9400M vs 9600GT M vs ATI X1600

Congrats, the 9400M beats the X1600 in the 3Dmark05 by <1% and 9.4% in the 3Dmark06 test. If I were buying a new laptop today, I would be very sore if I gained only a 1-10% improvement in graphics performance (I'd be less sore for the fact that it cost ~$1000 less, weighed a pound less, and had ~3x the battery life, and that the 9400M supports OpenCL etc.)

However the fact remains that you would be starting now with a card little better than one you could have purchased in a MBP 3 years ago. So compared to the 9600M GT, you're already mired in obsolescence. When you trade up in 3-4 years, you'll have been plucking along on a card whose discrete laptop performance equivalent came and passed 6-8 years ago, and whose desktop performance equivalent came and passed 10 years ago.

Now thats an upgrade.

Message was edited by: Smith.md

(Sorry for double posting)

That being said, I think the 9400M is a fine IGP, especially for what the OP is doing. A little gaming, a little virtualization, a little OpenCL and GCD. For anything above casual use (ie serious gaming, scientific programming, CAD, server-level virtualization) any laptop is silly, but those are different priorities (like upgradeability).

the point that's being missed here is that the NIVIDIA chips are suppose to be the latest & greatest, but yet there are benchmarks with tools that have been out for several years. They need to be using 3D Mark Vantage, or equal tool that really can test the newer GPUs.

now if I still had my x1600 machine, I wouldn't throw it away just to get a new one.

hopefully the support will only get better for the new chips. the pro apps are already leaving the x1600s behind when it comes to support.