Intel GMA X3000

I'm awaiting some bencharks on this new Int chipset. Frankly I don't have a problem with them unless they're in an expensive computer with no way to upgrade.

I'd accept a GMA iMac if it was $999 for the 17" and 1299 for the 20"

Then Apple could start the Mac Pro with a Conroe based model at $1499 with a PCIe graphics card.

The 2048x1536 number is useless because it refers to analog. Pretty much any non-stone-age card can do that resolution in analog. Digital is a completely different matter and doesn't really have much to do with the card either; the limitation is in the bus.

As for all the other features, well, that's nice, but pretty much useless as well, since the shared memory simply doesn't allow for enough bandwidth to really make use of it.

What GMA needs is a semi-shared system like ATi and nVidia offer.

I was under the impression that the old GMA-integrated graphics accelerators didn't support hardware transform and lighting at all?

Anyway, I expect it to handle strategy games pretty well.

You're correct. The old GMA did software T&L only.

What is with you integrated graphics guys. The best Intel integrated graphics, performs worse then a 2 or 3 year old low end graphics card. The only argument you have for them is that they are cheap. But, what does a 2 or 3 year old dedicated graphics card or chipset cost. It isn't even worth talking about. Integrated graphics for Apples are a huge step backwards. Period.

Blah blah blah blah blah.


They aren't just cheap. They're also more than good enough for most uses.

When you go shopping for clothes do you just grab any item in any size? Clearly you do not. Computers are no different. You must tailor them to meet the customers requirements. I could tell my mother to get a computer with a nvidia 7000 series GPU because it's sooo cool. But is that really going to run her MS Office better? Does the web run faster or look better? Cheap "is" a feature and it's and often requested one.

I welcome integrated graphics as a way of making computers less expensive. The very purpose of AGP was to reduce the amount of local memory that a card needed. In essence it was the precursor to integrated graphics. The only way to truly understand this is to shift your center and look at it from the perpective of millions of consumers each with their own value systems and needs. To simply state integrated graphics is a step backwards absolutely is to merely shut off the possibility of other options which is never a good way to develop critical thinking.

There is a time and place for just about everything.

So when does this get in a new Mac mini?

When I buy clothes and I see a nameless brand of jeans 10% less than Levis........I buy the Levis. The price difference from Intel integrated graphics and real dedicated graphics (Nvidia or ATI) is less than 50 dollars in overall cost. So the computer that costs 500 dollars would cost 550........big deal. So your argument for welcoming cheap computing is lame. I say the 500 dollars you spent, instead of the 550, is a bad investment. Why waste your money on something that is sub-standard.........why even promote this sub-standard thinking.

Why make a journey to the South Pole, just to give up 100 feet short of your goal.

People were so starved for the Intel Macbook and Mac Mini, they bought them regardless of what was in them. Maybe your right, People that buy them will never know the difference, just like the people that buy cheap Dells. They want a computer, they don't care what it performs like. Businesses buy what's cheapest...........the minimum to get the job done

I didn't think that was Apple. But, maybe, NOW it is. It looks as if you've won. Congratulations. Maybe Apple should change it's sign to DELL..........worlds cheapest computers.

Apple isn't competing for the "world's cheapest computers" crown, but at the same time, it has to be semi-competitive. People who use minis use them to type Word (or Appleworks or OpenOffice hopefully) stuff, and surf the net. Maybe some media playback. People who buy minis don't play Oblivion or Crysis at 1080p or whatever. Those people want a computer, and they want it cheap and easy. Integrated graphics is cheap and easy. And a X1300 or even X300 is probably overkill for them. So they save $50 and get what they need.

You miss my point. The iBook and the mini used to offer MORE than the average inexpensive computer BY featuring dedicated graphics cards/chips. Sometimes, even eclipsing laptops and or computers twice their price. Now instead of being better for the price.........now they are exactly the same for the price. Why step backwards.

Really, the only problem they encountered was the lack of progression with motherboards and main chips............hindered by a partnership with a non-competitive partnership.

oops.......I meant.........non-competitive manufacterer.

damn it..........manufacturer. Geez, I had better quit, while I can.

The point I think is tailoring the computer for the largest group of users. If you know you want games then you get an iMac or Powermac today. If you want a nice general purpose computer than a mac mini with integrated graphics isn't a bad thing at all. I think the Macbook and mini both offer something that is more important to the majority of consumers vs a discrete GPU. That is speed.

