Do a graphite and strawberry iMac one! Those are the my bets for what colours they'll use (also the two myself and my girlfriend would most likely get respectively)
Is there any info regarding the expected battery life of the macbook? I really hope the battery time will stay the same as the 12" ibook. What do you think?
Is there any info regarding the expected battery life of the macbook? I really hope the battery time will stay the same as the 12" ibook. What do you think?
I think that's a very definite goal. I also think that Apple would like to extend it. That's one reason why I find it hard to believe that Apple won't offer at least one model with a Core Solo chip.
Yeah why would a consumer Macbook really need a Core Duo chip anyways? My 2+ year old iBook G4 933mhz 640mb Ram Radeon9200 [jezus krist that sounds so antiquated now] actually runs a lot of stuff quite alright, and Fast User Switching with apps open on both users is actually quite responsive. I modded in a 5400rpm drive so that may make some difference, but really, a Macbook Core Solo 512mb built in and a low-end ATI dedicated 64mb ram video card, 5400rpm drive, would be fine and dandy for most consumer/education computer users. A Core Duo version with a better video card and bigger hard disk may be offered, but these are the two versions I expect we'll see.
I'd really rather see the manufacturing cost go to the 5400rpm drive, and dedicated 64mb vram, rather than having two processors IMHO. Sure you can run more apps at once but how many consumers do that? They keep a lot of apps open at once, which is more a RAM issue, but they don't usually *run* multiple apps simultaneously. Unlike pros that usually have something or other rendering in the background while they work on a different part of a project.
Here's an interesting analysis I did on the graphics capabilities of ATI Radeons. Note that the Mobility x300 is the lowest-spec PCI-Express ATI Radeon Mobility. If we were to take Futuremark 3dMark05 as a respected benchmark, we can see that the Mobility x300 is pulling about one-third of the graphics power of the Mobility x1600 [based on Windows driver not Apple driver] in the Macbook Pro.
I leave it to y'all to debate whether the MacBook will have Intel Integrated Graphics. Apple would seem generous to have an ATI Mobility x300 and a 5400rpm drive. And Core Duo as well?
I'm taking a stab in the dark and calling the lowest-spec MacBook as Core Solo, ATI Mobility x300 and 5400rpm drive. But my gut tells me I'm hoping for too much.
Note that the benchmarks show that the current ATI 9550 (as a regular card in a PC), pulls about 900 as the score. The graphics card in current shipping iBooks is listed as ATI 9550 32mb.
Here's an interesting analysis I did on the graphics capabilities of ATI Radeons. Note that the Mobility x300 is the lowest-spec PCI-Express ATI Radeon Mobility. If we were to take Futuremark 3dMark05 as a respected benchmark, we can see that the Mobility x300 is pulling about one-third of the graphics power of the Mobility x1600 [based on Windows driver not Apple driver] in the Macbook Pro.
I leave it to y'all to debate whether the MacBook will have Intel Integrated Graphics. Apple would seem generous to have an ATI Mobility x300 and a 5400rpm drive. And Core Duo as well?
I'm taking a stab in the dark and calling the lowest-spec MacBook as Core Solo, ATI Mobility x300 and 5400rpm drive. But my gut tells me I'm hoping for too much.
Note that the benchmarks show that the current ATI 9550 (as a regular card in a PC), pulls about 900 as the score. The graphics card in current shipping iBooks is listed as ATI 9550 32mb.
Now, if we knew what the IG in the 945 chip did, AND, what the newer, more powerful IG will do in the 965, we would have a good idea as to what Apple has as a range to look at.
Ahem, ahem, since you don't seem to be too busy...
Getting it out of the way since it's time for my 5pm nap soon... Sharky puts it best in his commentary: "This is still not a bad solution for general PC gaming, as long as you stay away from the cutting edge, fast action games". A 945G chipset with GMA950 graphics will be a step back from the ATI 9550 in the current iBook. An Intel Integrated Graphics GMA950's 3d performance looks to be only 17% that of the ATI Mobility x1600 in the Macbook Pro and only 70% of the ATI 9550 in the current iBooks..
