Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is the Geforce GT 120 Graphics Card Better than Geforce 9400M??
- Thread starter Iglio
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok so nVidia just renamed some of their old GPU's with new names, just to make them sound new? Who would have thunk it.
8600 GT -> 9500 GT -> GT120
8800 GTS (G92) -> 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+ -> GTS 250
The 9600M GT is literally a higher clocked 8600M GT in 55nm at lower heat/wattages.
The majority were derivations of the previous generation but in 65/55nm. Same core configuration with somewhat higher shader and VRAM clocks.The 9xxx are also just rebranded 8xxx.
The 9600 GT (G96) was the only new hardware.
The 9xxx are also just rebranded 8xxx.
Unbelievable.
So nVidia were running bare on ideas so they just re-branded. Dodgy IMHO.I was glad to find this thread
because I am trying to figure out
whether to get the imac with the GT120 card with 256meg
or the mac mini with the 9400.
I don't do games or heavy video processing.
But when you say performance is about the same...
what about the fact that the 9400 on the mac mini
does not have its own card and its own memory
but the GT120 found in the imacs does?
Isn't the fact that the 9400 uses the memory of the system
going to make for lower performance when compared with an item
that is its own memory card with its own memory?
Ok so same question but on the iMac? I would assume the GT 120 would be better then the 9400M, but I need some insight from the Mac community since this is my first one to buy(Im switching, Mac > PC, Windows suck)...
Ok so here is your answer: The 9400M is the weakest of the Bunch. It uses system memory and is lower clocked then the others. Then comes the GT120 found in the iMac and the Mac Pro (Side Fact: The GT120 is a rebranded 9500GT never sold in Apple Products), My understanding is that the 9600 found in the Macbook Pros is about the same as the GT130 found in the iMac. If you are deciding between the GT130 and the Ati 4950 I would say take the 4950 because its definately worth 50 bucks.
Conclusion (including older iMacs with ATIs HD2400XT and HD2600Pro):
9400M equals HD2400XT<HD2600Pro<GT120<GT130 equals 9600M GT<4950<4970 (only Mac Pro)
The Nvidia 8800GS found in the older 24" BTO iMac is about the same as the 9600M GT if not a bit faster.
But besides gaming or other graphic intense stuff the 9400M is perfectly fine. Its the best integrated graphic chip ever made and is really a big step up after the weak Intel GMA950s and X1300s.
After all the 9400M is even OpenCL compatible which matters when SL comes out in a few months.
Conclusion (including older iMacs with ATIs HD2400XT and HD2600Pro):
9400M equals HD2400XT<HD2600Pro<GT120<GT130 equals 9600M GT<4950<4970 (only Mac Pro)
The Nvidia 8800GS found in the older 24" BTO iMac is about the same as the 9600M GT if not a bit faster.
But besides gaming or other graphic intense stuff the 9400M is perfectly fine. Its the best integrated graphic chip ever made and is really a big step up after the weak Intel GMA950s and X1300s.
After all the 9400M is even OpenCL compatible which matters when SL comes out in a few months.
I find that in Windows, the GT 120 is significantly better than the 9400m in games. In OS X, the Nvidia drivers are so crappy that there's barely a difference.
It depends on what you are doing. I game alot so the the 9400m wouldn't even be an option. The GT120 isn't that bad. The full size GT120 that is put in the Mac Pro(like originally in mine) is terrible. It truly is a rebranded card that is terribly outdated. I will try to scrap around from benchmarks but the GT120 should be 2x to 3x faster for gaming than the 9400m.
whoa whoa whoa. The thread title gave you the wrong idea. The original poster was asking about the macbook pro with 9400m AND 9600 as compared to the GT120. The 9400m alone, as in the mac mini, gets crushed by the GT120.