It has an Intel GMA chip. They just hide the fact really well like they are ashamed to admit it. Every other machine with a dedicated GPU has the GPU listed in the features, even the old ibooks did.
That's the way Apple seems to think. The customers probably won't like the integrated chips so will we:
a. add £100 to the price and put in a decent chip
b. use the same low end chip and try to cover it up
Still, it looks nice and at least all the machines use Duo chips.
Between the funky keyboard, wide-screen display that is impractical for anything but watching DVDs at that size, and the abysmal graphics, looks like I won't be buying a MacBook!
It has an Intel GMA chip. They just hide the fact really well like they are ashamed to admit it. Every other machine with a dedicated GPU has the GPU listed in the features, even the old ibooks did.
That's the way Apple seems to think. The customers probably won't like the integrated chips so will we:
a. add £100 to the price and put in a decent chip
b. use the same low end chip and try to cover it up
Still, it looks nice and at least all the machines use Duo chips.
From those two pages how can you really claim they're "covering it up"? I'm not the biggest fan of integrated graphics but it's as easy to see what they're using as it is on any PC vendors website if not easier.
Do you *really* think most people would pay £100 more for a dedicated GPU? Some would but I'd be willing to bet there is a majority who'd forget even looking at the MacBook for that much more money.
Between the funky keyboard, wide-screen display that is impractical for anything but watching DVDs at that size, and the abysmal graphics, looks like I won't be buying a MacBook!
What's impractical about 1280x800 screen resolution? Or are you just anti-widescreen?
My 1024x768 12" iBook has been far from impractical...
What's impractical about 1280x800 screen resolution? Or are you just anti-widescreen?
My 1024x768 12" iBook has been far from impractical...
I don't mind a wide screen display at larger sizes, I have one on my 17" iMac but I find it just adequate for working in office and illustrator for school. I have looked at similar size wide-screen laptops (Viao and others) at the store, and at that small size IMHO it gives you less useable real-estate in terms of working with Office docs, (not many people format Word docs in landscape) internet browsing (most websites are laid out vertically vice horizontally) etc. Sure, you can just scroll, or 'fit to page' but then the font is almost microscopic. Just my opinion, but for my money I'd get more use from a 1024x768 13" display than a 1280x800 one...
1. Notebooks don't have graphics cards. The GPU chip is soldered onto the mobo.
2. Reports on the Intel GMA 950 seem to think it might be "decent", whatever the hell that means.
3. I bet that if I put two identical MacBooks in front of any user, and one had the Radeon 1600 or whatever chip, and the other had the Intel GMA 950, and the user wasn't allowed to run framerate tests or look at System Profiler or do 3-D rendering, they absolutely could not tell the difference between the two.
3. I bet that if I put two identical MacBooks in front of any user, and one had the Radeon 1600 or whatever chip, and the other had the Intel GMA 950, and the user wasn't allowed to run framerate tests or look at System Profiler or do 3-D rendering, they absolutely could not tell the difference between the two.
My guess is that a game would clearly show the differences. The GMA 950 in my Intel mobo at work is dog slow with XGL, for example. For 2D, there's absolutely no difference in performance between the ATI and Intel GPUs, IMHO.
This is why I'm leaning towards the MBP because of the additional graphic capability of playing games. If I'm going to play games then I'm going all out!
My guess is that a game would clearly show the differences. The GMA 950 in my Intel mobo at work is dog slow with XGL, for example. For 2D, there's absolutely no difference in performance between the ATI and Intel GPUs, IMHO.
I should have said explicitly "games" instead of "3-D rendering". LOL.
All in all, I definitely agree that too much discussion is being put into the GPU in the MacBook.
If somebody decides they need something better, the option exists in the MBP. For me, I think the MB is a perfect progression from my iBook G4 that has served me well for almost 2 years.
There has to be some differentiation between the MB and the MBP for Apple to keep sales of both models.
Comments
Originally posted by fatmac84
No graphics card on the new MacBook. What will be the performance hit v. MacBook Pro at the same chip speed? Anyone have a guess?
Yes, roughly the same as the difference between an iMac CD and the Mini with GMA950.
Barefeats review
Originally posted by fatmac84
No graphics card on the new MacBook.