"Where things changed drastically is in the area of high-end 3D games, especially as the GMA 950 core is not even a mainstream 3D gaming solution, and is designed to support the Longhorn operating system and its base 3D requirements. Since many of the game benchmark results were so low, and others games like Half-Life 2 and Halo refused to run due to video requirements, there was really no reason to include these scores in the benchmark section.
Older games like Quake 3 (140+ fps) and UT 2003 (100+ fps) ran very well, and we even played a few rounds of each with no framerate issues. But once we moved to newer games like DOOM 3 (9 fps) and FarCry (11 fps), this brought the GMA 950 to its knees and real-world gameplay was not remotely in the playability range. This is still not a bad solution for general PC gaming, as long as you stay away from the cutting edge, fast action games."
The senselessness of the features of hardware and vertex shader directx 9.0c support blah blah blah whatever is mind-boggling. Why the f*ck is Intel GMA950 and it's succesor supporting this stuff when it cannot run the modern games that actually use such tech? Just for some pretty screensavers in XP? Vista?
2d features fine for video playback but why are they promoting 3d features when the GMA950 basically cannot play modern games?
.......okey dokey nap time ....Then maybe tonight I makey a chart of my 3dmark05 scores research. If you all are nice to me
Just trying out the Keynote 3 chart features...Looks like the iBook and Mac Mini and probably what is in the MacBook-(non-pro) will only be able to handle simpler games at minimal settings. But as people have reported Macbook Pro can play Half Life 2, etc. (Sorry if I keep repeating myself here)
1. The iMac has a ATI Radeon X1600 full, not mobility.
2. My guess is the lower iMac and MacBook Pro BootCamp results are probably because of the Apple graphics drivers. It's already quite an achievement that they were able to provide such drivers that support DirectX, etc, etc. However they aren't as good as say the latest ATI driver for WinXP2 for standard (ie PC) ATI cards. Maybe a driver and firmware issue that Apple will improve upon as we move closer to Leopard.
2) What's the deal with the lower MBP results? Is this the 128 MB VRAM version? Is the GPU clock lower?
The cards are clocked slower. Likely to cut heat-output (and increase battery life in the case of the Macbook).
If you boot in to XP, the typical ATI overclocking tools work, and you can bring the card back up to the normal clocking. The settings don't stick when you switch back to OSX, though.
1. The iMac has a ATI Radeon X1600 full, not mobility.
2. My guess is the lower iMac and MacBook Pro BootCamp results are probably because of the Apple graphics drivers. It's already quite an achievement that they were able to provide such drivers that support DirectX, etc, etc. However they aren't as good as say the latest ATI driver for WinXP2 for standard (ie PC) ATI cards. Maybe a driver and firmware issue that Apple will improve upon as we move closer to Leopard.
Well, you went above and beyond on this.
When results for the 965 can be gotten, I think we'll be surprised. It won't be as good as the 1600, but, after all, these are cost solutions. since more than half of all PC use them, we can't really complain (well, I suppose we can, but a wish is not a right).
The cards are clocked slower. Likely to cut heat-output (and increase battery life in the case of the Macbook)...If you boot in to XP, the typical ATI overclocking tools work, and you can bring the card back up to the normal clocking. The settings don't stick when you switch back to OSX, though.
My mistake... I thought it's just the firmware/drivers or something like that.
Well, you went above and beyond on this....When results for the 965 can be gotten, I think we'll be surprised. It won't be as good as the 1600, but, after all, these are cost solutions. since more than half of all PC use them, we can't really complain (well, I suppose we can, but a wish is not a right).
I got really into this whole thing yesterday
Heh... I'm highly skeptical of the 965, since, like you said, it's a cost solution and half of all PC users have integrated graphics standard. I'd say 1000 3dMark05's max. An improvement from the ~600 3dMark05's, but at the end of the day, a low cost solution, for older/simpler games and full core image support if used in the MacBook.
1. The iMac has a ATI Radeon X1600 full, not mobility.
Is that an educated guess, or is there a source for that?
Quote:
2. My guess is the lower iMac and MacBook Pro BootCamp results are probably because of the Apple graphics drivers. It's already quite an achievement that they were able to provide such drivers that support DirectX, etc, etc. However they aren't as good as say the latest ATI driver for WinXP2 for standard (ie PC) ATI cards. Maybe a driver and firmware issue that Apple will improve upon as we move closer to Leopard.