Why have more than 256MB RAM? OS X can handle virtual memory just fine. Sure, do all your iphotoing with iMovie open on the machine. It may be slow, but some users don't neeeed it!

yeah, intel video works, but when you pay as much as you would for a Dell with an upgradable card (albeit in a crappy form factor), you expect something better.

Integrated graphics rob from the CPU. Even when performing simple operations like playing HD DVDs and stuff, frames are lost and the CPU usage goes through the roof. Not to mention you need more RAM.

So you're paying all this money for a dual core with more RAM, when you'd be much better off having a better video card. I'm pretty sure that the G4 mac minis had a better video card in them than the new intels (ATI 9200 Vs GMA)!

I'm not an ATI fan--not after all the crap they've done, especially to us mac users--but I'd put up a freakin 9800 against anything intel makes today.

Intel doesn't make video cards, they make crappy video chips that allow a mobo to output video. I think it started as some sort of diagnostic tool, because it's so worthless that using it for much else deprives system resources and ends up on non-upgradable boards most of the time.

What are we running? Bash CLI all day? isn't one of these years supposed to be 'the year of HD'? Was that this year?

These are not dumb terminals here, these are powerful machines that Apple claims can give you the world right out of the box. Integrated video, though in keeping with Apple's apparent loathing of high-end GPUs, is cheap crap. I don't care who's buying these things, it's almost assured that they'll run into a road block some day , if not the first day they bring it home, just because someone decided to make a few bucks because "the customer doesn't need it."

These are Entry-level machines here, they should be able to do a bit of everything. Yes, gaming matters, even on a mac. You can damn well be sure that when the customer pops half-life 2 (is that even out for mac??) in that drive and gets a warning about lack of met system requirements, they're going to be pissed that their new machine can't run this old game. And they're right to be. It's a joke to be selling these things to people, and if it weren't for the obvious engineering issues, I'd say Apple should be ashamed. The mac mini should be advertised as another Apple "Cube"

... except that G4 cubes can now utilize better video cards

Virtual Memory entails using your hard drive which is an order of magnitude slower than main memory. Is a dedicated GPU an order of magnitude faster than an integrated chip? Depends I guess but I'd venture to say that most probably aren't.


They likely did but if we're talking about the new GMA X3000 then that wouldn't be the case. The GMA 950 was certainly showing its age but I'm liking the specs of the new stuff.


Pure FUD. The GMA x3000 supports OpenGL 2.0, Shader Model 3 and 4, improved scaling and de-interlacing, h.264 and VC-1 acceleration, improved anisotropic filtering, improved power management features, hardware clipping and rotation and so on. It supports the highest Aero setting in Vista. Granted it's not going to beat a top of the line GPU for daily tasks and light gaming it's going to work just fine for Quartz and Aero.

I'd rather save the money. If GPU performance is important then let the people who want it spend the extra money on a GPU upgradable computer. Gamers don't rule the computing world.

Actually, gamers drove the 3D revolution. Gamers buy the highest profit margin computing products and constantly push the envelope of high end home computing. Who else would upgrade their 2 month old machine to get 10 more FPS from FEAR/Far Cry/Oblivion/Quake 4/Doom 3/etc.?

Gamers are some of the most desirable customers because of their constant quest for high end power. Computer hardware companies ignore them at their peril.

Pure FUD. The GMA x3000 supports OpenGL 2.0, Shader Model 3 and 4, improved scaling and de-interlacing, h.264 and VC-1 acceleration, improved anisotropic filtering, improved power management features, hardware clipping and rotation and so on. It supports the highest Aero setting in Vista. Granted it's not going to beat a top of the line GPU for daily tasks and light gaming it's going to work just fine for Quartz and Aero.


Support means nothing. Doom III supports the Radeon 9200, you're certainly welcome to try it.

It seems to me like they've just made this new chip more like a real video card. Until the benchmarks are published, I would not be so quick to ignore all the history of integrated graphics.

This chip was probably released to barely meet the specs for the highest vista Aero, which is about the most impressive feat I've seen in integrated graphics ever.

However, just because it runs everything, doesn't mean it runs anything well.

