AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Graphics chipsets in new Intel Macs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Graphics chipsets in new Intel Macs

post #1 of 114
11/10/05 at 3:52pm
Thread Starter 
What graphics chipset do you all think will be in the new intel macs? Built in Intel graphics on iBook and maybe ATI or Nvidia higher end chipsets in the PowerBooks? I just wanted to give that some thought because everything lately is about the processors only. Mac laptops don't have the best graphics cards in them right now, look at the difference between the ATI 9700 and the Nvidia 6600 go chips. Apple needs to step it up for the intelMacs. Any thoughts?
Apple: G3 ibook 500Mhz
Reply
Apple: G3 ibook 500Mhz
Reply
post #2 of 114
11/10/05 at 4:08pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MjolnirMkII
What graphics chipset do you all think will be in the new intel macs? Built in Intel graphics on iBook and maybe ATI or Nvidia higher end chipsets in the PowerBooks? I just wanted to give that some thought because everything lately is about the processors only. Mac laptops don't have the best graphics cards in them right now, look at the difference between the ATI 9700 and the Nvidia 6600 go chips. Apple needs to step it up for the intelMacs. Any thoughts?

I think they might sport a Voodoo2 or an ATI Rage Pro.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 114
11/10/05 at 4:19pm
Thread Starter 
Lol. Voodoo. Sweet. I had one of those, back when Voodoo meant something.
Apple: G3 ibook 500Mhz
Reply
Apple: G3 ibook 500Mhz
Reply
post #4 of 114
11/10/05 at 11:39pm
Considering the increasing importance of technologies like Core image, I doubt that Apple will use integrated video chipset. Unlike windows XP, mac os X use more and more the GPU throughput in 2 D applications.

Just check the minimum performance recquiered to run Aperture, and you will get the picture.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 114
11/11/05 at 3:24am
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Considering the increasing importance of technologies like Core image, I doubt that Apple will use integrated video chipset. Unlike windows XP, mac os X use more and more the GPU throughput in 2 D applications.

Just check the minimum performance recquiered to run Aperture, and you will get the picture.

Or check the minimum requirements for Vista, to have something to compare to. Integrated grapichscards cant even run it.
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #6 of 114
11/11/05 at 3:33am
I wouldn't be that surprised if Apple came out with a lower-cost iBook with integrated graphics.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 114
11/11/05 at 6:15am
I'd say they will come out with a PCI-Express video card like the ATI Mobility Radeon X700 (with 128 MB VRAM). If they are creating a whole new motherboard architecture it would only make sense to ditch AGP and go with the newer technology.
-- Candidas
(Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare)
Reply
-- Candidas
(Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare)
Reply
post #8 of 114
11/11/05 at 4:10pm
Moving to PCI-Express for video cards is obvious, especially so because they have done it already (see PowerMac and iMac).
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 114
11/11/05 at 5:10pm
It looks like Intel's GMA950 integrated graphics can run Vista, and of course chipsets will have advanced another generation or two by the time Vista actually comes out.

It's hard to say what Apple will do; I could see it going either way.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 114
11/12/05 at 7:37am
You know, back before Apple started using PCI express, there was much bemoaning here about the fact that we didn't have it yet. Now that it is here, we've quieted down but the mainstream still doesn't seem to give a damn.

I think apple realizes that graphics performance isn't as critical to their platform as us cyber-geeks tend to assert. It seems that the masses are already satisfied somehow.

Of course, I've got the most powerful GPU that my machine will take... but I'm not the norm.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 114
11/13/05 at 9:49am
I, probably like others, would hope to see entry level macs with the latest entry level GPU from nVidia or ATi with a minimum of 64MB.

I don't really expect any Mac to get a highend GPU as standard as they are overkill for most things other than games. I'd hope to see the latest mid range ATi or nVidia GPU in other Macs with a minimum of 128MB. To be able to upgrade at time of order to a highend GPU would be good though.

If Apple do use Intel Graphics, I don't think they'll impress too many potential buyers.

It's possible of course that Apple could already have used Intel Grpahics or another manufacturers equivalently specced GPU in a current Mac if they'd wanted too. But haven't.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 114
11/13/05 at 10:22am
Quote:
Originally posted by Jootec from Mars

It's possible of course that Apple could already have used Intel Grpahics or another manufacturers equivalently specced GPU in a current Mac if they'd wanted too. But haven't.

