The one listed on the Core Image site appears to be the desktop card. ATI's website has the Radeon 9550 at 256 MB RAM, AGP 8X, and DVI connector.
That Core Image list says you need the Mobility Radeon 9700 for support.
Quote:
Good or not good depends on expectations
Everyone keeps talking about the requirement of 3D games. My point is you cannot effectively play 3D games on the dedicated GPU in the iBook now.
Quote:
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.
I imagine at some point drivers will become available. My point is no matter what, this GPU will never be able to play HD. While the GMA 950 can.
Quote:
The Intel GMA950 gets its ass handed to it even by the Radeon 9200 in the old Mac mini:
You totally ignore the Core Image Test where the Radeon 9200 has its ass handed to it. You ignore the Doom 3 test because they are both about equal. The GMA950 beat the 9200 in the Quake 3 test. You focus on the UT 2004 because that was the only test where the 9200 beat the GMA 950.
But anyway what those benchmarks clearly show is that both the Mac mini G4 and Intel Mac mini suck for games. The overwhelming evidence shows you should get the iMac.
The one listed on the Core Image site appears to be the desktop card. ATI's website has the Radeon 9550 at 256 MB RAM, AGP 8X, and DVI connector.
There is no desktop 9550 for the Mac. Apple added the 9550 in the list the day the new iBooks with this chip were released. Also, note in the iBook graphics page the expression "ATI Radeon 9550" (no mention to Mobility).
Anyway, it matters not since both are programmable and support Core Image.
Quote:
I imagine at some point drivers will become available. My point is no matter what, this GPU will never be able to play HD. While the GMA 950 can.
Yeah, I wonder if Apple will ever release such drivers. Their trend in the last years was to move decoding in the CPU (for DVDs), but now that the HD-decoding is so much demanding, and there are GPUs that can do it, the natural move would be to bring back hardware decoding. But you never know with Apple.
Quote:
You totally ignore the Core Image Test where the Radeon 9200 has its ass handed to it.
This test has hardly any meaning in the GPU level since the 9200 does not support Core Image. In this case, Core Image runs in the Altivec unit of the G4.
There is no desktop 9550 for the Mac. Apple added the 9550 in the list the day the new iBooks with this chip were released.
Does this mean ATI has various versions of the 9550. The specs Apple list and the specs ATI list for this card are very different. That's why the one in the iBook looks like a Mobility card.
Quote:
This test has hardly any meaning in the GPU level since the 9200 does not support Core Image. In this case, Core Image runs in the Altivec unit of the G4.
What this test does show is the value of graphics processing on the GPU and not only relying on the the CPU.
What this test does show is the value of graphics processing on the GPU and not only relying on the the CPU.
Core Image does not run on the 9200. This chip has not the appropriate support hardware. Period. That's why Apple developed software replacements for Core Image when Altivec and/or multiple processors are present in the system.
You totally ignore the Core Image Test where the Radeon 9200 has its ass handed to it.
Dude, the 9200 doesn't support CoreImage. So I would hope that the GMA950 would be able to beat it in a CoreImage test!
This would be somewhat irrelevant to this discussion, since the 9550 in the iBook does support CoreImage, and would more than likely hand the GMA950's ass back to it in that test as well.
Quote:
You ignore the Doom 3 test because they are both about equal.
Actually, the 9200 has a slight edge. The telling thing about this is that the 9200 is a pathetic graphics card and it still beats the GMA950. The 9550 in the iBook is more powerful than the 9200, so it should hand the GMA950 its ass.
Quote:
The GMA950 beat the 9200 in the Quake 3 test.
Only with matched memory pairs. They're about equal without. I'm not sure why matched memory would affect Quake 3 so much, but something to consider is that matched memory pairs is something that's not possible with the G4 Mac mini with its one RAM slot.
Quote:
You focus on the UT 2004 because that was the only test where the 9200 beat the GMA 950.
The 9200 also beat the GMA950 on the Doom 3 test, slightly. So that's two out of three game tests. Keep in mind also that the Mini with the 9200 in it is at a huge disadvantage due to being hobbled by a really slow G4 processor and a crappy 4200 RPM hard drive, while the Intel mini used had a state-of-the-art dual core Yonah, a 5400 RPM hard drive, a faster front-side bus, etc. Also, note that the only times that the GMA950 could best, or even match, the 9200's performance was when the machine was equipped with matched RAM modules, which you can't do in the G4 Mac mini. How many handicaps did the GMA950 need in these tests?