With Apple now making use of the GPU in tasks not-related to on-screen rendering, even non-gamers can appreciate having some more power. Apple's "core" technology means that if you don't have a good GPU, you're missing out on productivity and even 2D tasks.

I'll grant you that some users don't need a faster GPU. That hardly means that Apple should release another computer with a crappy integrated graphics chip.

I applaud Apple for recently and for the first time including a decent graphics chip with their iMac, but these entry level machines need SOMETHING, even a minimal GPU, to show the game companies that Macs can run games, so they should make games for Mac.

The Mac Mini is marketted to 18-35 year old men and women. The majority of this demographic play games. Playing WoW with all the effects turned off is not "gaming," it's "annoying."

Everyone seems to mention their grandmother not needing a good GPU. How many freakin grandmothers use computers?! More and more every day, true, however that is NOT what this computer was designed for. This one was released for YOUNG novices, not old ones. Keeping games off these machines will push them to another platform, and you know what I mean by that.

Looks like you got your wish with cash to spare

I'm inclined to agree with the above assessment. It supports all neat new stuff, and it should because everything uses it all now, but at what level? I don't think intel is touting this as a high-performance graphics solution. I think it just saying that integrated graphics is now fully prepared to move onward on the same level that it already is at, but it now has all the things that will be needed in the future to continue on.

Yeah but it has GMA 950 graphics yuck

Honestly though integrated graphics are a necessary evil. I'd prefer discrete graphics with a decent GPU but on the lowend I realize that Apple is competing one-on-one with low cost PCs now which will invariably have integrated
"craphics"

I don't think you should stereotype computer users' habits based on the machine choices Apple provides.

I think some people missed what aircft.sys.spec was saying. For the miniscule amount extra for an older dedicated card, you get better performance than an integrated chip.

You can buy a Radeon 9600 256MB retail for under £50 these days.

If Apple made two models of the Mini, one with a GMA and another with a dedicated GPU equivalent to say a Radeon 9600 for £50 extra then we'd see exactly what the Mini consumer goes for.

Yes those consumers have a lower budget but Apple treats customers in two groups - rich and poor. The poor grouping gets shafted with very little build to order options and well sealed machines that can't be upgraded while the rich get the full works albeit with a huge form factor.

If I walk into a store with £700 in my pocket and I look at the Mac section, I see a Mini with a GMA for £529 that I can add Ram too (1GB brings it to £599) and an imac at £879. The imac is out of my price range and ugly. So I'm left with £100 spare cash but I will leave the store feeling annoyed that with the money I was willing to part with I could have had a decent GPU too. Not only that, it would make my 1GB Ram go further because its' not being used for graphics.

I believe there is such a thing as too much choice but with Apple there is not enough. We get a low end headless Mac, a mid range all-in one and a high end headless Mac. Where is the mid-range head-less Mac?

Someone at my work is getting an imac and I asked why. He said he wanted better graphics than the Mini for the occasional game under Windows - that was the only reason. I asked if they sold a Mini with a good GPU, would he have gone for that over the imac and he said definitely.

That would be true if we're talking about the GMA 950. However Teno's thread is about the upcoming X3000 Integrated Graphics and the Radeon 9600 is not as full featured as the GMA X3000.

http://www.ati.com/products/radeon96...pro/specs.html

DirectX 9 support only. No OpenGL 2.0.

Asking someone if they want a mini with fast graphics is like asking do you want $100 more on your next paycheck. Not many people are going to say no. The market realities are that the mini is a bit of a lifestyle computer. It's quite and fast enough to do many things with. The iMac is the more full featured desktop and it does contain discrete graphics.

Apple simply doesn't want to ship commodity boxes at under $1k that offer upgradability. Gamers instinctively are not going to choose Macs are the predominant platform so Apple isn't likely going to spend the additional money on faster and hotter GPU.

really, i thought r300 and up all supported ogl 2.0?

anyhow, the new intel gma look absolutely fantastic for low end home and office computers.

Actually it just might. I can't confirm on ATI's site. They only hype DirectX but I know some flavor of OpenGL is supported. It could be OGL 2.0.

I hate sloppy specs.

For those of you complaining that the iBooks and Minis used to have discrete graphics: uhm...thats all that was available with the PowerPC. Now that Apple has the option they are chosing to save a few bucks.