This is a good point, Apple never choosed that road (route?)

They could have done their integrated CPU, but they didn't. In the contrary they have taken out the integrated graphic card out of the mobo of powermac.
The Beige powermac G3 use to have the ATI rage chipset on the mobo. Apple discontinued it with the B&W macs.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 114
11/14/05 at 5:23am
Intel Extreme! yay!
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #14 of 114
11/14/05 at 8:06am
I believe the cost of VRAM is probably down to the point where Apple can have a minimum of 64 Mb on the lower end and might have the option for a 128 Mb.

Integrated graphics are only for the super cheap PCs and even Dell "motivates" you to move up. It's not Apple's world.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #15 of 114
11/14/05 at 8:17am
Apple has sold computers with and without integrated graphics throughout it's history. One simply can not say that they don't do integrated graphics hardware.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 114
11/14/05 at 3:11pm
The Intel GMA 900 is both faster and more sophisticated than the ATI 9200 found in the Mac Mini.

Recently Intel made a strong move to abandon their low end chipset products, so I expect to see both improvements in their integrated graphics and a push to use offboard graphics chips. It certainly wouldnt hurt the Mac Mini to be using a GMA 900.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 114
11/15/05 at 2:38am
Quote:
Originally posted by dfiler
Apple has sold computers with and without integrated graphics throughout it's history. One simply can not say that they don't do integrated graphics hardware.

As far as I know, they've never done shared video memory though (at least since the 68040 days).

Amorya
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 114
11/15/05 at 3:21am
Yes the major cons of integrated graphic chipset are shared memory. The cost of today of fast GDDR memory is not that high.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 114
11/16/05 at 3:56pm
Quote:
Originally posted by mmmpie
The Intel GMA 900 is both faster and more sophisticated than the ATI 9200 found in the Mac Mini.

Recently Intel made a strong move to abandon their low end chipset products, so I expect to see both improvements in their integrated graphics and a push to use offboard graphics chips. It certainly wouldnt hurt the Mac Mini to be using a GMA 900.

GMA900 is both, more and less sophisticated than the ATI 9200 as it has 4 pixel pipelines at directX9 level but lacks any vertex shader hardware (CPU has to do all the setup). That's ATI 7000 level....
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 114
11/16/05 at 4:26pm
SiS Xabre
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
post #21 of 114
11/16/05 at 10:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by TigerWoods99
SiS Xabre

Hmm that was a lame GPU.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 114
11/21/05 at 7:00pm
i predict that the 13/14" wide macintel iBook models announced in january 2006 will be pentium M based, single core of course, with ATI Radeon Mobility X600 hypermemory up to 128mb vram out of 512mb built in memory of the iBook
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 114
11/21/05 at 7:03pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MjolnirMkII
What graphics chipset do you all think will be in the new intel macs? Built in Intel graphics on iBook and maybe ATI or Nvidia higher end chipsets in the PowerBooks? I just wanted to give that some thought because everything lately is about the processors only. Mac laptops don't have the best graphics cards in them right now, look at the difference between the ATI 9700 and the Nvidia 6600 go chips. Apple needs to step it up for the intelMacs. Any thoughts?

in the later part of first half of 2006 i predict the macintel dualcore yonah powerbooks will be equipped with nvidia go 6 series, maybe even a go 6800 256mb vram
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 114
11/21/05 at 7:42pm
I sure wouldn't mind a 7800 Go...
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
post #25 of 114
11/21/05 at 8:01pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
i predict that the 13/14" wide macintel iBook models announced in january 2006 will be pentium M based, single core of course, with ATI Radeon Mobility X600 hypermemory up to 128mb vram out of 512mb built in memory of the iBook

So you predict an iBook that outspecs the current PowerBooks in any way... Some great imagination there.