BTW, another reason I focused on the UT 2004 test was because that was the most drastic example of completely unacceptable framerates exhibited by either machine (7 fps?!).
My beef with Integrated graphics is that they suck for games... and Apple will effectively kill gaming on the mac by making it's best selling portable suck at games.
Given that quartz extreme and core image lean so heavily on the graphics subsystem, and OSX has OpenGL built into it's heart, having dedicated video memory and proper graphics accelleration (video/3d/etc) is IMHO a must.
I think putting the GMA 950 IIG in the Mac Mini was a mistake, one that is costing Apple sales (along with increased prices for a VERY stripped down machine with low material costs). Putting it in the iBook would be a very bad idea.
I'd also like to see Apple computers be able to use off the shelf PC graphics cards; do away with 'apple firmware' BS. It's an annoyance to everyone, even Apple.
SOLUTION: make proper graphics cards an option. Indirectly, make the graphics cards upgradable, a huge beef of mine wrt apple machines (graphics cards do not age gracefully).
Given that quartz extreme and core image lean so heavily on the graphics subsystem, and OSX has OpenGL built into it's heart, having dedicated video memory and proper graphics accelleration (video/3d/etc) is IMHO a must.
the gma is the better pixel pusher though, so in anything geometrically non-intense, like the mac os gui for example, you'll be better off with the gma.
My beef with Integrated graphics is that they suck for games... and Apple will effectively kill gaming on the mac
Following your logic, gaming has been killed on the PC, since all of the most popular wintel laptops feature integrated graphics, often just the GMA900 and not even the 950.
In my own tests, the GMA950 is actually pretty amazing in everything but games. And even games, as long as they're not the latest and greatest, tend to run decently. In other words, if you don't play Doom 3 or UT2k4, it's fine.
Believe it or not, most computer users do not buy a computer to play the latest games. Just look at PC's, the vast majority of which ship with only integrated graphics.
(along with increased prices for a VERY stripped down machine with low material costs)
You can't seriously say that. The CoreDuo Mini is a monster, and a steal at that price. Integrated graphics and all. It can butt heads with a QuadG5 in most tasks.
Intel seems to be forcing more that a few of it's features onto Apple products and possibly requiring Apple to drop some of its non-Intel features. FW800 comes to mind. Now, dedicated GPU's.
Face it, Intel Integrated Graphics are really only for the boring business crowd. The PC laptops that use them are strictly low end business models. The iBook is targeted at a younger demographic that, like it or not, plays games. Now that Apple finally has some up to date (especially for gaming) CPU's, they hobble their own hardware with sucky (especially for gaming) integrated graphics that the iBook target demographic isn't gonna like. Millions of kids will get MacBooks for school, and the net will resound with them complaining about crappy game performance that could have been avoided by using a decent dedicated GPU.
Maybe use of the IIG is a requirement of Apple's deal with Intel, maybe not. But it's a bad choce to use in the iBook's successor.
The PC laptops that use them are strictly low end business models.
Check out Alienware.com. Not low-end business computers, right? You can't get graphics cards on their low-end models < $1000), and it's a $150-350 option on the midrange ($1000-1500). The $2000+ lines all come standard with cards. Yet none of these come with Core processors, which we've seen are significantly more expensive than Pentium M's or (especially) Celeron M's. It's possible that Apple can do what Alienware can't, but I wouldn't call them a failure if they don't.
But the thing with Mac gaming is that's it's already such a tiny niche, hanging by a thread, so to speak, which is why such a tiny percentage of PC games make it to Mac. GMA950 may very well kill gaming on the Mac, and I'm not happy about it. Especially in the iBook, of all Apple's products, I really hope we see dedicated graphics cards.
Comments
Originally posted by Programmer
If I'm not mistaken UT2004 is using Rosetta which very likely has a larger performance impact than the GPU on this benchmark.
Although I don't know what version was used in the benchmarks, UT2004 exists for some time now as Universal Binary. Check out this list for example.
