You mean native monitor spanning through a DVI native video out port? The iBook doesn't have it, so why would you expect the MacBook to?
That's quite funny as I'm reading this on 1280x1024 LCD spanning to my iBook right now ( I would not define it as a hack - it's a switch - thats been switched off by somebody..). As for DVI it has to be a given that there will be a DVI graphics out (reference the Intel Mac Mini) - although it maybe advertised for screen mirroring. What we are hoping for is no silly artificial knobbling of the new MacBooks functionality (no thanks Apple!). According to Intel web site GMA 950 supports screen spanning .. kind of..
Intel GMA 950 graphics support Dual Independent Display
technology. When an optional adapter card is installed, this
capability allows two separate displays to be connected to the
system at the same time.
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
dude, i would really appreciate it if you substantiate the above statements right away. seriously i cannot find any information on how intel integrated graphics will run compared to ati radeon 9200. aspyr at this stage seems to have no info whatsoever.
if intel gma 950 in the mac mini core solos and duos gives 70% improvement in 3d gaming and handles 720p (core solo) and 1080p (core duo) high definition flawlessly, then we've got a real nice gem on our hands. but we need more data at this stage.
This is not everything what you want however it is some of it...
"In my humble opinion, the Mac mini is a poor investment unless you have a display, keyboard, and mouse you can't part with. You may pay more for the iMac Core Duo 1.83, but you get a lot more -- an LCD screen, a faster CPU, a much faster and more capable GPU, a faster/bigger hard drive, easy to install memory, and an iSight camera. And it takes no more space on your desk than a mini when you include the mini's display and keyboard.
There's a lot of love for the mini concept floating around. If Apple would offer a "super mini" with Radeon X1600, that might win me over. Then you would be able to play 3D games and render Core Image effects with the same aplomb exhibited by the iMac Core Duo -- and still be able to play HD 1080p without dropping frames."
My take on the non-Pro MacBook not being crippled into just mirroring to an external disply is that it'll be widescreen 16x9 or 16x10 (cross your fingers ) and there are fewer widescreen CRTs and fewer external LCDs that will exactly match a widescreen notebook's exact resolution. The iBooks could be crippled into mirroring-only because 1024x768 is a more "normal" resolution for external displays.
If the new MacBook is widescreen then I doubt it'll be crippled to be mirroring-only. Let's all hope.
........the integrated gpu which in benchmarks has outperformed the ppc mini by up to 70% faster performance and now handles support for HD video playback?......
dude, i would really appreciate it if you substantiate the above statements right away. seriously i cannot find any information on how intel integrated graphics will run compared to ati radeon 9200. aspyr at this stage seems to have no info whatsoever.
if intel gma 950 in the mac mini core solos and duos gives 70% improvement in 3d gaming and handles 720p (core solo) and 1080p (core duo) high definition flawlessly, then we've got a real nice gem on our hands. but we need more data at this stage.
Sunrailman, Of the four Cinebench processing rate benchmark test which compared the GPU of the g4 mini to the core solo mini. The integrated intel GPU scored significantly higher in 3 of 4 tests and slightly slower in one test..
By the way, my original comment said UP TO 70%... Of the four tests performed, the open gl hard shading test is the one that would apply to 3-d gaming and it did score slower than the previous mini... However 720 is handled fine.
In other words the Intel integrated graphics are so bad that handling these duties in software is actually faster. A testament to how bad the GPU is and how good the CPU is. I guess we got the best and worst of what Intel has to offer.
1. While Toshiba 'threw down the gauntlet' with an HD-DVD drive in their upcoming laptop, don't hold your breath for Apple to put HD in the 17" version of the MacBook PRO. First, Apple is backing Blu-Ray, some specs of which aren't even finalized yet. Second, Apple pulled dual-layer drives out of the 15" MacBook Pro because they weren't thin enough to maintain the design; I can promise you that the first generation Blu-Ray drives will NOT be thin enough to fit in the 3/4" enclosure required for a MacBook Pro.
