or Connect
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 - Page 3

post #81 of 114
The main "issue" people have with integrated graphics is that, quite frankly, they used to suck. Big time!

Recently, that has started to change. For an entry level machine, there is no good reason not to save money by using integrated graphics with shared video memory. That could allow Apple to introduce a cheaper iBook based on the general cost savings of the graphics system and power consumption.

And let's get real, if you're buying an iBook for *pulling number out of my ass* $700, do you really care whether you can run all the latest games? What you're going to care about is whether it runs Mac OS X, iLife, Microsoft Office and less demanding games fine. If it does, all is good. If you needed more, you would have purchased a more expensive laptop with dedicated PCIe graphics.
post #82 of 114
Is shared video, especially the chipsets from intel and nvidia really such a BAD thing? Especially considering that the video cards on Mac's already suck. (I'm gonna get jumped for that, I can tell). But 32mb of memory to a Radeon 9550 - thats a little weak. For small form factor computers that were never intended to be gamed on, Integrated graphics are cheaper, cooler, have reasonable performance, and are therefore better. I dont see why people would complain if a Mac Mini came out with the GMA 900, or better yet, the geForce 6150. I sure as hell wouldnt.

On another note, We wont see intergrated graphics on all macs - that would just be stupid when you are paying $2000 for a machine. My guess is iMacs+Powermacs/books will have decent video chipsets and dedicated memory. The consumer/budget lines, i.e the iBooks and Mac Mini's will most likely have integrated graphics, so you may as well get used to it.

Chuck in enough memory, and you wont take that much of a performance hit, they would run fine with the 512mb that is now standard, but lets all dance around fires and pray that Apple is the first company to make 1 Gig standard

That said, an X1800Xt in the Mac Mini's form factor would kinda sweet. Imagine - Computer + oven
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #83 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by pyriX
Is shared video, especially the chipsets from intel and nvidia really such a BAD thing? Especially considering that the video cards on Mac's already suck. (I'm gonna get jumped for that, I can tell). But 32mb of memory to a Radeon 9550 - thats a little weak. For small form factor computers that were never intended to be gamed on, Integrated graphics are cheaper, cooler, have reasonable performance, and are therefore better. I dont see why people would complain if a Mac Mini came out with the GMA 900, or better yet, the geForce 6150. I sure as hell wouldnt.

On another note, We wont see intergrated graphics on all macs - that would just be stupid when you are paying $2000 for a machine. My guess is iMacs+Powermacs/books will have decent video chipsets and dedicated memory. The consumer/budget lines, i.e the iBooks and Mac Mini's will most likely have integrated graphics, so you may as well get used to it.

Chuck in enough memory, and you wont take that much of a performance hit, they would run fine with the 512mb that is now standard, but lets all dance around fires and pray that Apple is the first company to make 1 Gig standard

That said, an X1800Xt in the Mac Mini's form factor would kinda sweet. Imagine - Computer + oven

Why settle for less? If we let integrated graphics happen, Apple's gonna take a step further 2 years from now and Mac video on low-end hardware will be rendered using page flip animation.
post #84 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by pyriX
Is shared video, especially the chipsets from intel and nvidia really such a BAD thing? Especially considering that the video cards on Mac's already suck. (I'm gonna get jumped for that, I can tell).

Note that XBox and XBox360 use shared video / main memory. It has some advantages. The real problem with the integrated graphics is that they typically aren't bleeding edge technology.

The video cards on Macs don't suck, for the most part they are the same commodity level cards that you see on most commodity level PCs. Not everyone needs a high end GPU, and Apple is aiming at the bulk of their market not the fraction that need or lust after the uber-GPUs. Those things have serious costs in terms of money, heat, power, availability and size. If you want a better video card, but a PowerMac and choose the best card available. The problem on the Mac is really that only the expensive machines have expansion slots -- Apple should really have a machine with a smallish case and a couple of PCIe card slots so that hobbiests have something to play with.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #85 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
-- Apple should really have a machine with a smallish case and a couple of PCIe card slots so that hobbiests have something to play with.

Exactly! I don't think the Mac mini will ever have a big, fast GPU: it will always be the cheapest Mac available.
Apple doesn't have a mid-range headless Mac (I think the iMac is great but it's not for everybody).