I'm not sure I understand. The drivers supplied are ATi's.
The cards are clocked slower....If you boot in to XP, the typical ATI overclocking tools work....The settings don't stick when you switch back to OSX, though.
We need this dude to make a Universal version of his ATI Mac OS X overclocking utility. Works great on PowerPC Macs
The cards are clocked slower. Likely to cut heat-output (and increase battery life in the case of the Macbook).
If you boot in to XP, the typical ATI overclocking tools work, and you can bring the card back up to the normal clocking. The settings don't stick when you switch back to OSX, though.
Ah, that's what I figured.
Hmm, doesn't ATi have some Mac tool out that now works with non-retail chips as well? Does that support changing the clock?
Comments
Originally posted by sunilraman
Just some cross-pimpin' of my mockups. Some colors for Macbook
Varnish coated lacquer of course.
Originally posted by Hankien
Is there any info regarding the expected battery life of the macbook? I really hope the battery time will stay the same as the 12" ibook. What do you think?
I think that's a very definite goal. I also think that Apple would like to extend it. That's one reason why I find it hard to believe that Apple won't offer at least one model with a Core Solo chip.
I'd really rather see the manufacturing cost go to the 5400rpm drive, and dedicated 64mb vram, rather than having two processors IMHO. Sure you can run more apps at once but how many consumers do that? They keep a lot of apps open at once, which is more a RAM issue, but they don't usually *run* multiple apps simultaneously. Unlike pros that usually have something or other rendering in the background while they work on a different part of a project.
I leave it to y'all to debate whether the MacBook will have Intel Integrated Graphics. Apple would seem generous to have an ATI Mobility x300 and a 5400rpm drive. And Core Duo as well?
I'm taking a stab in the dark and calling the lowest-spec MacBook as Core Solo, ATI Mobility x300 and 5400rpm drive. But my gut tells me I'm hoping for too much.
Note that the benchmarks show that the current ATI 9550 (as a regular card in a PC), pulls about 900 as the score. The graphics card in current shipping iBooks is listed as ATI 9550 32mb.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Here's an interesting analysis I did on the graphics capabilities of ATI Radeons. Note that the Mobility x300 is the lowest-spec PCI-Express ATI Radeon Mobility. If we were to take Futuremark 3dMark05 as a respected benchmark, we can see that the Mobility x300 is pulling about one-third of the graphics power of the Mobility x1600 [based on Windows driver not Apple driver] in the Macbook Pro.
I leave it to y'all to debate whether the MacBook will have Intel Integrated Graphics. Apple would seem generous to have an ATI Mobility x300 and a 5400rpm drive. And Core Duo as well?
I'm taking a stab in the dark and calling the lowest-spec MacBook as Core Solo, ATI Mobility x300 and 5400rpm drive. But my gut tells me I'm hoping for too much.
Note that the benchmarks show that the current ATI 9550 (as a regular card in a PC), pulls about 900 as the score. The graphics card in current shipping iBooks is listed as ATI 9550 32mb.
Now, if we knew what the IG in the 945 chip did, AND, what the newer, more powerful IG will do in the 965, we would have a good idea as to what Apple has as a range to look at.
Ahem, ahem, since you don't seem to be too busy...
Intel 945G (GMA950)
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read_pf.php?cID=800
3dMark05 Score: 629
(remember the iBook ati 9550 is pulling about 900 3dMark05s)
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_3513091__2
"Where things changed drastically is in the area of high-end 3D games, especially as the GMA 950 core is not even a mainstream 3D gaming solution, and is designed to support the Longhorn operating system and its base 3D requirements. Since many of the game benchmark results were so low, and others games like Half-Life 2 and Halo refused to run due to video requirements, there was really no reason to include these scores in the benchmark section.
Older games like Quake 3 (140+ fps) and UT 2003 (100+ fps) ran very well, and we even played a few rounds of each with no framerate issues. But once we moved to newer games like DOOM 3 (9 fps) and FarCry (11 fps), this brought the GMA 950 to its knees and real-world gameplay was not remotely in the playability range. This is still not a bad solution for general PC gaming, as long as you stay away from the cutting edge, fast action games."
Stay tuned for news on the 965chipset...
