More evidence that Intel-based iBook replacement will have integrated graphics

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
From http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...ted_inspirons/



Dell UK appears to believe Intel's integrated graphics cores provide plenty of power for its laptop customers' needs. All but one of the PC giant's Inspiron notebooks - including the recently released 6400, highlighted for its "versatile entertainment" provision - now ship without a discrete GPU, it has emerged.

Dell currently offers five Inspiron-branded notebooks to UK buyers. Today, only the "multimedia powerhouse" 9400 can be purchased with an ATI Mobility Radeon X1400 with 256MB of video memory. The GPU is offered as an option - the base model ships with Intel's GMA 950 graphics core, which is integrated into the machine's chipset.

Bizarrely, the Inspiron 6000 product page suggests upgrading to an ATI "video card", claiming it provides the "ultimate visual experience", but doesn't provide a way for online buyers to do so. Dell touts the 6000's "multimedia performance".

If you are looking for a machine with a dedicated GPU, you're looking at one of Dell's Precision range (M20 and M70), a sub-set of its Latitude business-oriented line-up (the D610 and the D810) or its XPS 610 gaming machine. The M70 and the XPS 610 are the only machines offered with an Nvidia GPU, respectively the Quadro FX Go 1400 and the Geforce Go 6800 Ultra, both with 256MB of video RAM.

Dell appears to have only just made the change - a number of Register readers have claimed recent orders for Inspirons with discrete GPUs have been cancelled.

Such a move isn't surprising. Integrated graphics products continue to out-sell discrete graphics chips since they're cheaper to buy and provide sufficient power for most mainstream users' graphics needs. It's odd, perhaps, that Dell has cut back on build-to-order notebook GPU options, but then again it's cheaper not to.

More to the point, it helps create another differentiator for the Alienware kit Dell now owns.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 40
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,215member
    I don't know why some here are defying common sense logic and thinking that the ibook replacement "won't" have integrated graphics.



    My Mac mini supports all of Core Graphics. That crappy card in the G4 didn't despite being dedicated
  • Reply 2 of 40
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,229member
    This is Intel's trojan horse against ATI and nVidia.



    They know it and this way if any consumer wants to have a high-end, dedicated GPU on a laptop they'll have to by the top models.



    Nice isn't it?
  • Reply 3 of 40
    vochvoch Posts: 28member
    I'm fine with IIG as long as there's other nifty features like DVI output, gigabit ethernet, and a nice LCD. But then again I rarely play 3D games.
  • Reply 4 of 40
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Robin Hood

    All but one of the PC giant's Inspiron notebooks - including the recently released 6400, highlighted for its "versatile entertainment" provision - now ship without a discrete GPU, it has emerged.



    And the point is? Inspiron's are low-end, low-cost, low-quality laptops. I'm surprised they offer a dedicated option at all.
  • Reply 5 of 40
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    While I'd prefer a better GPU, integrated graphics is highly likely for the iBook. However, I'd say that a large number of potential buyers are switcher college students and I'd expect that many would want beefier GPUs.



    That said, as long as Apple is being competitive with the PC manufacturers, they can do as they wish.



    As long as I can get a 13.3" widescreen laptop with a decent GPU I'll be happy. Perhaps there'll be a Pro-ish model akin to the Core Duo mini?
  • Reply 6 of 40
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    All I can say is if they gotta put IG in the new ibook it had better be the 128mb version of the 950, not this 64 mb junk, that's fine for a mini but a 1300 dollar laptop with 64mb integrated graphics in this day and age is just retarded.



    Apple owes it's people better than that.
  • Reply 7 of 40
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,215member
    128MB vs 64MB



    Doesn't make much of a difference beyond the 3D realm. And if 3D was important you wouldn't be buying a iBook.
  • Reply 8 of 40
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Xool

    While I'd prefer a better GPU, integrated graphics is highly likely for the iBook. However, I'd say that a large number of potential buyers are switcher college students and I'd expect that many would want beefier GPUs.



    Uhhh, why? what do college students in the iBook demographic need that will require a "beefy GPU?"
  • Reply 9 of 40
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    Uhhh, why? what do college students in the iBook demographic need that will require a "beefy GPU?"



    Part of the prior marketing was along lines of. "Look these iBooks, right, there better also because they've got dedicated graphic chips right.. which is better for this and that"... Many peeps bought it. It's a selling tool Apple can't use any more. Probably.



    Quote:

    This is Intel's trojan horse against ATI and nVidia.



    They know it and this way if any consumer wants to have a high-end, dedicated GPU on a laptop they'll have to by the top models.



    Nice isn't it?



    Interesting idea... would they charge more for boards where you can plug in graphics cards?



    General (noob) question: Why didn't Intel make GPUs with dedicated graphics memory as well?
  • Reply 10 of 40
    turboturbo Posts: 31member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    128MB vs 64MB



    Doesn't make much of a difference beyond the 3D realm. And if 3D was important you wouldn't be buying a iBook.




    So, on my Imac I am getting, you are saying it will only benefit 3D games if I get the 256vram upgrade? If it will only help with 3D games then I will save the money and not upgrade it. I thought it would make everything look better.
  • Reply 11 of 40
    Quote:

    Originally posted by turbo

    So, on my Imac I am getting, you are saying it will only benefit 3D games if I get the 256vram upgrade? If it will only help with 3D games then I will save the money and not upgrade it. I thought it would make everything look better.