Next year could bring many surprises and I hope we'll have it:
- new form factor Mac (you choose: cube, mini-tower, pizza box...)
- dual-core CPU (Yonah, from 1.66 to 2.16GHz)
- up to 4GB of RAM
- 1 (room for 2?) 7200rpm 3.5" HDs
- Combo/SuperDrive DL 16x/BlueRay (your choice BTO)
- USB, FW, Enet, digital audio I/O...
- 2 PCIe slots (one for the video card (your choice ATI/nVidia BTO), one free for, your choice: TV tuner, audio card...)
Starting at $999... with iLife and iWork for x86!

I think that MWSF '06 would be a great time to introduce it, because :
- the chips are available,
- it's a new, different, computer that doesn't compete really with other lines,
- doesn't really need all the "corporate" software to be available yet (iLife, iWork and some already x86 apps are good enough for starting),
- as soon as one Intel-Mac is shipping, small and big sw developers will make their compatible versions available,
- I want one
post #86 of 114
yeah, i guess that's the interesting thing. a cheapo Dull or Compcrap/ HPee with integrated graphics starts you off with the basics, you can always drop in a turbocache/hypermemory card all the way up to a 7800 if you wanted. will the Mac Mini ever offer such a solution???? \
post #87 of 114
Quote:
Why settle for less? If we let integrated graphics happen, Apple's gonna take a step further 2 years from now and Mac video on low-end hardware will be rendered using page flip animation.

I'm sure that without your watchful eye, Apple will not last a year!
post #88 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Integrated chipsets, sure. But he's actually talking about integrated chipsets with shared memory. Shared memory means dramatically lower performance, unless you have a vastly different implementation than what's traditionally used (and even then, shared memory definitely does not mean an advantage, other than cost-cutting, compared to separate CPU and GPU memory).


Yep I know what he is talking about but my positions still stands especially compared with current Mac hardware. The result is very likely to be better performance than what is seen in a mini or iBook today. That is taking into account all the negatives you point out.

So there are advantages cheapness being one but the potential for faster performance over today hardware being a real possibility.
Quote:

I can see shared video happening on the Mac mini; perhaps even the iBook or whatever new low-end laptop they'll have. I'd hate to see it happen but it wouldn't be unrealistic. However, on the vast majority of Macs, I absolutely don't see shared video. As for integrated video chipsets, that's another matter altogether; in many ways, they will probably be more than good enough.

I'm not willing to say it is going to be so bad that I will hate it. But in those low end machines Apple has been under implementing the video hardware for some time.

Dave
post #89 of 114
you know, i'm going to make the big call here. macintel minis announced next month - intel boards, pentium M, gma950. +viiv on the macintel mini iHome version. there will not be an user-upgradeable macintel mini tower.
post #90 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by pyriX
Is shared video, especially the chipsets from intel and nvidia really such a BAD thing?

the thing with using dedicated graphics memory for your gpu is that you can afford to use a faster (and more expensive) type of memory than your main memory.
but if you're going to use regular 400-ddr, you might as well use the main memory.
born to lose, live to win
Reply
born to lose, live to win
Reply
post #91 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by tubgirl
the thing with using dedicated graphics memory for your gpu is that you can afford to use a faster (and more expensive) type of memory than your main memory.
but if you're going to use regular 400-ddr, you might as well use the main memory.

Say WHAT?

So your suggesting that haviung the memory chips sitting right there next to the GPU has no perofrmance differenece than having them sitting relativly iles away, having to go through the traffic jam of the AGP/PCI-E bus everytime they need something. I dont think so.

Im arguing against myself here, Im all for (well, not really, but have accepeted it as a probable) that the future video chipsets in low end macs will be shared video. It wont take such a performance hit as people expect, becuase the GMA950 and geFOrce 6150's are at least equal to, if not better than the Radeon 9550's they use at the moment, especially as the current radeons can only have access to 32mb (dedicated) ram, while the new chipsets will have at least twice that.

Let us not forget the almighty Hard Disk, the eteternal slower downer of all things computing.
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #92 of 114
Some more wonderful benchmarks showing the superiority of ATI's new line:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...-x1000_38.html
post #93 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by pyriX
Say WHAT?

