Nvidia 320M GPU made especially for Apple's new 13-inch MacBook Pro

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 71
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post


    The low-end 13" is now "one-heck-of-a-deal." Why spend $300 more for the high-end 13", which essentially just gives you a slightly faster processor? (Getting the 320GB instead of the 250GB hard drive doesn't give you much; if the 250GB is not big enough, then better to spend about a $100 more and upgrade to a 500GB 7200rpm).



    I wish they had kept the low-end 15" with Core2Duo and Nvidia integrated chip. Although I want to get a 15", I am hesitating because of the Intel HD graphics. If this is a temporary solution, I wonder how temporary. I also hope that Apple is putting pressure on Intel to straighten out this issue with Nvidia.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dusk View Post


    I think the difference between 2,4Ghz and 2,66 is definitely not worth it.

    Core i7 or i5 are a new Nehalem based Architecture from Intel. The C2D in the 13" are still the old architecture that has been here for about 2 years now.

    Corei iX are significantly faster in situations that benefit from a lot of cores since they have 4 logical cores. This gives you around 20% faster encoding speed. If you do a lot of video work or render stuff the new CPUs might be better for you if you're more the usual web surfer, gamer, office word user the upgrade to 15" is not worth it.

    You can get significantly better performance Corei5 from much cheaper windows notebooks though.

    Bigger diff. betweend 13" and 15" is the GPU which is supposedly twice as fast in 15". Compared to quite a few windows notebooks it still ain't that good and 256mb is just a little too less for many modern games at these resolutions and if you want AA.



    re read the specs

    the 2.66 ghz chops can clock up to and over 3,2ghz when needed

    also 2.66 means your mbp 13in does not become obsolete as fast

    always buy the highest end

    always its like 30 cents a day more

    unless you buy a laptop every 2 yrs

    instead of every 4 yrs or 5
  • Reply 62 of 71
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    512 MB graphics card? 1 GB ones have been out for some time now. Come on Apple, get with it!
  • Reply 63 of 71
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    It's an advantage in that it's the fastest integrated graphics chip in the world. Might be a gift from NVidia as a sorry for giving you defective 8600M GT/9600M GT chips. Apple possibly could have used the 330M but it's about cost. They increased the lowest 15" by $100 switching the 9400M to dedicated like the other 15" models and they would have done the same to the 13".







    I don't think the Core i3 would have offered much and would force them to use the 330M dedicated chip, increasing the price. This is a problem Intel caused and I'm glad Apple found a way round it.







    Apple have the only benchmarks so far:



    http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/performance.html



    They do note that the "MacBook Pro continuously monitors system thermal and power conditions, and may adjust processor speed as needed to maintain optimal system operation" so benchmarks won't be entirely accurate. The 320M is listed as having 48 cores vs 16 cores in the 9400M. It's described as being comparable to but better than the GT310M.



    The 310M is here (3DMark05 7149):

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...M.22439.0.html

    and the 9600M GT is here (3DMark05 9592):

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...GT.9449.0.html



    The listed game benchmarks come pretty close so if NVidia says the 320M is better than the 310M then I'd say that means it'll be fairly close to the 9600M GT performance. As it says on Apple's site though, if they've got heavy-handed thermal optimizations, they may be holding back the performance to get longer battery life and cooler operation. We'll have to wait and see when they ship. Given that it's a new GPU, they may have to adjust the drivers over time.





    great post

    great info

    thanks dude

    >>>my 2 cts



    to me the lowset end mac is more power than most people on the planet will ever need

    way more juice

    except for gamers and photo shop type needs

    the plastic mb would be fine for most who post here

    >>>

    >>the new MBP 13in highend model should last 5 or 6 yrs of daily daily use

    that is the real amazing news for me

    one dollar a day or less

    virus free

    and screen res to amaze all who wander by





    9
  • Reply 64 of 71
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by applebook View Post


    This thread is full of hilarious misinformation, as usual, like the idea that laptop i5/i7 processors are QUAD-core, and that the 1066MHz Penryn Core 2 Duo chips in the new 13" MBP are from "2007." :





    Hmm. Physician heal thyself. WTF is a 1066 Penryn Core 2 Duo if you don't mind me asking?