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...ar_video_tech/
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=554771
The senselessness of the features of hardware and vertex shader directx 9.0c support blah blah blah whatever is mind-boggling. Why the f*ck is Intel GMA950 and it's succesor supporting this stuff when it cannot run the modern games that actually use such tech? Just for some pretty screensavers in XP? Vista?
2d features fine for video playback but why are they promoting 3d features when the GMA950 basically cannot play modern games?
.......okey dokey nap time
2) What's the deal with the lower MBP results? Is this the 128 MB VRAM version? Is the GPU clock lower?
2. My guess is the lower iMac and MacBook Pro BootCamp results are probably because of the Apple graphics drivers. It's already quite an achievement that they were able to provide such drivers that support DirectX, etc, etc. However they aren't as good as say the latest ATI driver for WinXP2 for standard (ie PC) ATI cards. Maybe a driver and firmware issue that Apple will improve upon as we move closer to Leopard.
Originally posted by Chucker
2) What's the deal with the lower MBP results? Is this the 128 MB VRAM version? Is the GPU clock lower?
The cards are clocked slower. Likely to cut heat-output (and increase battery life in the case of the Macbook).
If you boot in to XP, the typical ATI overclocking tools work, and you can bring the card back up to the normal clocking. The settings don't stick when you switch back to OSX, though.
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba...5/newitem.html
Originally posted by sunilraman
1. The iMac has a ATI Radeon X1600 full, not mobility.
2. My guess is the lower iMac and MacBook Pro BootCamp results are probably because of the Apple graphics drivers. It's already quite an achievement that they were able to provide such drivers that support DirectX, etc, etc. However they aren't as good as say the latest ATI driver for WinXP2 for standard (ie PC) ATI cards. Maybe a driver and firmware issue that Apple will improve upon as we move closer to Leopard.
Well, you went above and beyond on this.
When results for the 965 can be gotten, I think we'll be surprised. It won't be as good as the 1600, but, after all, these are cost solutions. since more than half of all PC use them, we can't really complain (well, I suppose we can, but a wish is not a right).
The cards are clocked slower. Likely to cut heat-output (and increase battery life in the case of the Macbook)...If you boot in to XP, the typical ATI overclocking tools work, and you can bring the card back up to the normal clocking. The settings don't stick when you switch back to OSX, though.
My mistake... I thought it's just the firmware/drivers or something like that.
Well, you went above and beyond on this....When results for the 965 can be gotten, I think we'll be surprised. It won't be as good as the 1600, but, after all, these are cost solutions. since more than half of all PC use them, we can't really complain (well, I suppose we can, but a wish is not a right).
Heh... I'm highly skeptical of the 965, since, like you said, it's a cost solution and half of all PC users have integrated graphics standard. I'd say 1000 3dMark05's max. An improvement from the ~600 3dMark05's, but at the end of the day, a low cost solution, for older/simpler games and full core image support if used in the MacBook.
Originally posted by sunilraman
1. The iMac has a ATI Radeon X1600 full, not mobility.
Is that an educated guess, or is there a source for that?
2. My guess is the lower iMac and MacBook Pro BootCamp results are probably because of the Apple graphics drivers. It's already quite an achievement that they were able to provide such drivers that support DirectX, etc, etc. However they aren't as good as say the latest ATI driver for WinXP2 for standard (ie PC) ATI cards. Maybe a driver and firmware issue that Apple will improve upon as we move closer to Leopard.
I'm not sure I understand. The drivers supplied are ATi's.
The cards are clocked slower....If you boot in to XP, the typical ATI overclocking tools work....The settings don't stick when you switch back to OSX, though.
We need this dude to make a Universal version of his ATI Mac OS X overclocking utility. Works great on PowerPC Macs
http://thomas.perrier.name/software/...leratorII.html
Originally posted by audiopollution
The cards are clocked slower. Likely to cut heat-output (and increase battery life in the case of the Macbook).
If you boot in to XP, the typical ATI overclocking tools work, and you can bring the card back up to the normal clocking. The settings don't stick when you switch back to OSX, though.
Ah, that's what I figured.
Hmm, doesn't ATi have some Mac tool out that now works with non-retail chips as well? Does that support changing the clock?