Apple's 15-inch Core i5 MacBook Pro: The One to Get?
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 14, 2010 10:38 PM EST- Posted in
- Mac
- MacBook Pro
- Arrandale
- Core i5
- Laptops
The GeForce GT 330M
The discrete GPU Apple settled on in the 15 and 17-inch MacBook Pro isn't bad for a notebook. The GT 330M is a 40nm chip with 48 SPs, cores, CUDA funhouses or whatever you want to call them. This is up from 16 in the GeForce 9400M that shipped on last year's MBPs, and 32 in the optional GeForce 9600M. Those GPUs were also built on TSMC's 65nm process, but power consumption may not be lower on the 330M given what we've seen with NVIDIA's desktop 40nm.
In addition to having more shader power, the GT 330M runs at a higher clock speed than last year's offerings. The end result is much better GPU performance, something that will start to matter now that OS X is getting Steam.
I didn't have access to any MacBook Pros with a 9600M, so my only performance comparison is to the 9400M. The 9600M should fall somewhere in between the 9400M and the GT 330M in performance.
I ran all of my gaming tests under Bootcamp in Windows 7:
| GPU Gaming Performance Comparison - Windows 7 | ||||
| Left 4 Dead (1440 x 900 - High Quality) | World of Warcraft (800 x 600 - High Quality) | |||
| 15-inch MacBook Pro (Late 2009) - GeForce 9400M | 16.9 fps | 19.1 fps | ||
| 15-inch MacBook Pro (Mid 2010) - GeForce GT 330M | 44.9 fps | 52.3 fps | ||
Compared to the 9400M the GT 330M is amazing. Compared to the rest of the world though, we're still not looking at desktop GPU speeds. Less than 60 fps under World of Warcraft at 800 x 600, and not even 50 fps at the panel's native resolution in Left 4 Dead. We can at least run these games at high quality settings, which isn't something that was possible with previous graphics solutions on the MacBook Pro.
If you can deal with running a game at medium quality settings and a lower-than-native resolution, you'll get ok performance out of the 330M.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
114 Comments
View All Comments
michal1980 - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
thats what this place feels like now. I geuss the website redesign was timed to that reflect change.Cardio - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
Apples guarantees "Up To" 1,000 battery recharges is complete idiot speek. 7 recharges would comply with that guarantee. That is just the same as saying "not more than". Apple you always double-talk or just outright lie.solipsism - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
Wow! What an asshat comment. Apple and Sony are the only two PC vendors that I know of that report accurate battery specs."The built-in battery in the new 13-, 15-, and 17-inch MacBook Pro is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at up to 1000 full charge and discharge cycles."
• http://www.apple.com/batteries/notebooks.html
I just returned a 2.5 year old battery to Apple a couple months ago because it wasn't holding a charge and only a few hundred cycles on it. It wasn't under any warranty and they gave me a new one right then and there for free.
omgrtm - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
Also, as a company you have to show proof (based on statistical analysis) for all your advertising claims. Not entirely sure about numbers, but something like 9 in 10 at least should meet the stated (would be 1000 recharges in this case), for you to be able to use 'up to'. You'd be incredibly unlucky to get 7 in reality.sebmel - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
Apple changed my last battery, too... 2.5 years old... it got the Sony problem... swelled up.The internal regulations appeared to be change if less than 300 cycles.
Mine was 320 or so and they changed it anyway.
Apple seem pretty good at offering a new battery that fails to meet their advertised expectation so I'm guessing they are going to honour these ones up to 1000 cycles.
sebmel - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
Error, apologies:Apple seem pretty good at offering a new battery WHEN ONE fails to meet their advertised expectation so I'm guessing they are going to honour these ones up to 1000 cycles.
tynopik - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
"Less than 20 fps under World of Warcraft at 800 x 600"Actually, it's 52.3
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
haha, wow, fixed :)Take care,
Anand
surgex - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
Can you tell us how this will work, or IF it will work at all?surgex - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
Sorry, I see it now.."Despite using a NVIDIA GPU, there's no support for Optimus under Windows 7 on the new MacBook Pro. The GeForce GT 330M is always in use there regardless of whether you use an Optimus enabled driver or the 196.21 driver that comes with the MacBook Pro."
That is really BS if you ask me, but who would expect anything less from Apple...
Do you forsee any way of a third-party enabling this functionality in the future though, or no?