2. It is about the content. The true iPod AV/Video iPod is waiting in the wings for the content deals to be in place, but it doesn't appear that'll happen anytime soon. The studios are too greedy and stuck on the idea of subsrciptions and zero ownership (so they can still get you to buy the DVD, and a UMD for your PSP, etc. What may work for Apple is a compromise, perhaps even in partnership with Disney. The new Mac Mini (or any Mac) could be made to recieve 'data-casts' of HD movies for a subscription fee. For a few dollard extra, you can OWN a low-res iPod-ready copy of the film. Job's can sell this as the best of both worlds (HD at home on your big screen, without eating GB's of drive space and complete portability and ownership). Still, non of this will be ready for April. Apple could release the iPod, but will likely wait until content deals are achieved.
3. So, what will we get. Predictable updates and perhaps, just perhaps, one completely new thing...
13" Widescreen MacBook (specs as already noted).
Special Edition 30 anniversary iMac (Black)
MobileMe; Apple's iPhone/service system.
I have a Toshiba Satellite and is not a great laptop!
In a stunning revelation, we have learned that the new Samsung handtop computer that people have been clucking over at CES, is harboring a great secret. The new feature-weak UMPC is really the new advanced Apple iPod AV that is going to be released April 1st, on Apple's thirtieth anniversary.
Bad lead...Heres a better one:
Microsoft once again utilized its cross license patent deal with Apple Computer in their new UMPC product line. Uitlizing almost all of the techneques of a very old Apple product, the Redomond based firm claims that the product will "revolutionize access to information and fun, being the most revolutionary tech goody since Windows 95". The first name proposed for the new lineup was "Microsoft Newton Vista", this name was shot down when the lawers pointed out that the Apple cross-licence covered only patents, not trademarks.
Sunrailman, Of the four Cinebench processing rate benchmark test which compared the GPU of the g4 mini to the core solo mini. The integrated intel GPU scored significantly higher in 3 of 4 tests and slightly slower in one test..
That's false. Only one of the quoted Cinebench benchmarks (the last one) is relevent to GPU speed. All of the others combine CPU and GPU. If the GPU is underpowered, the CPU speed will make a major difference.
"Real world" tests using UT2004 have shown the general speed of the Core Solo/Duo Mac minis will be a little slower than its predecessor (the PPC minis being 18-33% faster), here's a post explaining this:
Note, this only applies to fast, interactive, apps that make heavy use of 3D graphics (that is, games.) The Intel Mac mini is ok, indeed, a little bit of an improvement, for other types of app. It's arguably much better for video.
But, yeah, the GPU sucks when it comes to 3D apps. The CPU will help with some types of application, but it's dreadfully underpowered when it comes to games.
That's false. Only one of the quoted Cinebench benchmarks (the last one) is relevent to GPU speed. All of the others combine CPU and GPU. If the GPU is underpowered, the CPU speed will make a major difference.
"Real world" tests using UT2004 have shown the general speed of the Core Solo/Duo Mac minis will be a little slower than its predecessor (the PPC minis being 18-33% faster), here's a post explaining this:
Note, this only applies to fast, interactive, apps that make heavy use of 3D graphics (that is, games.) The Intel Mac mini is ok, indeed, a little bit of an improvement, for other types of app. It's arguably much better for video.
But, yeah, the GPU sucks when it comes to 3D apps. The CPU will help with some types of application, but it's dreadfully underpowered when it comes to games.
No it's not false.. The whole point of an integrated GPU is take advantage of the CPU... Even though the PPC mini had a dedicated GPU it could not match the above results.. Using the integrated GPU combined with the new CPU it can... The mini is not a gaming or a pro machine... It is an entry level Mac or at best a living rooom media server...
With all of the upgrades in the new mini there had to be compromises made to keep the price at $599. I'm sure if there was a way to have a dedicated GPU with 128gb Ram while keeping the price at $599 and still be able to make a profit, they would have done so... Admittedly, the integrated gpu is not ideal for 3-d gaming, but I do think Apple did a good job at equpping it properly for it's intended purposes and price point... Apple is pushing media content not games.. For media, the mini does it's job adequately.
There is no way they can get away with a GMA950 only. I mean they may have a low end MacBook with one, and a higher end one with like a X1300 64mb, or whatever... but the 950 is a major downgrade to the radeon 9550s they were using before, and it would be totally stupid to have the 950 as the only option.