The one listed on the Core Image site appears to be the desktop card. ATI's website has the Radeon 9550 at 256 MB RAM, AGP 8X, and DVI connector.
That Core Image list says you need the Mobility Radeon 9700 for support.
Good or not good depends on expectations
Everyone keeps talking about the requirement of 3D games. My point is you cannot effectively play 3D games on the dedicated GPU in the iBook now.
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.
I imagine at some point drivers will become available. My point is no matter what, this GPU will never be able to play HD. While the GMA 950 can.
The Intel GMA950 gets its ass handed to it even by the Radeon 9200 in the old Mac mini:
You totally ignore the Core Image Test where the Radeon 9200 has its ass handed to it. You ignore the Doom 3 test because they are both about equal. The GMA950 beat the 9200 in the Quake 3 test. You focus on the UT 2004 because that was the only test where the 9200 beat the GMA 950.
But anyway what those benchmarks clearly show is that both the Mac mini G4 and Intel Mac mini suck for games. The overwhelming evidence shows you should get the iMac.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I'm talking about the ATI Mobility Radeon 9550.
The one listed on the Core Image site appears to be the desktop card. ATI's website has the Radeon 9550 at 256 MB RAM, AGP 8X, and DVI connector.
There is no desktop 9550 for the Mac. Apple added the 9550 in the list the day the new iBooks with this chip were released. Also, note in the iBook graphics page the expression "ATI Radeon 9550" (no mention to Mobility).
Anyway, it matters not since both are programmable and support Core Image.
I imagine at some point drivers will become available. My point is no matter what, this GPU will never be able to play HD. While the GMA 950 can.
Yeah, I wonder if Apple will ever release such drivers. Their trend in the last years was to move decoding in the CPU (for DVDs), but now that the HD-decoding is so much demanding, and there are GPUs that can do it, the natural move would be to bring back hardware decoding. But you never know with Apple.
You totally ignore the Core Image Test where the Radeon 9200 has its ass handed to it.
This test has hardly any meaning in the GPU level since the 9200 does not support Core Image. In this case, Core Image runs in the Altivec unit of the G4.
There is no desktop 9550 for the Mac. Apple added the 9550 in the list the day the new iBooks with this chip were released.
Does this mean ATI has various versions of the 9550. The specs Apple list and the specs ATI list for this card are very different. That's why the one in the iBook looks like a Mobility card.
This test has hardly any meaning in the GPU level since the 9200 does not support Core Image. In this case, Core Image runs in the Altivec unit of the G4.
What this test does show is the value of graphics processing on the GPU and not only relying on the the CPU.
Originally posted by TenoBell
What this test does show is the value of graphics processing on the GPU and not only relying on the the CPU.
Core Image does not run on the 9200. This chip has not the appropriate support hardware. Period. That's why Apple developed software replacements for Core Image when Altivec and/or multiple processors are present in the system.
Originally posted by TenoBell
You totally ignore the Core Image Test where the Radeon 9200 has its ass handed to it.
Dude, the 9200 doesn't support CoreImage. So I would hope that the GMA950 would be able to beat it in a CoreImage test!
This would be somewhat irrelevant to this discussion, since the 9550 in the iBook does support CoreImage, and would more than likely hand the GMA950's ass back to it in that test as well.
You ignore the Doom 3 test because they are both about equal.
Actually, the 9200 has a slight edge. The telling thing about this is that the 9200 is a pathetic graphics card and it still beats the GMA950. The 9550 in the iBook is more powerful than the 9200, so it should hand the GMA950 its ass.
The GMA950 beat the 9200 in the Quake 3 test.
Only with matched memory pairs. They're about equal without. I'm not sure why matched memory would affect Quake 3 so much, but something to consider is that matched memory pairs is something that's not possible with the G4 Mac mini with its one RAM slot.
You focus on the UT 2004 because that was the only test where the 9200 beat the GMA 950.