    Are you referring to the FSB? BTW the cpus in the new 13" MBPs first debuted in Q3 2008.



    But core 2 duos came out in 2006 and have only received minor architectural changes. The speeds have gone up as the fab process has shrunk, but yeah,IMO, that's 2006 technology. It was great in the day but the new stuff is better. If you disagree then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
  • Reply 65 of 71
    While it may be an upgrade to the existing Macbook Pro 13", it still is pretty bad. For god sakes, the next-generation ATI Radon 5000 series having been out for ~6 months. The mobile parts haven't been out as long, but still it's been quite a while, and easily enough time for Apple to have switched to them for their laptops.



    Apple should have tossed Nvidia and their old technology (These "new" 320/330M chips are basically a tweak/re-brand of the "200M" series, which was itself a re-brand of the 9000M series which was actually a die-shrink of the 8000 series. The actual core architecture (compatible with DirectX10) is ancient in GPU terms.)



    The newer ATI Radeon Mobility 5000 series is more advanced, more power efficient, and

    supports new software standards like DirectX 11, OpenGL 4.0, etc.



    I'm not an AMD/ATI partisan, but this time they clearly are the forerunners in terms of performance, architecture, feature support, power efficiency, etc.



    Not to mention Nvidia's (heavily delayed) next-generation "Fermi" desktop GPU was just released last week and nearly produces the same heat as a nuclear reactor, consuming an enormous amount of power. It will never see a mobile version, certainly nothing that can be used in a Mac.
  • Reply 66 of 71
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,267moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by winterspan View Post


    While it may be an upgrade to the existing Macbook Pro 13", it still is pretty bad. For god sakes, the next-generation ATI Radon 5000 series having been out for ~6 months. The mobile parts haven't been out as long, but still it's been quite a while, and easily enough time for Apple to have switched to them for their laptops.



    The newer ATI Radeon Mobility 5000 series is more advanced, more power efficient, and

    supports new software standards like DirectX 11, OpenGL 4.0, etc.



    Consider each model though:



    The 13" has to hit a price point of $999. Apple can't seem to build a laptop with dedicated graphics at this price. If they go integrated, they can't use ATI because their IGPs aren't that fast. They can't stick with 9400M as that means no update. They could have used 9400M with Core i5 but Intel blocked them from doing this. They had to update them in either the CPU or GPU so they got NVidia to build a new chip and this prevented them from using the Core i-series chips so they just bumped up the clock speed.



    The 15" could have had the ATI 5-series but I don't think they have the same tech to turn off the GPU entirely and drop to the integrated chip inside the CPU. Given that Apple already made headway with the 9600M + 9400M chips, they probably just furthered their driver development. Switching to ATI would have been harder to do.



    While ATI looks like a better bet for performance and compatibility with DirectX, Apple were probably focused more on power consumption as per usual.



    The problem I have is not so much the choice of NVidia as I like their GPUs (I know they are old but they work well and are very compatible with software), the problem I have is the prices. When it's clear that Apple has delayed the update and used lowered powered hardware, the prices should drop. There was no redesign of the enclosure, no extra peripherals and they've milked the old lineup long enough that profits should be higher than usual.



    I wanted to see the end of the white Macbook and bring the aluminum model in at that price, even if it had an external optical drive in the entry model or all the 13" models. Then lower the entry point of the 15".
  • Reply 67 of 71
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I wanted to see the end of the white Macbook and bring the aluminum model in at that price, even if it had an external optical drive in the entry model or all the 13" models. Then lower the entry point of the 15".



    I think the four MacBook upgrades in a 54 week time frame, finally ending with a rigid plastic unibody MacBook indicates that the MB is here to stay. As Appel grows diseconomy of scale is going to make it harder for Apple to maintain their small, boutique-like product line. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 15" plastic unibody MacBook, similar to how they had two sizes of the iBook, in 12" and 14".