No it's not false.. The whole point of an integrated GPU is take advantage of the CPU...
No, the assertion the GPU was shown as better than its predecessor in that set of benchmarks was 100% false. Only one benchmark was relevent to GPU speed, and it showed the GPU performing worse than its predecessor.
Nor is the "whole point of an integrated GPU" to "take advantage of the CPU". The whole point of a GPU is to take stress away from the CPU. A mark of an underpowered GPU is one where the CPU has to involve itself in jobs it otherwise could let the GPU get on with. If the "whole point" of the GPU was to do make the CPU do the work, then it isn't a GPU. It'd be like claiming the whole point of a car that can't go over hills without being pushed is to take advantage of the driver's arms and legs.
Quote:
Even though the PPC mini had a dedicated GPU it could not match the above results.
Are you even reading the same benchmarks I am? The ONLY benchmark you quoted that tested the GPU came out WORSE than the PPC mini. It is, when it comes to GPU-bound work, FASTER than its Intel successor. That's both true in theory (using the one Cinebench benchmark that tests GPU speed), and in practice (using the quoted framerates of Unreal Tournament 2004.) It's slow. Dog slow. It is objectively slower than the GPU it replaced for this kind of work. The new Mac mini would have been faster had it used the older GPU.
Can I just repeat what another person said: "Because I know you are monitering these threads, hi Steve!"
If apple was NOT monitering these threads i'd be worried. I don't consider it wrong, I think it's good for companies to try and give the people what they want, or what is necessary tech-wise to make their life better and more fluid. In my opnion everyone who has a computer has the right to read these threads.
My best thought is though, that apple is so busy trying to deliver all their products, concepts and innovations, that they probably have less time then we think to keep up with the latest rumors!
Can I just repeat what another person said: Because I know you are monitering these threads, hi Steve!
If apple was NOT monitering these threads i'd be worried. I don't consider it wrong, I think it's good for companies to try and give the people what they want, or what is necessary tech-wise to make their life better and more fluid. In my opnion everyone who has a computer has the right to read these threads.
My best thought is though, that apple is so busy trying to deliver all there products, concepts and innovations, that they probably have less time then we think to keep up with the latest rumors!
No, the assertion the GPU was shown as better than its predecessor in that set of benchmarks was 100% false. Only one benchmark was relevent to GPU speed, and it showed the GPU performing worse than its predecessor.
Nor is the "whole point of an integrated GPU" to "take advantage of the CPU". The whole point of a GPU is to take stress away from the CPU. A mark of an underpowered GPU is one where the CPU has to involve itself in jobs it otherwise could let the GPU get on with. If the "whole point" of the GPU was to do make the CPU do the work, then it isn't a GPU. It'd be like claiming the whole point of a car that can't go over hills without being pushed is to take advantage of the driver's arms and legs.
Are you even reading the same benchmarks I am? The ONLY benchmark you quoted that tested the GPU came out WORSE than the PPC mini. It is, when it comes to GPU-bound work, FASTER than its Intel successor. That's both true in theory (using the one Cinebench benchmark that tests GPU speed), and in practice (using the quoted framerates of Unreal Tournament 2004.) It's slow. Dog slow. It is objectively slower than the GPU it replaced for this kind of work. The new Mac mini would have been faster had it used the older GPU.
Yes, I am reading the same benchmarks.. I realize that the mini had a dedicated GPU, but it could not handle core image or HD content.. And I agree that for 3-d gaming or open gl, the intel Mini is probably worse... But it's far better in every other aspect.
Comments
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
You mean native monitor spanning through a DVI native video out port? The iBook doesn't have it, so why would you expect the MacBook to?
That's quite funny as I'm reading this on 1280x1024 LCD spanning to my iBook right now ( I would not define it as a hack - it's a switch - thats been switched off by somebody..). As for DVI it has to be a given that there will be a DVI graphics out (reference the Intel Mac Mini) - although it maybe advertised for screen mirroring. What we are hoping for is no silly artificial knobbling of the new MacBooks functionality (no thanks Apple!). According to Intel web site GMA 950 supports screen spanning .. kind of..
http://www.intel.com/products/chipse...950/gma950.pdf
well actually what they say is...