So your suggesting that haviung the memory chips sitting right there next to the GPU has no perofrmance differenece than having them sitting relativly iles away, having to go through the traffic jam of the AGP/PCI-E bus everytime they need something. I dont think so.

'integrated' here means 'integrated into the northbridge of the chipset'.
of course it steals bandwidth from the cpu, but you cant get much closer to the main memory than that...
in fact, the gma rely on the cpu for some calculations, so sharing memory is a part of the whole (cost saving) idea. (edit: ..of simplifying the 'gpu'.)

sure, it wouldnt be much fun playing games on a mac mini with an integrated graphics solution, but thats really not what its for, is it..?


edit: sharing memory also enables you to put your (limited) memory resources where it's needed, not just where it's soldered.
a good thing if you dont really need all of your 'vram'.
born to lose, live to win
Reply
born to lose, live to win
Reply
post #94 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by tubgirl
'integrated' here means 'integrated into the northbridge of the chipset'.
of course it steals bandwidth from the cpu, but you cant get much closer to the main memory than that...
in fact, the gma rely on the cpu for some calculations, so sharing memory is a part of the whole (cost saving) idea. (edit: ..of simplifying the 'gpu'.)

sure, it wouldnt be much fun playing games on a mac mini with an integrated graphics solution, but thats really not what its for, is it..?


edit: sharing memory also enables you to put your (limited) memory resources where it's needed, not just where it's soldered.
a good thing if you dont really need all of your 'vram'.

A good point - but with no benchmarks to back it up - no one has ever actually given an integrated chipset its own memory to play with or vice versa.

Im willing to bet that dedicated memory does give a performance boost, but as you say, thats not what they are for, or the Mac Mini for that matter.

ON an interesting aside, does anyone think the mini will get even smaller and be renamed the 'nano'?
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #95 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by tubgirl
'integrated' here means 'integrated into the northbridge of the chipset'.
of course it steals bandwidth from the cpu, but you cant get much closer to the main memory than that...
in fact, the gma rely on the cpu for some calculations, so sharing memory is a part of the whole (cost saving) idea. (edit: ..of simplifying the 'gpu'.)

sure, it wouldnt be much fun playing games on a mac mini with an integrated graphics solution, but thats really not what its for, is it..?


edit: sharing memory also enables you to put your (limited) memory resources where it's needed, not just where it's soldered.
a good thing if you dont really need all of your 'vram'.

The only problem is this; with an integrated video card, as long as there is massive bandwidth - which will come on tap with PCIe v2 and fast memory, around 533Mhz or higher, the performance penalty for low end games and day to day computing will not even be noticeable.

Even today, its getting to the point, with video memory, that its getting to the point that the video card doesn't really need to buffer as much as the bandwidth is already at such a high level as to keep up with the demands of the video card.
post #96 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by kaiwai
The only problem is this; with an integrated video card, as long as there is massive bandwidth - which will come on tap with PCIe v2 and fast memory, around 533Mhz or higher, the performance penalty for low end games and day to day computing will not even be noticeable.

Even today, its getting to the point, with video memory, that its getting to the point that the video card doesn't really need to buffer as much as the bandwidth is already at such a high level as to keep up with the demands of the video card.

It IS at that point. For day to day computing and low end games, Intel Integrated graphics 2 and GMA900 and Geforce 6100/6150's are perfectly acceptable.
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #97 of 114
yeah but getting over 4000 3dMark05s on a single card* and posting specs about my video card makes me feel reallll gooood.... yeahhhhh

*vantec iceberq 5 on msi nvidia 6600gt 128mb ddr3 mem, core 558mhz oc'ed stable on 500mhz stock, 1.22ghz oc'ed stable mem on 1ghz stock

seriously though, graphics cards basically fall into three categories:
1. bollocks out of this world super duper fast purely for bragging rights.
2. cinematic playable of latest games (eg. my setup at 1280x1024, 4xAA 8xAF, game on Medium settings)
3. cannot reasonably play latest games, older games and simpler games ok, general computing ok.