The 9200 also beat the GMA950 on the Doom 3 test, slightly. So that's two out of three game tests. Keep in mind also that the Mini with the 9200 in it is at a huge disadvantage due to being hobbled by a really slow G4 processor and a crappy 4200 RPM hard drive, while the Intel mini used had a state-of-the-art dual core Yonah, a 5400 RPM hard drive, a faster front-side bus, etc. Also, note that the only times that the GMA950 could best, or even match, the 9200's performance was when the machine was equipped with matched RAM modules, which you can't do in the G4 Mac mini. How many handicaps did the GMA950 need in these tests?
BTW, another reason I focused on the UT 2004 test was because that was the most drastic example of completely unacceptable framerates exhibited by either machine (7 fps?!).
quote:
I imagine at some point drivers will become available. My point is no matter what, this GPU will never be able to play HD. While the GMA 950 can.
I think something is wrong here GMA 950 doesn't play HD - it's the Core Duo that does it. (?).
Does anybody think Core Duo + 9550 is worse than Core Duo + GMA 950?
Corey
Originally posted by OfficerDigby
I think something is wrong here GMA 950 doesn't play HD - it's the Core Duo that does it. (?).
true.
i think most people really mean 'high resolution h.264-content' when they say 'hd', the gma950 cant accelerate that and, afaik, never will.
Given that quartz extreme and core image lean so heavily on the graphics subsystem, and OSX has OpenGL built into it's heart, having dedicated video memory and proper graphics accelleration (video/3d/etc) is IMHO a must.
I think putting the GMA 950 IIG in the Mac Mini was a mistake, one that is costing Apple sales (along with increased prices for a VERY stripped down machine with low material costs). Putting it in the iBook would be a very bad idea.
I'd also like to see Apple computers be able to use off the shelf PC graphics cards; do away with 'apple firmware' BS. It's an annoyance to everyone, even Apple.
SOLUTION: make proper graphics cards an option. Indirectly, make the graphics cards upgradable, a huge beef of mine wrt apple machines (graphics cards do not age gracefully).
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Given that quartz extreme and core image lean so heavily on the graphics subsystem, and OSX has OpenGL built into it's heart, having dedicated video memory and proper graphics accelleration (video/3d/etc) is IMHO a must.
the gma is the better pixel pusher though, so in anything geometrically non-intense, like the mac os gui for example, you'll be better off with the gma.
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
My beef with Integrated graphics is that they suck for games... and Apple will effectively kill gaming on the mac
Following your logic, gaming has been killed on the PC, since all of the most popular wintel laptops feature integrated graphics, often just the GMA900 and not even the 950.
In my own tests, the GMA950 is actually pretty amazing in everything but games. And even games, as long as they're not the latest and greatest, tend to run decently. In other words, if you don't play Doom 3 or UT2k4, it's fine.
Believe it or not, most computer users do not buy a computer to play the latest games. Just look at PC's, the vast majority of which ship with only integrated graphics.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Uhhh, why? what do college students in the iBook demographic need that will require a "beefy GPU?"
Some students want to do some gaming (WOW perhaps?) and I'm sure others would do some Pro-level video stuff.
But for surfin', email, iTunes, Word, and iLife the integrated graphics will be better and most students will appreciate the lower price.
Anyhow, if they want beefy they'll just have to bust out the funds for a MacBook Pro. I would have.
check it out!
http://reviews.cnet.com/Gateway_NX10...-31803895.html
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
(along with increased prices for a VERY stripped down machine with low material costs)
You can't seriously say that. The CoreDuo Mini is a monster, and a steal at that price. Integrated graphics and all. It can butt heads with a QuadG5 in most tasks.
Average price $2.000
Isn't that the price for the 15.4" MacBook Pro?
