MacBook No Graphics Card???

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
No graphics card on the new MacBook. What will be the performance hit v. MacBook Pro at the same chip speed? Anyone have a guess?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    glossgloss Posts: 506member
    Doing most work, nothing. Playing games or otherwise using software that makes good use of a dedicated GPU...plenty.
  • Reply 2 of 16
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fatmac84

    No graphics card on the new MacBook. What will be the performance hit v. MacBook Pro at the same chip speed? Anyone have a guess?



    Yes, roughly the same as the difference between an iMac CD and the Mini with GMA950.



    Barefeats review
  • Reply 3 of 16
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,152moderator
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fatmac84

    No graphics card on the new MacBook.



    It has an Intel GMA chip. They just hide the fact really well like they are ashamed to admit it. Every other machine with a dedicated GPU has the GPU listed in the features, even the old ibooks did.



    That's the way Apple seems to think. The customers probably won't like the integrated chips so will we:



    a. add £100 to the price and put in a decent chip

    b. use the same low end chip and try to cover it up



    Still, it looks nice and at least all the machines use Duo chips.
  • Reply 4 of 16
    2 problems with the new Macbook:



    1) Lack of a graphics card

    2) Lack of a backlit keyboard



    Other than that it looks good. I'll probably wait for the next revision though to buy one.



    Also, here's a good comparison chart Macbook vs Macbook Pro:

    http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Im...son_chart.html
  • Reply 5 of 16
    iposteriposter Posts: 1,560member
    Between the funky keyboard, wide-screen display that is impractical for anything but watching DVDs at that size, and the abysmal graphics, looks like I won't be buying a MacBook!
  • Reply 6 of 16
    banchobancho Posts: 1,514member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Marvin

    It has an Intel GMA chip. They just hide the fact really well like they are ashamed to admit it. Every other machine with a dedicated GPU has the GPU listed in the features, even the old ibooks did.



    That's the way Apple seems to think. The customers probably won't like the integrated chips so will we:



    a. add £100 to the price and put in a decent chip

    b. use the same low end chip and try to cover it up



    Still, it looks nice and at least all the machines use Duo chips.




    http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Im...son_chart.html

    http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html



    From those two pages how can you really claim they're "covering it up"? I'm not the biggest fan of integrated graphics but it's as easy to see what they're using as it is on any PC vendors website if not easier.



    Do you *really* think most people would pay £100 more for a dedicated GPU? Some would but I'd be willing to bet there is a majority who'd forget even looking at the MacBook for that much more money.
  • Reply 7 of 16
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by iPoster

    wide-screen display that is impractical for anything but watching DVDs at that size



    How do you figure?
  • Reply 8 of 16
    mikefmikef Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by iPoster

    Between the funky keyboard, wide-screen display that is impractical for anything but watching DVDs at that size, and the abysmal graphics, looks like I won't be buying a MacBook!



    What's impractical about 1280x800 screen resolution? Or are you just anti-widescreen?



    My 1024x768 12" iBook has been far from impractical...
  • Reply 9 of 16
    iposteriposter Posts: 1,560member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mikef

    What's impractical about 1280x800 screen resolution? Or are you just anti-widescreen?



    My 1024x768 12" iBook has been far from impractical...




    I don't mind a wide screen display at larger sizes, I have one on my 17" iMac but I find it just adequate for working in office and illustrator for school. I have looked at similar size wide-screen laptops (Viao and others) at the store, and at that small size IMHO it gives you less useable real-estate in terms of working with Office docs, (not many people format Word docs in landscape) internet browsing (most websites are laid out vertically vice horizontally) etc. Sure, you can just scroll, or 'fit to page' but then the font is almost microscopic. Just my opinion, but for my money I'd get more use from a 1024x768 13" display than a 1280x800 one...
  • Reply 10 of 16
    furious_furious_ Posts: 88member
    for a PC user to buy a MacBook dedicated GPU would be no trouble as most PC notebooks use dedicated GPU even high end



    and the intel GMA chip is as fast if not faster than the iBooks GPU
  • Reply 11 of 16
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by furious_

    for a PC user to buy a MacBook dedicated GPU would be no trouble as most PC notebooks use dedicated GPU even high end



    and the intel GMA chip is as fast if not faster than the iBooks GPU




    Say again?
  • Reply 12 of 16
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Ahhh, the usual "decent graphics card" rants.



    1. Notebooks don't have graphics cards. The GPU chip is soldered onto the mobo.



    2. Reports on the Intel GMA 950 seem to think it might be "decent", whatever the hell that means.



    3. I bet that if I put two identical MacBooks in front of any user, and one had the Radeon 1600 or whatever chip, and the other had the Intel GMA 950, and the user wasn't allowed to run framerate tests or look at System Profiler or do 3-D rendering, they absolutely could not tell the difference between the two.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    mikefmikef Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by lundy

    3. I bet that if I put two identical MacBooks in front of any user, and one had the Radeon 1600 or whatever chip, and the other had the Intel GMA 950, and the user wasn't allowed to run framerate tests or look at System Profiler or do 3-D rendering, they absolutely could not tell the difference between the two.



    My guess is that a game would clearly show the differences. The GMA 950 in my Intel mobo at work is dog slow with XGL, for example. For 2D, there's absolutely no difference in performance between the ATI and Intel GPUs, IMHO.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    This is why I'm leaning towards the MBP because of the additional graphic capability of playing games. If I'm going to play games then I'm going all out!
  • Reply 15 of 16
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mikef

    My guess is that a game would clearly show the differences. The GMA 950 in my Intel mobo at work is dog slow with XGL, for example. For 2D, there's absolutely no difference in performance between the ATI and Intel GPUs, IMHO.



    I should have said explicitly "games" instead of "3-D rendering". LOL.
  • Reply 16 of 16
    mikefmikef Posts: 697member
    All in all, I definitely agree that too much discussion is being put into the GPU in the MacBook.



    If somebody decides they need something better, the option exists in the MBP. For me, I think the MB is a perfect progression from my iBook G4 that has served me well for almost 2 years.



    There has to be some differentiation between the MB and the MBP for Apple to keep sales of both models.
Sign In or Register to comment.