number 2 on a pc/mac is really not that important, the good pc games tend to come out on console anyway (eg. need for speed most wanted) though of course there are some good pc games that never reach consoles............... it is still a bit of a tricky situation. because a card that gives you 2.5 as in my numbering above can be just frustrating 'coz it is neither here nor there.....
post #98 of 114
hmmm.. me again. i think its funny that i was asked to shut up when i suggested intel integrated graphics might be there in the first macintels. now a lot of y'all would seem to agree there is a possibility.

apparently intel has 50% market share of graphics cards, with nvidia and ati more or less rounding out the 25% and 25% respectively (don't nail me to the wall, i don't have exact numbers here).

but that's right, one would find that intel is the biggest manufacturer of graphics chipsets. what games are being played with intel graphics chipsets? or a more interesting question, of the 50% of amd/intel desktops and laptops out there with ATI and nVidia graphics solutions, how many actively game, say, an hour a day, with a game that demands an ati9700/nvidia6600 at the base spec? just thinking aloud here.

god forbid we get into a "apple should be more targeted towards games" discussion
post #99 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
Read it carefully. That quote does not say shipping products will use a different video card, or anything else FTM, different from the developer systems.

You're just a wishful thinker like the rest of them. The single "thing" (not a product? that's pure RDF) Apple has shipped with an Intel processor in it has shared memory video. The only video chipsets Intel makes are shared memory video chipsets. Ergo, it is a near certainty that Apple will ship shared memory video, and there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

You guys can be wishful thinkers if you like, I have no objection. I'm sick of pointing out to people that they're dreaming. You guys can all crash in disappointment when the products come out - like you always do.

THEY MADE THE DEV MACHINES HAVE SHARED VIDEO TO CUT COSTS, BECAUSE PORTING PROGRAMS DOESN'T REQUIRE A 7800GTX. YOU ARE AN IDIOT! AN ABSOLUTE FREAKING IDIOT!

My god.
post #100 of 114
hmmm... yeah i think it was placebo that asked me way back to shut the fuck up about intel shared video. still pissed off placebo?? chill mate
post #101 of 114
And the ultimate answer to the ultimate portable question is... Wait till January or maybe June...

I guess it comes down to whether they go for ~$700-800 or stick with ~$1000 price for iBooks.

$700 iBooks would sell like something that sells very fast indeed.

$1000 iBooks with a "nice" GPU would sell to me!.



Maybe they need to head south with the price points.
iBooks $700-800 and PB's somewhere lower than $1500 (to catch the me's).

But then they need another line to catch the self-stlyed "Apple Pro-Users" who want the satisfaction of the $2500 PB's along with the surcharge $600-800 donation to Apple RD.

Too complicated product line? a choice of three..
post #102 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by OfficerDigby

$700 iBooks would sell like something that sells very fast indeed.

Like hot cakes perhaps?

Quote:
iBooks $700-800 and PB's somewhere lower than $1500 (to catch the me's).

But then they need another line to catch the self-stlyed "Apple Pro-Users" who want the satisfaction of the $2500 PB's along with the surcharge $600-800 donation to Apple RD.

Too complicated product line? a choice of three..

Or Good, Better, Best,
or in Spanish: Bein, Mejor, Mejor.
Maybe confusing for them
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #103 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
THEY MADE THE DEV MACHINES HAVE SHARED VIDEO TO CUT COSTS, BECAUSE PORTING PROGRAMS DOESN'T REQUIRE A 7800GTX. YOU ARE AN IDIOT! AN ABSOLUTE FREAKING IDIOT!

My god.

I agree - Apple is not going to ship a $3500AUD system with an shared video chipset. People are going to take one look at it and go, "wtf? I can get two 7800GTX in SLI, An FX57, ridiculously high amounts of RAM, a terabyte of hard disk space a PCI wifi card AND expandibility for that price with windows."
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #104 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
hmmm... yeah i think it was placebo that asked me way back to shut the fuck up about intel shared video. still pissed off placebo?? chill mate

Yeah, sorry, but I pretty much have to don scuba gear each time I enter this thread so I don't drown in the stupidity.
post #105 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by OfficerDigby

iBooks $700-800 and PB's somewhere lower than $1500 (to catch the me's).
But then they need another line to catch the self-stlyed "Apple Pro-Users" who want the satisfaction of the $2500 PB's along with the surcharge $600-800 donation to Apple RD.
Too complicated product line? a choice of three..