Here it is:
Sony VAIO SZ110/B - Core Duo T2400 1.83 GHz - 13.3" TFT Specifications
Processor
Processor type\tCore Duo
Clock speed\t1.83 GHz
Processor features\tEnhanced SpeedStep technology,Execute Disable Bit capability,Power-optimized processor system bus
Processor manufacturer\tIntel
Processor number\tT2400
RAM
RAM installed size\t1 GB
Max supported RAM\t2 GB
Memory specification compliance\tPC2-4200
Memory speed\t533 MHz
RAM technology\tDDR II SDRAM
Storage Hard Drive
Hard drive size\t100 GB
Hard drive\t100 GB Serial ATA
Hard drive type\tPortable
Spindle speed\t5400 rpm
OS Provided
OS provided\tMicrosoft Windows XP Home Edition
Optical Storage
CD / DVD drive\tInternal
CD / DVD read speed\t24x (CD) / 8x (DVD)
CD / DVD rewrite speed\t10x (CD) / 2x (DVD-RW) / 2.4x (DVD+RW)
CD / DVD write speed\t24x (CD) / 4x (DVD±R) / 2.4x (DVD+R DL)
Optical storage enclosure type\tInternal
Optical Storage (2nd)
2nd optical storage type\tNone
Audio Output
Audio output type\tSound card
Audio Input
Audio input type\tMicrophone
Battery
Battery technology\tLithium ion
Installed battery qty\t1
Mfr estimated battery life\t6 hour(s)
Cache Memory
Cache size\t2 MB
Cache type\tL2 cache
Card Reader
Card reader\tCard reader
Modem
Max transfer rate\t56 Kbps
Modem protocols & specifications\tITU V.90
Modem type\tFax / modem
Mainboard
Data bus speed\t667 MHz
Video Output
Graphics processor\tNVIDIA GeForce Go 7400 TurboCache supporting 256MB
Display (Projector)
Display (projector) diagonal size\t13.3 in
Display (projector) technology\tTFT active matrix
Features\tX BRITE
Max resolution\t1280 x 800
Monitor features\tX BRITE
General
Compatibility\tPC
Model\tSZ110/B
Packaged quantity\t1
Product line\tSony VAIO
Networking
Data link protocol\tEthernet,Bluetooth,IEEE 802.11a,IEEE 802.11b,IEEE 802.11g,Fast Ethernet
Networking compliant standards\tIEEE 802.11a,IEEE 802.11b,IEEE 802.11g
Networking type\tNetwork adapter
Dimensions & Weight
Depth\t9.3 in
Height\t1.5 in
Width\t12.5 in
System
Notebook type\tNotebook
Miscellaneous
Features\tTrusted Platform Module (TPM)
Storage Floppy Drive
Floppy drive type\tNone
Input Device
Input device type\tKeyboard,Touchpad
Interface Provided
Interface provided\t1 Microphone Input,1 Headphones Output,1 Display / video VGA,1 IEEE 1394 (FireWire),2 Hi-Speed USB,1 Docking / port replicator
Power Device
Power device form factor\tExternal
Storage Removable
Removable storage type\tNone
Slot Provided
Slot provided\t1 (1 free) CardBus Type I/II,1 (1 free) ExpressCard
Software
Software type\tVAIO Media,VAIO Update,Sony SonicStage,Sony DVgate Plus,InterVideo WinDVD,Sony Click to DVD,Sony Image Converter,VAIO Recovery Wizard,VAIO Security Center,VAIO Support Central,Roxio DigitalMedia SE,Adobe Photoshop Album SE,Quicken 2005 New User Edition,Sony SonicStage Mastering Studio,Microsoft Office 2003 Student and Teacher Edition (Trial)
Storage Controller
Storage controller type\tSerial ATA
Service & Support
Service & support type\t1 year warranty
p.s. sorry is that info were toooooooo long!
Face it, Intel Integrated Graphics are really only for the boring business crowd. The PC laptops that use them are strictly low end business models. The iBook is targeted at a younger demographic that, like it or not, plays games. Now that Apple finally has some up to date (especially for gaming) CPU's, they hobble their own hardware with sucky (especially for gaming) integrated graphics that the iBook target demographic isn't gonna like. Millions of kids will get MacBooks for school, and the net will resound with them complaining about crappy game performance that could have been avoided by using a decent dedicated GPU.
Maybe use of the IIG is a requirement of Apple's deal with Intel, maybe not. But it's a bad choce to use in the iBook's successor.
Originally posted by Scooterboy
The PC laptops that use them are strictly low end business models.
Check out Alienware.com. Not low-end business computers, right? You can't get graphics cards on their low-end models < $1000), and it's a $150-350 option on the midrange ($1000-1500). The $2000+ lines all come standard with cards. Yet none of these come with Core processors, which we've seen are significantly more expensive than Pentium M's or (especially) Celeron M's. It's possible that Apple can do what Alienware can't, but I wouldn't call them a failure if they don't.