    I can confirm that's pretty much the case, yes.
  • Reply 12 of 40
    dr_lhadr_lha Posts: 236member
    Running my Mac Mini on a 1680x1050 display only seems to take away 19Mb of system RAM, if you believe what Activity Monitor reports as the total system RAM. Given that the new iBook is going to be much lower resolution than that, and isn't built for 3D games, i think there's no reason not to use the Intel chip in the iBook.
  • Reply 13 of 40
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,215member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by turbo

    So, on my Imac I am getting, you are saying it will only benefit 3D games if I get the 256vram upgrade? If it will only help with 3D games then I will save the money and not upgrade it. I thought it would make everything look better.



    Nope...your screen will look the same. For 2D performance adding more memory will yield little to no improvements because you really aren't caching anything. I haven't played any games but I'm happy with the visual performance of my mini.



    Someday I'll need a Powermac with a beefy GPU for video but right now I think most people who aren't big into 3D games will be happy enough.
  • Reply 14 of 40
    pbpb Posts: 4,232member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    For 2D performance adding more memory will yield little to no improvements because you really aren't caching anything.





    Sorry? Mac OS X is famous for its aggressive caching. Everywhere. Although in normal use the effects of more VRAM will be unnoticeable, in more heavy graphics-wise use they will be quite evident. For example, when you have open many windows (in the order of tens), GUI operations like Expose are much more fluid with double the VRAM. There is a reason that even the low end Macs (the new ones) have 64 MB of VRAM and not 32 MB, as was the case not so long ago.



    For those interested, here is a utility that monitors VRAM usage. I am not sure if and how it will work with the GPUs in the Intel Macs. It is funny to see how your VRAM is eaten alive as you open new windows, especially in Safari.
  • Reply 15 of 40
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,215member
    Quote:

    Sorry? Mac OS X is famous for its aggressive caching. Everywhere



    PB. You caught me being a wee bit PC centric<smile> yes indeed the Quartz display system in OS X can utilize more memory PCs won't have equivalent OS level support until Vista . Sigh....I spend too much time in PC land at work wondering why clients are stressing out over 128MB of memory versus 256MB on a ATI X300 (for chrissakes it's an entry level card people).



    I think quartz is pretty dependent on fast memory performance as well. I"m pleased with the Duo Core mini. I haven't taxed it yet like I will eventually but it's not half as bad as some have made it seem.
  • Reply 16 of 40
    pbpb Posts: 4,232member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    PB. You caught me being a wee bit PC centric<smile> yes indeed the Quartz display system in OS X can utilize more memory PCs won't have equivalent OS level support until Vista . Sigh....I spend too much time in PC land at work wondering why clients are stressing out over 128MB of memory versus 256MB on a ATI X300 (for chrissakes it's an entry level card people).



    I think quartz is pretty dependent on fast memory performance as well. I"m pleased with the Duo Core mini. I haven't taxed it yet like I will eventually but it's not half as bad as some have made it seem.




    No problem. As said before, in normal, light use, 64 vs. 128 MB VRAM makes almost zero difference. One has just to weigh his needs. If a more heavy use (like too many windows open) is expected somewhere, it is good to have this more VRAM to make the graphics of the system more fluid. It is again the same as system RAM, just in another level.
  • Reply 17 of 40
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    The current iBook has a ATI Radeon Mobility 9550 with 32 MB of RAM. Which does not support Core Image, is not good for 3D games, and cannot playback 1080 HD.



    Even if the new iBook (Mac Book) has similar integrated graphics of the Intel Mac mini it will be ahead of the current iBook in graphics performance.
  • Reply 18 of 40
    pbpb Posts: 4,232member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TenoBell

    The current iBook has a ATI Radeon Mobility 9550 with 32 MB of RAM. Which does not support Core Image...





    The Radeon 9550 DOES support Core Image.



    Quote:



    ...is not good for 3D games, and cannot playback 1080 HD.







    Good or not good depends on expectations. But yes, for serious gaming you should look for something else.



    The 1080p playback argument is actually moot since no HD-capable GPU for the Mac has as of now drivers for HD decoding. For the time being this is done in CPU.



    Quote:

    Even if the new iBook (Mac Book) has similar integrated graphics of the Intel Mac mini it will be ahead of the current iBook in graphics performance.



    We don't know this. Perhaps it will be overall true, but I doubt it will be true for OpenGL.
  • Reply 19 of 40
    charlesscharless Posts: 301member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TenoBell

    Even if the new iBook (Mac Book) has similar integrated graphics of the Intel Mac mini it will be ahead of the current iBook in graphics performance.



    The Intel GMA950 gets its ass handed to it even by the Radeon 9200 in the old Mac mini:







    (Source)



    Therefore, I suspect it will do even more poorly when compared with the iBook's 9550.
  • Reply 20 of 40
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CharlesS

    The Intel GMA950 gets its ass handed to it even by the Radeon 9200 in the old Mac mini:



    ...



    Therefore, I suspect it will do even more poorly when compared with the iBook's 9550.




    If I'm not mistaken UT2004 is using Rosetta which very likely has a larger performance impact than the GPU on this benchmark.



    GMA950 and more advanced IG is not as dire as people seem to think, and it has the advantage of allowing Apple to dynamically change the amount of RAM dedicated to the GPU. You are going to see more of this in the future, and it is going to be better and better compared to the current state but will always lag behind the leading edge dedicated GPUs. At some point it is enough, however.



    Oh, and for the Quartz 2D work an IG unit can actually be better because the CPU is still doing much of the drawing and it has faster access to main memory than it would to dedicated VRAM across the AGP or PCIe bus.
Sign In or Register to comment.