    For the next 13" MBP I think they'll have to move to Core-i and a discrete GPU. I do hope that means the removal of the ODD to keep it at that price point.
  • Reply 68 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Despite that it only has a 6 hour battery, not the 10 hours that Apple lists (you can trust both Apple and Sony's battery claims).

    .



    According to Engadget, the new 15" Macbook ran for just over 5 hours in their battery test. The Vaio Z was within 30 minutes of that time.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    The fact is, Apple has a solid focus on who they are selling these machines. They aren't trying to stuff it full of HW just so nerds can impress people with pictures uploaded to Twitter or supply geeky masturbatory spec sheet material.



    I genuinely thought I had seen every possible level of fanboyism on this forum, but this takes it to entire new levels. I don't even know what to say...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post




    For the next 13" MBP I think they'll have to move to Core-i and a discrete GPU. I do hope that means the removal of the ODD to keep it at that price point.



    You honestly think that removing the optical drive (which cannot possibly cost more than $25 for Apple) is going to somehow make a difference in the price of the machine? And as for the 13"... Apple has shown over the years that the smallest Powerbook/Macbook Pro always gets the short end of the stick with graphics cards. From way back with the 12" Powerbook having ancient graphics with a quarter the video memory of the 15" Powerbooks to now with the 13" being stuck with integrated graphics. Their actions have made it abundantly clear that they don't want to make fully featured small machines. That's why I didn't buy one this time, and I don't regret my decision.
  • Reply 69 of 71
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by infinitespecter View Post


    You honestly think that removing the optical drive (which cannot possibly cost more than $25 for Apple) is going to somehow make a difference in the price of the machine?



    Really? It "can't possibly cost more than $25"? Do you have anything to back it up? If I look at the retail price, subtract for typical replacement part markup and then account for bulk purchases it would seem that it could be around $25 or more for that component.



    By now you're probably thinking that since you can buy a Blu-ray player for your TV for under $100 that it can't possibly be that much for a CD/DVD burner, especially one that is only 8x speed. According to iSuppli last year the Pioneer DVR-K06 in last year's Mac mini cost $32. That is the same speed as the drives used in unibody MB/MBPs (save for the 17" MBP) but it looks to be the 12.7mm drive, not the 9.5mm UJ857 drive they appear to be using now. Taking that much off the thickness while maintaining speed costs money.



    BTW, that is without even considering the cost of engineering needed to include a component that looks to take up 25% of the internal space of a 13" MB/MBP. No, not just adding a SATA controller to plug into, but the entire cost from engineering to warranty. You don't think Apple shipping boxes to customers overnight, fixing and shipping overnight again doesn't cost money? It's one of the few components left with moving parts, not to mention one that is not completely sealed by design.



    So when I say that removing the ODD could potentially offer a faster machine with better cooling, a larger battery, GPU instead of an IGP, while allowing for more ports and reducing the footprint and weight, while also keeping the price in check that is exactly what I mean. At the very least it a subset of those items could definitely occur. Do a google image search for MacBook x-ray to see just how much space it takes up.
  • Reply 70 of 71
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,267moderator
    Some initial benchmarks have been done with the 320M here:



    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=897364



    It shows the 320M is a little slower but close to the 9600M GT - almost double the 9400M as expected.



    The 330M only came out 40% faster than the 9600M GT though.



    These tests are done under Windows where the 320M won't be controlled by Apple's optimizations so the Mac side could be slower.



    So overall it would seem the low-end update is the better of the two in the GPU department but obviously CPU-wise, the 15"/17" had better updates.



    This means the whole lineup is decent for any kind of 3D tasks now but could have been better in some areas. When the machines ship with 4GB RAM, they could have setup the GPUs with 512MB VRAM across the lineup and on the higher end, the GPU performance is lacking somewhat for the price.
  • Reply 71 of 71
    jetlawjetlaw Posts: 156member
    Quote:

    Ridiculous Apple price point setting. A faster CPU and some hard drive space certainly shouldn't add up to £250 extra.





    Seems one could also argue that a slightly slower CPU and a slightly smaller hard drive is not much to give up for a £250 price reduction!
Sign In or Register to comment.