Next?
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 114
11/21/05 at 8:23pm
Originally posted by Chucker
So you predict an iBook that outspecs the current PowerBooks in any way... Some great imagination there.

heh chucker, i'll see you back here in january do you realise how dated the powerbook specs are? pick up any brand-name or taiwanese-name PC brochure and look at the laptops... powerbooks have really fallen behind. nonetheless for pros on the move, those mac users would still really prefer the powerbook and rightly so. for ibooks though, pros would not consider it because if you get one jan 2006 you will be running rosetta for most apps *despite* spec-for-spec the ibooks outclassing the powerbooks. remember also a 14" wide 16:10 1280x800 is a lower resolution and smaller display than the 15". 5400rpm 60gb hard disks could go into the iBook 14" wide, but this would suggest powerbooks are bumped to 7200rpm standard on the 15" and 17"...............

my long winded point is that with pro apps not really intel ready, apple has quite a lot of space to play in the first quarter of 2006. by the time unviersal binary pro apps are ready, say middle of 2006, macintel powerbooks will also be ready then, probably.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 114
11/21/05 at 9:00pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
heh chucker, i'll see you back here in january do you realise how dated the powerbook specs are?

A few weeks?

Quote:
pick up any brand-name or taiwanese-name PC brochure and look at the laptops... powerbooks have really fallen behind.

Aww come on. We've been through this just yesterday. I posted a comparison between a 17-inch Dell and a 17-inch PowerBook. The price difference amounted to maybe 10-15%, and that was with a significantly lighter and smaller PowerBook than the Dell, so the Dell still wouldn't have been a good choice for many people.

Are Apple laptops lacking? Absolutely. They need to move to a more scalable CPU arch (which is evidently happening), they need to move to a faster FSB (which is also inevitably going to happen at the same time) and they need to move to PCI Express-based cards (which is most likely also going to happen). And that's it.

Quote:
remember also a 14" wide 16:10 1280x800 is a lower resolution and smaller display than the 15".

Yes, yes it is. But it's still a much more compelling choice than the 12-inch PowerBook. Which I really hope Apple kills.

Quote:
5400rpm 60gb hard disks could go into the iBook 14" wide, but this would suggest powerbooks are bumped to 7200rpm standard on the 15" and 17"...............

Which is not going to happen, if only because 7200 RPM are too hot, loud and power-guzzling for most people.

Quote:
my long winded point is that with pro apps not really intel ready, apple has quite a lot of space to play in the first quarter of 2006. by the time unviersal binary pro apps are ready, say middle of 2006, macintel powerbooks will also be ready then, probably.

And for the time in between, you want their low-end laptop to be better in many ways than their other options?
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 114
11/21/05 at 9:41pm
"A few weeks?"

yup i might have just scammed my way to getting a brand new macintel ibook by lining up some postgraduate studies...


"Aww come on. We've been through this just yesterday. I posted a comparison between a 17-inch Dell and a 17-inch PowerBook. The price difference amounted to maybe 10-15%, and that was with a significantly lighter and smaller PowerBook than the Dell, so the Dell still wouldn't have been a good choice for many people.

Are Apple laptops lacking? Absolutely. They need to move to a more scalable CPU arch (which is evidently happening), they need to move to a faster FSB (which is also inevitably going to happen at the same time) and they need to move to PCI Express-based cards (which is most likely also going to happen). And that's it."

okay, fair enough. just keeping the mac fans honest nah, it's just that i'm bitter about the apple tax ~ yes, i am an ungrateful bastard.


"Yes, yes it is. But it's still a much more compelling choice than the 12-inch PowerBook. Which I really hope Apple kills."

yeah, 12-inch powerbook (with nvidia go 5200!!! wow!!)
is hmmm, not that stellar right now.


"Which is not going to happen, if only because 7200 RPM are too hot, loud and power-guzzling for most people."

well... apparently 5400rpm drives are in strong demand so if seagate, maxtor, toshiba, or some genius comes out economical and quiet 7200rpm drives (just around the corner) that would be perfect for apple powerbooks...


"And for the time in between, you want their low-end laptop to be better in many ways than their other options?"

yes. because i am planning to get an ibook in january or february, 12 inch or 14 inch widescreen and I WILL NOT pay for a powerbook (just totally not worth it and not right for me right now)
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 114
11/21/05 at 10:14pm
I think the Mac Mini will gain PCIe, DDR2 and use cheap and low-power graphics chipsets with little onboard memory such as the Nvidia GeForce 6200 32MB Turbo Cache or 32MB ATI x1300 with Hypermemory.