Intel GMA 950 graphics support Dual Independent Display
technology. When an optional adapter card is installed, this
capability allows two separate displays to be connected to the
system at the same time.
Originally posted by sunilraman
dude, i would really appreciate it if you substantiate the above statements right away. seriously i cannot find any information on how intel integrated graphics will run compared to ati radeon 9200. aspyr at this stage seems to have no info whatsoever.
if intel gma 950 in the mac mini core solos and duos gives 70% improvement in 3d gaming and handles 720p (core solo) and 1080p (core duo) high definition flawlessly, then we've got a real nice gem on our hands. but we need more data at this stage.
This is not everything what you want however it is some of it...
http://www.barefeats.com/mincd.html
..This is not everything what you want however it is some of it...
This sums things up quite well, albeit the mac mini is not as bad graphically as I originally thought....
http://www.barefeats.com/mincd.html
"In my humble opinion, the Mac mini is a poor investment unless you have a display, keyboard, and mouse you can't part with. You may pay more for the iMac Core Duo 1.83, but you get a lot more -- an LCD screen, a faster CPU, a much faster and more capable GPU, a faster/bigger hard drive, easy to install memory, and an iSight camera. And it takes no more space on your desk than a mini when you include the mini's display and keyboard.
There's a lot of love for the mini concept floating around. If Apple would offer a "super mini" with Radeon X1600, that might win me over. Then you would be able to play 3D games and render Core Image effects with the same aplomb exhibited by the iMac Core Duo -- and still be able to play HD 1080p without dropping frames."
If the new MacBook is widescreen then I doubt it'll be crippled to be mirroring-only. Let's all hope.
Voch
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by solsun
........the integrated gpu which in benchmarks has outperformed the ppc mini by up to 70% faster performance and now handles support for HD video playback?......
dude, i would really appreciate it if you substantiate the above statements right away. seriously i cannot find any information on how intel integrated graphics will run compared to ati radeon 9200. aspyr at this stage seems to have no info whatsoever.
if intel gma 950 in the mac mini core solos and duos gives 70% improvement in 3d gaming and handles 720p (core solo) and 1080p (core duo) high definition flawlessly, then we've got a real nice gem on our hands. but we need more data at this stage.
Sunrailman, Of the four Cinebench processing rate benchmark test which compared the GPU of the g4 mini to the core solo mini. The integrated intel GPU scored significantly higher in 3 of 4 tests and slightly slower in one test..
By the way, my original comment said UP TO 70%... Of the four tests performed, the open gl hard shading test is the one that would apply to 3-d gaming and it did score slower than the previous mini... However 720 is handled fine.
here are the results.
1. Rendering: Core solo mini is 73% faster
2. Shading: Core solo mini is 64% faster
3. Soft Gl Shad: Core solo mini is 49% faster
4. Hard GL Shad: Core solo mini is 18% slower.
Here's the link: http://macintouch.com/#tips.2006.03.01
http://www.macintouch.com/specialreports/perfpack02/
Originally posted by ryanh
I think that the MacBook/iBook/whatever will support monitor spanning via mini-DVI just as the iMac now does.
...so apple can sell us a $19 video adapter to actually use the feature.
that's how steve like to do business...
Originally posted by solsun
1. Rendering: Core solo mini is 73% faster
2. Shading: Core solo mini is 64% faster
3. Soft Gl Shad: Core solo mini is 49% faster
4. Hard GL Shad: Core solo mini is 18% slower.
In other words the Intel integrated graphics are so bad that handling these duties in software is actually faster. A testament to how bad the GPU is and how good the CPU is. I guess we got the best and worst of what Intel has to offer.
Originally posted by Sport73
A few comments:
1. While Toshiba 'threw down the gauntlet' with an HD-DVD drive in their upcoming laptop, don't hold your breath for Apple to put HD in the 17" version of the MacBook PRO. First, Apple is backing Blu-Ray, some specs of which aren't even finalized yet. Second, Apple pulled dual-layer drives out of the 15" MacBook Pro because they weren't thin enough to maintain the design; I can promise you that the first generation Blu-Ray drives will NOT be thin enough to fit in the 3/4" enclosure required for a MacBook Pro.
