I'm not sure I understand. The drivers supplied are ATi's.
Are we sure the drivers are supplied by ATI? Or is it a collaboration between Apple and ATI? Of course, I could be wrong and it's just a matter of lower clock speed as Audiopollution suggested.
.....If you boot in to XP, the typical ATI overclocking tools work, and you can bring the card back up to the normal clocking.....
I wonder then when clocked similarly if it will post similar 3dMark05 scores as compared with the Windows ATI drivers provided by ATI alone. (Just me obsessed with the *possible* driver issues )
How do they differ? Is there a difference at all, aside from clock speed? Can a Mobility safely be clocked to the same speed as a non-Mobility?
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
I'm not sure I understand. The drivers supplied are ATi's.
Are we sure the drivers are supplied by ATI? Or is it a collaboration between Apple and ATI? Of course, I could be wrong and it's just a matter of lower clock speed as Audiopollution suggested.
Well, Apple mentions ATi's Catalyst software in their FAQs, so I figured it's just the normal drivers.
Seems that software hasn't been updated for Intel yet, though. Seeing as it's a preferencePane, it won't run in Rosetta either, although using PowerPC System Preferences could help, assuming that gives the panel enough needed hardware access.
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.
I don't think we would expect it to make a "gaming" machine out of a Mini or a Macbook, but it would allow more games to play. Since most people don't play these hi power games, that shouldn't be a problem. Gamers buy more capable machines anyway, they wouldn't be looking at a Mini or a MacBook.
Hmm, good point, but I'm not convinced. ...How do they differ? Is there a difference at all, aside from clock speed? Can a Mobility safely be clocked to the same speed as a non-Mobility?
All this requires more research based on actually fiddling around with and Intel iMac and Macbook Pro Any volunteers?
Originally posted by Chucker
Well, Apple mentions ATi's Catalyst software in their FAQs, so I figured it's just the normal drivers.
Yeah I'm just making guesses on the drivers side of things, I admit.
Does anyone remember Apples grid that they showed at a keynote once. The one with the Laptop and Desktop, Consumer and Pro (for the iBook, iMac, Powerbook and PowerMac).
I hope to see something similar again, just a little bigger.
EDIT: Grid didnt draw properly so you'll have to imagine it.
Laptops:
- Low end: MacBook Mini
- Mid range: MacBook
- High end: MacBook Pro
All-in-one (integrated) Macs
- Low end: iMacMini
- Mid range: iMac
- High end: iMac Pro
Towers:
- Low end: Mac Mini
- Mid range: Mac
- High end: Mac Pro
End EDIT
The 'i' now stands for the computer form (all in one (integrated))
I followed Logic here with the names, dont personally think much of the iMac Mini.
The MacBook Mini would be A subnotebook type thing say 9"-10"
The MacBook would be avaliable in 13.3" and 15.4" versions
The MacBook Pro would come in 13.3", 15.4" and 17" versions.
The Mac Mini would be as it is currently
The Mac would be a midsized born again 'cube'
The PowerMac would be as it is currently.
The iMac Mini is the one i am having problems with. The only thing i can really see it being is a new eMac type machine. Comes in 17"
The iMac as current, 17" and 20"
The iMac Pro avaliable in 20", 23" and 30" models. An iMac in the apple cinema display enclosure.
Comments
Is that an educated guess, or is there a source for that?
http://www.apple.com/imac/whatsinside.html
says X1600 no mention of "mobility"
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/whatsinside.html
says X1600 Mobility
Originally posted by Chucker
I'm not sure I understand. The drivers supplied are ATi's.
Are we sure the drivers are supplied by ATI? Or is it a collaboration between Apple and ATI? Of course, I could be wrong and it's just a matter of lower clock speed as Audiopollution suggested.
Hmm, doesn't ATi have some Mac tool out that now works with non-retail chips as well? Does that support changing the clock?
Heh... See my above post on ATIcellerator
Now whether it works on Intel Macs......
http://thomas.perrier.name/software/...leratorII.html
.....If you boot in to XP, the typical ATI overclocking tools work, and you can bring the card back up to the normal clocking.....
I wonder then when clocked similarly if it will post similar 3dMark05 scores as compared with the Windows ATI drivers provided by ATI alone. (Just me obsessed with the *possible* driver issues
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by Chucker
Is that an educated guess, or is there a source for that?
http://www.apple.com/imac/whatsinside.html
says X1600 no mention of "mobility"
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/whatsinside.html
says X1600 Mobility
Hmm, good point, but I'm not convinced.
How do they differ? Is there a difference at all, aside from clock speed? Can a Mobility safely be clocked to the same speed as a non-Mobility?
Originally posted by Chucker
I'm not sure I understand. The drivers supplied are ATi's.
Are we sure the drivers are supplied by ATI? Or is it a collaboration between Apple and ATI? Of course, I could be wrong and it's just a matter of lower clock speed as Audiopollution suggested.
Well, Apple mentions ATi's Catalyst software in their FAQs, so I figured it's just the normal drivers.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Heh... See my above post on ATIcellerator
Sorry, missed that bit.
Seems that software hasn't been updated for Intel yet, though. Seeing as it's a preferencePane, it won't run in Rosetta either, although using PowerPC System Preferences could help, assuming that gives the panel enough needed hardware access.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
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.
I don't think we would expect it to make a "gaming" machine out of a Mini or a Macbook, but it would allow more games to play. Since most people don't play these hi power games, that shouldn't be a problem. Gamers buy more capable machines anyway, they wouldn't be looking at a Mini or a MacBook.
(subtly referencing the PC vs console wars thread)
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...8&goto=newpost
Hmm, good point, but I'm not convinced.
All this requires more research based on actually fiddling around with and Intel iMac and Macbook Pro
Originally posted by Chucker
Well, Apple mentions ATi's Catalyst software in their FAQs, so I figured it's just the normal drivers.
Yeah I'm just making guesses on the drivers side of things, I admit.
Originally posted by sunilraman
All this requires more research based on actually fiddling around with and Intel iMac and Macbook Pro
I'll order an MBP tomorrow, actually.
I hope to see something similar again, just a little bigger.
EDIT: Grid didnt draw properly so you'll have to imagine it.
Laptops:
- Low end: MacBook Mini
- Mid range: MacBook
- High end: MacBook Pro
All-in-one (integrated) Macs
- Low end: iMacMini
- Mid range: iMac
- High end: iMac Pro
Towers:
- Low end: Mac Mini
- Mid range: Mac
- High end: Mac Pro
End EDIT
The 'i' now stands for the computer form (all in one (integrated))
I followed Logic here with the names, dont personally think much of the iMac Mini.
The MacBook Mini would be A subnotebook type thing say 9"-10"
The MacBook would be avaliable in 13.3" and 15.4" versions
The MacBook Pro would come in 13.3", 15.4" and 17" versions.
The Mac Mini would be as it is currently
The Mac would be a midsized born again 'cube'
The PowerMac would be as it is currently.
The iMac Mini is the one i am having problems with. The only thing i can really see it being is a new eMac type machine. Comes in 17"
The iMac as current, 17" and 20"
The iMac Pro avaliable in 20", 23" and 30" models. An iMac in the apple cinema display enclosure.
Stu