark

http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-2600-XT.3770.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-320M.28701.0.html

 

[beerglass007]

320M is integrated and the successor of 9400M currently found in low-end iMac. High-end 21.5" will likely get Juniper based GPU i.e. ATI 56xx or 57xx which is a lot faster than 320M but not much faster than ATI 4670

So its safe to buy a 21.5" highend and the graphics card isn't going to get much of a speed bump ?

 

[Hellhammer]

So its safe to buy a 21.5" highend and the graphics card isn't going to get much of a speed bump ?

Depends on what GPU Apple will use. If they use 5650, there won't be much difference but 57xx cards are looking better though there are hardly any benchmarks.

Hard to say, 57xx cards would bring noticeable update (up to 25% and more) but Apple may stick with 5650 or use modified versions.

If you can live with worse GPU if new one comes out, go ahead. We never know what Apple does