2. It is about the content. The true iPod AV/Video iPod is waiting in the wings for the content deals to be in place, but it doesn't appear that'll happen anytime soon. The studios are too greedy and stuck on the idea of subsrciptions and zero ownership (so they can still get you to buy the DVD, and a UMD for your PSP, etc. What may work for Apple is a compromise, perhaps even in partnership with Disney. The new Mac Mini (or any Mac) could be made to recieve 'data-casts' of HD movies for a subscription fee. For a few dollard extra, you can OWN a low-res iPod-ready copy of the film. Job's can sell this as the best of both worlds (HD at home on your big screen, without eating GB's of drive space and complete portability and ownership). Still, non of this will be ready for April. Apple could release the iPod, but will likely wait until content deals are achieved.
3. So, what will we get. Predictable updates and perhaps, just perhaps, one completely new thing...
13" Widescreen MacBook (specs as already noted).
Special Edition 30 anniversary iMac (Black)
MobileMe; Apple's iPhone/service system.
I have a Toshiba Satellite and is not a great laptop!
PS.
Because I know you are monitoring these threads: HI, STEVE!
Originally posted by voxx
Are you all aware of this shocking rumor that has just hit.... God, I hope this isn't true
http://www.mymac.com/showarticle.php...ething&id=1412
The Origami - iPod AV Fiasco
Roger Born
Columnist, The Macintosh Continuum
Friday, 03/10/06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a stunning revelation, we have learned that the new Samsung handtop computer that people have been clucking over at CES, is harboring a great secret. The new feature-weak UMPC is really the new advanced Apple iPod AV that is going to be released April 1st, on Apple's thirtieth anniversary.
Bad lead...Heres a better one:
Microsoft once again utilized its cross license patent deal with Apple Computer in their new UMPC product line. Uitlizing almost all of the techneques of a very old Apple product, the Redomond based firm claims that the product will "revolutionize access to information and fun, being the most revolutionary tech goody since Windows 95". The first name proposed for the new lineup was "Microsoft Newton Vista", this name was shot down when the lawers pointed out that the Apple cross-licence covered only patents, not trademarks.
Originally posted by solsun
Sunrailman, Of the four Cinebench processing rate benchmark test which compared the GPU of the g4 mini to the core solo mini. The integrated intel GPU scored significantly higher in 3 of 4 tests and slightly slower in one test..
That's false. Only one of the quoted Cinebench benchmarks (the last one) is relevent to GPU speed. All of the others combine CPU and GPU. If the GPU is underpowered, the CPU speed will make a major difference.
"Real world" tests using UT2004 have shown the general speed of the Core Solo/Duo Mac minis will be a little slower than its predecessor (the PPC minis being 18-33% faster), here's a post explaining this:
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid...8&cid=14861059
Note, this only applies to fast, interactive, apps that make heavy use of 3D graphics (that is, games.) The Intel Mac mini is ok, indeed, a little bit of an improvement, for other types of app. It's arguably much better for video.
But, yeah, the GPU sucks when it comes to 3D apps. The CPU will help with some types of application, but it's dreadfully underpowered when it comes to games.
Originally posted by peharri
That's false. Only one of the quoted Cinebench benchmarks (the last one) is relevent to GPU speed. All of the others combine CPU and GPU. If the GPU is underpowered, the CPU speed will make a major difference.
"Real world" tests using UT2004 have shown the general speed of the Core Solo/Duo Mac minis will be a little slower than its predecessor (the PPC minis being 18-33% faster), here's a post explaining this:
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid...8&cid=14861059
Note, this only applies to fast, interactive, apps that make heavy use of 3D graphics (that is, games.) The Intel Mac mini is ok, indeed, a little bit of an improvement, for other types of app. It's arguably much better for video.
But, yeah, the GPU sucks when it comes to 3D apps. The CPU will help with some types of application, but it's dreadfully underpowered when it comes to games.
No it's not false.. The whole point of an integrated GPU is take advantage of the CPU... Even though the PPC mini had a dedicated GPU it could not match the above results.. Using the integrated GPU combined with the new CPU it can... The mini is not a gaming or a pro machine... It is an entry level Mac or at best a living rooom media server...