why not :
- 700 : 12" ibook shared graphic card - combo
- 850 : 12" ibook better
- 1000 : 13.3 ibook good
- 1200 : 13.3 ibook very good
- 1500 : ultrathin 12" powerbook
- 1800 : ultrathin 15" powerbook
- 2100 : ultrathin 17" powerbook

would works for me!
post #106 of 114
Originally posted by pyriX
I agree - Apple is not going to ship a $3500AUD system with an shared video chipset. People are going to take one look at it and go, "wtf? I can get two 7800GTX in SLI, An FX57, ridiculously high amounts of RAM, a terabyte of hard disk space a PCI wifi card AND expandibility for that price with windows."


well, they DO ship a $3999 AUD system :
Dual-core 2.3GHz PowerPC G5 processor
1.15GHz frontside bus per processor
1MB L2 cache per core
512MB memory (533MHz DDR2 SDRAM)
250GB Serial ATA hard drive
16x SuperDrive (double-layer)
Three open PCI Express expansion slots
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 with 256MB of GDDR SDRAM

to which i say, WTF? i can get two 7800gtx in SLI, FX57, 4gb ram, blah blah blah....
post #107 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
well, they DO ship a $3999 AUD system :

I think you missed the part where he said that this hypothetical $3500 AUD system would have shared video memory.
post #108 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
I think you missed the part where he said that this hypothetical $3500 AUD system would have shared video memory.

well, paying $3999 AUD and getting only a 6600, not even a 6600GT, can still be a sore point for many 8)
post #109 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by pyriX
I agree - Apple is not going to ship a $3500AUD system with an shared video chipset. People are going to take one look at it and go, "wtf? I can get two 7800GTX in SLI, An FX57, ridiculously high amounts of RAM, a terabyte of hard disk space a PCI wifi card AND expandibility for that price with windows."


well, they DO ship a $3999 AUD system :
Dual-core 2.3GHz PowerPC G5 processor
1.15GHz frontside bus per processor
1MB L2 cache per core
512MB memory (533MHz DDR2 SDRAM)
250GB Serial ATA hard drive
16x SuperDrive (double-layer)
Three open PCI Express expansion slots
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 with 256MB of GDDR SDRAM

to which i say, WTF? i can get two 7800gtx in SLI, FX57, 4gb ram, blah blah blah....

Integrated graphics is not the same as a geforce 6600.

I take your point though, but that kick shit 7800GTX system DOESNT have OSX
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #110 of 114
tell me about it mate. \ i did some maths on my pc rig i built, and looks like (shh... don't tell my parents) it amounts to 4,500 in local currency (ringgits) the key to unlocking its value is running os X somehow, somewhere... can't lose windoze, 'coz i do have fun playing some games (ut2004, nfs: most wanted, matrixath of neo and soon hopefully: star wars battlegrounds2)

working on it though. a tripple booty system (ubuntu64, winxp32, mac osx86) would make my $4,500 rig truly bloody worth every penny....!
post #111 of 114
edit: yeah, i get your point too, no worries, i was just being a cheeky bunny.
post #112 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
edit: yeah, i get your point too, no worries, i was just being a cheeky bunny.

Tis christmas baby rabbits that are quite soft dont come till Easter.
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #113 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
tell me about it mate. \ i did some maths on my pc rig i built, and looks like (shh... don't tell my parents) it amounts to 4,500 in local currency (ringgits) the key to unlocking its value is running os X somehow, somewhere... can't lose windoze, 'coz i do have fun playing some games (ut2004, nfs: most wanted, matrixath of neo and soon hopefully: star wars battlegrounds2)

working on it though. a tripple booty system (ubuntu64, winxp32, mac osx86) would make my $4,500 rig truly bloody worth every penny....!

When teh intel macs come out, buy the OS, and go here www.osx86project.org

WOOT: 200th post, right after the 199th

EDIT: and just realised it was to the same person too.
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #114 of 114
Quote:
Originally posted by pyriX
Integrated graphics is not the same as a geforce 6600.

I take your point though, but that kick shit 7800GTX system DOESNT have OSX

well, not until i hack it with a nice OSX on x86.
"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
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