They'll be a vast improvement over the ATI 9200 in the Mini yet won't compete with anything in the iMac or PowerMac.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 114
11/21/05 at 11:19pm
umm... you mean x300 hypermemory not x1300 right?
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 114
11/22/05 at 7:13am
Quote:
Originally posted by Robin Hood
I wouldn't be that surprised if Apple came out with a lower-cost iBook with integrated graphics.

If Apple does sell an iBook with integrated graphics then it will be their low-end ("emachine") model which might be what they sell/lease to schools.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 114
11/22/05 at 1:27pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
umm... you mean x300 hypermemory not x1300 right?

X1300.

An X1300 with 32 or 64 MB onboard and Hypermemory would probably cost Apple around $25.

The X300 is old.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 114
11/22/05 at 11:09pm
dude, no offense but are you high or something? no way apple is going to put an X1300 in a MAC MINI - the imac G5 only has an X600...! yes, the X300 is old but a lot of people are still using it, and fer chrissakes apple is still using a 9200 for the mac mini... and this is better than intel gma900 rubbish out there on many a Dull...!
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 114
11/23/05 at 1:28pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorya
As far as I know, they've never done shared video memory though (at least since the 68040 days).

Amorya

Actually, Apple uses shared memory video in one model in 2005 - and, in fact, in the ONLY Intel-CPU model they sell! The developer kit machine. So, the only real evidence so far is that Apple WILL use shared memory video.

The people on this board just want to believe so many things that they completely ignore facts in their wild speculation.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 114
11/23/05 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
Actually, Apple uses shared memory video in one model in 2005 - and, in fact, in the ONLY Intel-CPU model they sell!

Except Steve has explicitly stated that the DTK is not to be considered a product, and that it says very little about future Macs, Intel-based or not.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 114
11/23/05 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
Actually, Apple uses shared memory video in one model in 2005 - and, in fact, in the ONLY Intel-CPU model they sell! The developer kit machine.

In fact they do not sell the developer kit
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 114
11/23/05 at 6:20pm
I'm seeing PCI-e standard on the highend and iMac; with SLI as an option on the Powermacs. Hopefully you can buy PC videocards and just put them in this time around, I don't think there's any reason you couldn't provided that they have Mac OS X drivers (because now there's no architecture difference and need for different flashes of ROM, unless I'm missing something)
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 114
11/23/05 at 6:32pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
I'm seeing PCI-e standard on the highend and iMac; with SLI as an option on the Powermacs.

I don't see SLI happening. Note that it's an nVidia-proprietary technique. ATi has their own called CrossFire. There is no standard for this at this point, and even if there was, there would be little to no use for Apple for these kinds of setups.

Quote:
Hopefully you can buy PC videocards and just put them in this time around, I don't think there's any reason you couldn't provided that they have Mac OS X drivers (because now there's no architecture difference and need for different flashes of ROM, unless I'm missing something)

The architecture never had anything to do with that. OpenFirmware vs. BIOS did. If Apple were to use EFI, maybe there'll be a backwards-compatible layer so no need for additional drivers, but I'm not looking forward to that either... think 512x384 resolution when booting. Yeouch.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 114
11/23/05 at 7:37pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
... The architecture never had anything to do with that. OpenFirmware vs. BIOS did. ...

Actually, I think Placebo is partly right; the difference of the board had to do both with OF and the endian issue. EFI is not ready, and in the Intel/PC world there is no realistic alternative to BIOS at this time.

Now here's my speculation: This whole transition is about eliminating the Mac quirks. People should be able to buy a video card, period. Soon, they will. (Note: this is pure speculation. If you want to believe that Apple will produce quirky hardware so consumers can continue to get ripped off, go ahead. The only actual evidence we have is the developer system, and it's as generic as a PC can be.)
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 114
11/23/05 at 7:43pm
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
Actually, I think Placebo is partly right; the difference of the board had to do both with OF and the endian issue.

Um. What can a ROM do about endian? And as far as I know, GPUs' endianness is entirely irrelevant of that of the CPU.

Quote:
EFI is not ready, and in the Intel/PC world there is no realistic alternative to BIOS at this time.

This is the first time I hear that EFI is not an option to Apple.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Graphics chipsets in new Intel Macs