Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Rolando_jose · Jun 11, 2009, 09:34 AM

Hi, well to the quetion, what difference does it makes the 1 vs 2 graphic cards? I mean, will the 2 help my with faster renders when making movies or 3D.

The difference is 300 bucks and I want to know if I really need the two cards or can go to the model with only one (MBP 15")

Please help.

thanks,

Rolando

Spheric Harlot · Jun 11, 2009, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Rolando_jose

Hi, well to the quetion, what difference does it makes the 1 vs 2 graphic cards? I mean, will the 2 help my with faster renders when making movies or 3D.

Yes; that and gaming are precisely the two markets where the discrete graphics chipset makes the biggest difference.

OreoCookie · Jun 12, 2009, 11:49 AM

Unless you're using Color or Motion at this point, rendering is done on the cpu. Decoding of h264 video will be supported with the integrated chipset (which both have), so you won't have an advantage there either.

However, if you construct 3D models, you may benefit from a dedicated graphics chip -- but it won't help you rendering stuff. I write may, because if it is only simple models, then you will not see much of an improvement. If you have to design complex 3D objects very often, you should get the dedicated graphics chip.

What computer do you have now? Are you satisfied with the 3D performance?

OreoCookie · Jun 12, 2009, 05:47 PM

No. Photoshop CS4 doesn't take advantage of the gpu for things other than smoother zooming and panning.

Rolando_jose · Jun 12, 2009, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

What computer do you have now? Are you satisfied with the 3D performance?

I have a desktop intel quad core 2.28, but I have to be out of the office a lot and want it to work outside and dont loos so much time. I do vedio editing and 3D animation, but I dont think I want to use if for 3D rendering, but probably I'll have to use it for video rendering from time to time.

OreoCookie · Jun 13, 2009, 04:49 AM

Again, rendering is not the issue here, displaying and constructing models is. If your work is 3D animation, you should get the discrete graphics chip.

OreoCookie · Jun 18, 2009, 06:46 PM

No, the built-in graphics card is perfectly capable of driving a 24" screen.

israces · 11:18 AM

I'm wrestling with the same decision. Are the additional graphics cards only used for 3D rendering and games? Are there any other benefits for having the additional graphics cards? Advantages when running snow leopard or anything?

Serious questions. Not baiting or anything.

driven · Jun 27, 2009, 05:00 AM

The 9400M is fine for a 24" (or larger) screen. In fact, it's the default option for a video card in the 24" iMac.

How much of an advantage is it for casual gaming? (Which is the only thing I'd use it for). I am wondering if it's worth the extra $300 just to play an occasional game of Call Of Duty or Half-Life 2? (Or WoW which my friend is desperately trying to get me to start playing)

SierraDragon · 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Rolando_jose

Hi, well to the quetion, what difference does it makes the 1 vs 2 graphic cards? I mean, will the 2 help my with faster renders when making movies or 3D. The difference is 300 bucks and I want to know if I really need the two cards or can go to the model with only one (MBP 15")

Responders so far have been largely missing the point. Evaluating for a new box we care about performance during the future life cycle of the box running your relevant future apps on future OS versions, not about past performance on last year's OS with last year's CS4 or whatever.

Your new MBP will spend most of its future life running OS 10.6 Snow Leopard and (hopefully) true 64-bit apps with the laptop maxxed out on RAM. One of Snow Leopard's stated goals is effective utilization of advanced graphics power across apps. Even if your chosen apps did not take full advantage of available graphics power last year, they very likely will next year and/or the year after under OS 10.6.

The answer is easy. For making movies and 3D you want the strongest possible laptop, and that is the 17" MBP with 2.3 million pixel (matte or glossy) 17" display vs. 1.3 million pixel (glossy only) 15" display. Also, only the 17" size has an EC slot that among other things allows easy use of a second SSD drive internally or fast eSATA connection to external hard drives.

If you must sacrifice significant screen real estate, pixel count and the EC slot by choosing the 15" size, yes you want the higher end 15" choice. However IMO the 17" is a far better choice. Note too that the 17" seems to generally dissipate heat better and perform 5-10% faster (probably related to heat) even if EC upgrades are not in play.

Glossy-only-display and loss of EC on the new 15" MBPs has rendered the 15" size no longer "pro." The good news is that the 17" MBP remains a wicked-excellent fully competent pro laptop!

-Allen Wicks

SierraDragon · Jun 27, 2009, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by driven

How much of an advantage is it for casual gaming? (Which is the only thing I'd use it for). I am wondering if it's worth the extra $300 just to play an occasional game of Call Of Duty or Half-Life 2? (Or WoW which my friend is desperately trying to get me to start playing)

Generally gaming is very specifically sensitive to graphics power. E.g. http://barefeats.com/mbpp14.html

-Allen Wicks

driven · Jun 27, 2009, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

Generally gaming is very specifically sensitive to graphics power. E.g. http://barefeats.com/mbpp14.html

-Allen Wicks

A picture is worth 1,000 words, heh?

Big Mac · Jun 28, 2009, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Rolando_jose

The difference is 300 bucks and I want to know if I really need the two cards or can go to the model with only one (MBP 15"). . .

My view: The only people who should consider the entry level 15" MBP are those who need to be very frugal. It's nice that Apple has provided a lower cost option in the 15" lineup, but if you're spending the extra money for 15" over a 13", there's little reason to consider the 9400M-only model.

Simon · Jun 28, 2009, 03:57 AM

IMHO the only people who should get a low-end 15" are those who want a 13" MB with a bigger screen. No seriously, it's 15" but it's not pro. It's consumer. Basically the answer to Laptop Hunters if you so want. And FTR, I think Apple was smart to introduce such a model.

polendo · 11:41 PM

The screen resolution is nice for a built in graphic card (other than the 1280X800) on a 15.4". Though, I would go for the discrete graphic card version since I usually do not like to compromise when I use it.