It has an Intel GMA chip. They just hide the fact really well like they are ashamed to admit it. Every other machine with a dedicated GPU has the GPU listed in the features, even the old ibooks did.
That's the way Apple seems to think. The customers probably won't like the integrated chips so will we:
a. add £100 to the price and put in a decent chip
b. use the same low end chip and try to cover it up
Still, it looks nice and at least all the machines use Duo chips.
1) Lack of a graphics card
2) Lack of a backlit keyboard
Other than that it looks good. I'll probably wait for the next revision though to buy one.
Also, here's a good comparison chart Macbook vs Macbook Pro:
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Im...son_chart.html
Originally posted by Marvin
It has an Intel GMA chip. They just hide the fact really well like they are ashamed to admit it. Every other machine with a dedicated GPU has the GPU listed in the features, even the old ibooks did.
That's the way Apple seems to think. The customers probably won't like the integrated chips so will we:
a. add £100 to the price and put in a decent chip
b. use the same low end chip and try to cover it up
Still, it looks nice and at least all the machines use Duo chips.
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Im...son_chart.html
http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html
From those two pages how can you really claim they're "covering it up"? I'm not the biggest fan of integrated graphics but it's as easy to see what they're using as it is on any PC vendors website if not easier.
Do you *really* think most people would pay £100 more for a dedicated GPU? Some would but I'd be willing to bet there is a majority who'd forget even looking at the MacBook for that much more money.
Originally posted by iPoster
wide-screen display that is impractical for anything but watching DVDs at that size
How do you figure?
Originally posted by iPoster
Between the funky keyboard, wide-screen display that is impractical for anything but watching DVDs at that size, and the abysmal graphics, looks like I won't be buying a MacBook!
What's impractical about 1280x800 screen resolution? Or are you just anti-widescreen?
My 1024x768 12" iBook has been far from impractical...
Originally posted by mikef
What's impractical about 1280x800 screen resolution? Or are you just anti-widescreen?
My 1024x768 12" iBook has been far from impractical...
I don't mind a wide screen display at larger sizes, I have one on my 17" iMac but I find it just adequate for working in office and illustrator for school. I have looked at similar size wide-screen laptops (Viao and others) at the store, and at that small size IMHO it gives you less useable real-estate in terms of working with Office docs, (not many people format Word docs in landscape) internet browsing (most websites are laid out vertically vice horizontally) etc. Sure, you can just scroll, or 'fit to page' but then the font is almost microscopic. Just my opinion, but for my money I'd get more use from a 1024x768 13" display than a 1280x800 one...
and the intel GMA chip is as fast if not faster than the iBooks GPU
Originally posted by furious_
for a PC user to buy a MacBook dedicated GPU would be no trouble as most PC notebooks use dedicated GPU even high end
and the intel GMA chip is as fast if not faster than the iBooks GPU
Say again?
1. Notebooks don't have graphics cards. The GPU chip is soldered onto the mobo.
2. Reports on the Intel GMA 950 seem to think it might be "decent", whatever the hell that means.
3. I bet that if I put two identical MacBooks in front of any user, and one had the Radeon 1600 or whatever chip, and the other had the Intel GMA 950, and the user wasn't allowed to run framerate tests or look at System Profiler or do 3-D rendering, they absolutely could not tell the difference between the two.
Originally posted by lundy
3. I bet that if I put two identical MacBooks in front of any user, and one had the Radeon 1600 or whatever chip, and the other had the Intel GMA 950, and the user wasn't allowed to run framerate tests or look at System Profiler or do 3-D rendering, they absolutely could not tell the difference between the two.
My guess is that a game would clearly show the differences. The GMA 950 in my Intel mobo at work is dog slow with XGL, for example. For 2D, there's absolutely no difference in performance between the ATI and Intel GPUs, IMHO.
Originally posted by mikef
My guess is that a game would clearly show the differences. The GMA 950 in my Intel mobo at work is dog slow with XGL, for example. For 2D, there's absolutely no difference in performance between the ATI and Intel GPUs, IMHO.
I should have said explicitly "games" instead of "3-D rendering". LOL.
If somebody decides they need something better, the option exists in the MBP. For me, I think the MB is a perfect progression from my iBook G4 that has served me well for almost 2 years.
There has to be some differentiation between the MB and the MBP for Apple to keep sales of both models.