In other news, a pentium II with a GeForce FX 6800 doesn't play games as well as an Athlon 64 with a Radeon 9700. Processors matter too



Actually, it can do one of 3 things: Run, run well, or run slow.

As far as the X3000 somehow having more features than a 9600, that's outright false unless I'm missing something. And yes, the 9600 does support OGL2. I doubt Apple would use it in their machines if it didn't. The 9600 has more features than the 9700, which is weird given the naming scheme. It came out at the same time as the 9800.

[section removed after I remembered the NDA I signed with my company]

What matters are frame rates, im sure a 9600 will still slaughter,hammer,destroy any Integrated cheapo graphics. We could see Apple bump up the cpu in a new machine and then use these cheapo graphics. Anyone know what a gma950 cost apple? 5 bucks? maybe ten at most but I bet Intel gives em to them free.

I Apple wanted a cheap, versatile, powerful laptop, geard towards just about anybody, they could have opted for cheaper CPUs and a discrete GPU. Instead they went fot rather pricey CPUs and a cheap GPU, leaving gamers and people who might want to use apps like Aperture witch rely on GPUs in the cold.

The Core Dup processors are quite powerful, even at low speeds (1.66 GHz). I think I remember from en MacBook was introduced that almost everyone was surprised that Apple chose such powerful CPUs. Before, people were talking about Core Solos and such.

I think it's sad. A MacBook with a dedicated GPU could been an awsome portable gaming machine, it might even have attracted hard core PC-games who'd like a cheap laptop. No now.. probably not.

GMA graphis are standard fare on PCs of the Macbook's ilk. Apple could have added discrete graphics and raided the price by a $100 or so but they have pricing pressures equivelent to any other vendor.

On these boards a lone I continually see comparisons to Dell or the PC flava of the month. We can't have it both ways. We can't pine for extra features and complain that the price is higher.

Frankly Apple doesn't care about trying to convert gamers. They don't and they never have. Options are nice to have but Apple's trying to keep the the lineup clean.

Perhaps Apple will eventually create a $1499 laptop with dedicated graphics. That would alleviate a lot of the problem. I just don't think an $1100 laptop should be spending such a large portion of its BoM on graphics.

Exactly!
Apple has usually offered high quality and very matched system components such that owners often continued to use their macs for years. Apple certainly doesn't like it when mac owners don't upgrade for years. Now that Apple's on the Intel diet, they (Apple) are taking a page from all the other PC oems and building machines with built-in obsolescence. Graphics is one area that's going to continue to push the envelope of computers with more complex games and more OS and application eye candy. It's one thing to offer a machine with integrated graphics but it's another to offer the bottom of the barrel integrated graphics. Is Apple cutting just too many corners to make a buck by making machines with Intel integrated graphics?

They still do they just don't attempt to convince someone looking at at an $800 machine that they'll be playing games at warp speed. Those that want to push the envelope will get a Powermac or Mac Pro. Just as HP doesn't expect their Pavillion desktops to compete with their Workstations.

Here's a good test for you. If your computer has less than 4 dimm slots then you're likely not buying a computer that's going to have a beefy GPU.

Champagne tastes on a beer budget are not generally not fulfilled in the computer sector and especially when talking about Apple.

There's a world of difference between warp speed and adequate speed though. I don't think it's reasonable that the alternative to a Mini if you need a bit extra is the monstrosity that will be the Mac Pro at probably 3 times the price.

I just want to pay £100 or so more for a better GPU even if it's not pushing me to the bleeding edge of 3D acceleration, which I'm not bothered about as I'm not a gamer. I'd just like to be able to open higher resolution 3D scenes in animation software to then allow the powerful Core Duo to render it.

Apple's lineup should be:

Mini Solo, GMA: £398
Mini Solo, x1600: £529
Mini Duo, GMA: £529
Mini Duo, x1600: £679
imac 17" Solo, GMA: £598
imac 17" Solo, x1600: £649
imac 17" Duo, GMA: £729
imac 17" Duo, x1600: £879
imac 20" Solo, x1600: £999
imac 20" Duo, x1600: £1129

I'm sure there are errors in there but you get the idea. It means an option for everyone no matter their budget. People are smart enough to weigh up for themselves what's more important to them - all-in-one design, more powerful CPU, more powerful GPU.