With all of the upgrades in the new mini there had to be compromises made to keep the price at $599. I'm sure if there was a way to have a dedicated GPU with 128gb Ram while keeping the price at $599 and still be able to make a profit, they would have done so... Admittedly, the integrated gpu is not ideal for 3-d gaming, but I do think Apple did a good job at equpping it properly for it's intended purposes and price point... Apple is pushing media content not games.. For media, the mini does it's job adequately.
Originally posted by solsun
No it's not false.. The whole point of an integrated GPU is take advantage of the CPU...
No, the assertion the GPU was shown as better than its predecessor in that set of benchmarks was 100% false. Only one benchmark was relevent to GPU speed, and it showed the GPU performing worse than its predecessor.
Nor is the "whole point of an integrated GPU" to "take advantage of the CPU". The whole point of a GPU is to take stress away from the CPU. A mark of an underpowered GPU is one where the CPU has to involve itself in jobs it otherwise could let the GPU get on with. If the "whole point" of the GPU was to do make the CPU do the work, then it isn't a GPU. It'd be like claiming the whole point of a car that can't go over hills without being pushed is to take advantage of the driver's arms and legs.
Even though the PPC mini had a dedicated GPU it could not match the above results.
Are you even reading the same benchmarks I am? The ONLY benchmark you quoted that tested the GPU came out WORSE than the PPC mini. It is, when it comes to GPU-bound work, FASTER than its Intel successor. That's both true in theory (using the one Cinebench benchmark that tests GPU speed), and in practice (using the quoted framerates of Unreal Tournament 2004.) It's slow. Dog slow. It is objectively slower than the GPU it replaced for this kind of work. The new Mac mini would have been faster had it used the older GPU.
If apple was NOT monitering these threads i'd be worried. I don't consider it wrong, I think it's good for companies to try and give the people what they want, or what is necessary tech-wise to make their life better and more fluid. In my opnion everyone who has a computer has the right to read these threads.
My best thought is though, that apple is so busy trying to deliver all their products, concepts and innovations, that they probably have less time then we think to keep up with the latest rumors!
Originally posted by Ireland
Can I just repeat what another person said: Because I know you are monitering these threads, hi Steve!
If apple was NOT monitering these threads i'd be worried. I don't consider it wrong, I think it's good for companies to try and give the people what they want, or what is necessary tech-wise to make their life better and more fluid. In my opnion everyone who has a computer has the right to read these threads.
My best thought is though, that apple is so busy trying to deliver all there products, concepts and innovations, that they probably have less time then we think to keep up with the latest rumors!
Apple Legal Does Not Sleep.
Originally posted by peharri
No, the assertion the GPU was shown as better than its predecessor in that set of benchmarks was 100% false. Only one benchmark was relevent to GPU speed, and it showed the GPU performing worse than its predecessor.
Nor is the "whole point of an integrated GPU" to "take advantage of the CPU". The whole point of a GPU is to take stress away from the CPU. A mark of an underpowered GPU is one where the CPU has to involve itself in jobs it otherwise could let the GPU get on with. If the "whole point" of the GPU was to do make the CPU do the work, then it isn't a GPU. It'd be like claiming the whole point of a car that can't go over hills without being pushed is to take advantage of the driver's arms and legs.
Are you even reading the same benchmarks I am? The ONLY benchmark you quoted that tested the GPU came out WORSE than the PPC mini. It is, when it comes to GPU-bound work, FASTER than its Intel successor. That's both true in theory (using the one Cinebench benchmark that tests GPU speed), and in practice (using the quoted framerates of Unreal Tournament 2004.) It's slow. Dog slow. It is objectively slower than the GPU it replaced for this kind of work. The new Mac mini would have been faster had it used the older GPU.
Yes, I am reading the same benchmarks.. I realize that the mini had a dedicated GPU, but it could not handle core image or HD content.. And I agree that for 3-d gaming or open gl, the intel Mini is probably worse... But it's far better in every other aspect.
Originally posted by Ireland
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/12/20.7.shtml