So does everyone then agree that the video capability of this new MacBook is far superior to that of the previous iBook with its dedicated video card which it replaces?
I was led to believe that intel shared graphics would suck under pressure especially using Quartz Extreme and CoreImage.
I think it is a little more complex than that.
But I don't think Quartz Extreme or CoreImage necessarily taxes a graphics chip. The Transition Development Kits had Intel integrated graphics and the word was that the graphics speed was surprisingly good.
So does everyone then agree that the video capability of this new MacBook is far superior to that of the previous iBook with its dedicated video card which it replaces?
I was led to believe that intel shared graphics would suck under pressure especially using Quartz Extreme and CoreImage.
To say that it's "far" better, would be pushing it. But, indeed, it is better. That may not be saying all that much, but it is a welcome improvement.
Oh yeah...the MacBook was one HUGE surprise. NOBODY expected this release. Who is this analyst and from what rock did he crawl under from? Was it really a surprise to him or is it a deformed interp.
Totally. WTF. Duhh..... MacBook Pro.... umm... hmmm... let's see, what would be next.... hmmm... iBook has gone 290 days at least without a replacement... hmmm... what other powerpc machine has no intel in it... hmmm... when is the back-to-school prep time.... umm... what does Apple need to boost this quarter.... ummm... Asus is already manufacturing the MacBook...ummm....
OMFG MacBook!!! WTF? WHAT? WHAT HAPPENED? WHY? WOW, TOTALLY UNEXPECTED
Bloody analysts. Good for a laugh, that's what these analysts are useful for.
So does everyone then agree that the video capability of this new MacBook is far superior to that of the previous iBook with its dedicated video card which it replaces?
I was led to believe that intel shared graphics would suck under pressure especially using Quartz Extreme and CoreImage.
To say that it's "far" better, would be pushing it. But, indeed, it is better. That may not be saying all that much, but it is a welcome improvement.
On Ars benchmark tests and MacWorld benchmarks MB smokes the iBook G4 on every graphics test. Excluding Photoshop obviously, that would be remedied with PS UB.
In the Ars test the MB beat the MBP in OpenGL test. That's more than likely because of drivers though.
Also, there was an interview on Marketwatch this afternoon, which was interesting.
In it, he said that Apple's US marketshare was about 5%, depending on which company's estimate you read. He also made the point that if just 5% of PC owners bought a Mac, Apple's marketshare would go to 10%. He didn't talk about the numbers of machines sold, just marketshare.
I imagine Apple will take full advantage of pent up demand and excitement for the new MacBook right now and lower prices over time as the excitement and newness wanes.
I would be surprised if the lowest end MacBook were not $999 by the back to school period.
The user also performs an Xbench test and shows that the video card sux.
Still the machine itself is pretty sweet.
Just a pity about the graphics card (if it can even be called that).
Actually, that probably has very little to do with the graphics card, and more to do with the way iMovie is coded and the nature of the task.
Graphics cards capabilities differ in their rendering of 3D polygons and shaders. Integrated graphics are often not good for games for this reason, as many modern games rely on rendering complex scenes of polygons and textures, and having the bandwidth to update these many times per second.
However, the iMovie theme is a task involving overlaying bitmapped graphics onto video, and has more to do with memory management and video caching at the application level than the graphics card.
As such, you'd find something like using a 7200rpm drive would have more impact than a dedicated graphics card.
"MacBook release builds confidence in Apple's quarter"
That hasn't translated into the stock pricing, so I wonder how widely this confidence is shared. This product might be pretty popular, but people apparently aren't buying enough of the stock. This Monday's average price was around $68, this Friday, it was averaging $64.
Keep in mind for the last 2 weeks the entire stock market was pretty crappy. Personally I want Apple to drop farther.
Something I didn't say before, but if you looked at last week's pricing, the Tuesday pricing dropped pretty quickly (in the first couple hours) from the day before and held pretty stable through the week.
Why, I don't know, it doesn't make sense to me. The only change between the two days was the MacBook announcement, it would seem to show that investors in general don't have the confidence that the article tries to portray.
Buy on the rumor; sell on the news. That's what it sounds like to me.
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
Something I didn't say before, but if you looked at last week's pricing, the Tuesday pricing dropped pretty quickly (in the first couple hours) from the day before and held pretty stable through the week.
Why, I don't know, it doesn't make sense to me. The only change between the two days was the MacBook announcement, it would seem to show that investors in general don't have the confidence that the article tries to portray.
$63.38 ... Hmm... I think there will be more hype ($70-ish) going into Apple's July financial results announcement. Till then, the product portfolio looks pretty stable and investors seem to be laying low. Maybe a new iPod product will kick up some interest, but that has to be announced soon as we are almost in the last month of the Apr-May-June quarter
Comments
Originally posted by rinnin
So does everyone then agree that the video capability of this new MacBook is far superior to that of the previous iBook with its dedicated video card which it replaces?
I was led to believe that intel shared graphics would suck under pressure especially using Quartz Extreme and CoreImage.
I think it is a little more complex than that.
But I don't think Quartz Extreme or CoreImage necessarily taxes a graphics chip. The Transition Development Kits had Intel integrated graphics and the word was that the graphics speed was surprisingly good.
I'm surprised there isnt a bigger debate about this issue.
The reason you are "surprised" is that you didn't check out the eleventy-bazillion threads in this forum already discussing the integrated graphics.
Originally posted by rinnin
So does everyone then agree that the video capability of this new MacBook is far superior to that of the previous iBook with its dedicated video card which it replaces?
I was led to believe that intel shared graphics would suck under pressure especially using Quartz Extreme and CoreImage.
To say that it's "far" better, would be pushing it. But, indeed, it is better. That may not be saying all that much, but it is a welcome improvement.
Oh yeah...the MacBook was one HUGE surprise. NOBODY expected this release. Who is this analyst and from what rock did he crawl under from? Was it really a surprise to him or is it a deformed interp.
Totally. WTF. Duhh..... MacBook Pro.... umm... hmmm... let's see, what would be next.... hmmm... iBook has gone 290 days at least without a replacement... hmmm... what other powerpc machine has no intel in it... hmmm... when is the back-to-school prep time.... umm... what does Apple need to boost this quarter.... ummm... Asus is already manufacturing the MacBook...ummm....
OMFG MacBook!!! WTF? WHAT? WHAT HAPPENED? WHY? WOW, TOTALLY UNEXPECTED
Bloody analysts. Good for a laugh, that's what these analysts are useful for.
The reason you are "surprised" is that you didn't check out the eleventy-bazillion threads in this forum already discussing the integrated graphics.
You forgot to say "...already discussing the integrated graphics to death".
So does everyone then agree that the video capability of this new MacBook is far superior to that of the previous iBook with its dedicated video card which it replaces?
I was led to believe that intel shared graphics would suck under pressure especially using Quartz Extreme and CoreImage.
To say that it's "far" better, would be pushing it. But, indeed, it is better. That may not be saying all that much, but it is a welcome improvement.
On Ars benchmark tests and MacWorld benchmarks MB smokes the iBook G4 on every graphics test. Excluding Photoshop obviously, that would be remedied with PS UB.
In the Ars test the MB beat the MBP in OpenGL test. That's more than likely because of drivers though.
If so, what can we expect for the iMac, and the Mini shortly.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/05/19/intel_price_cuts/
Also, there was an interview on Marketwatch this afternoon, which was interesting.
In it, he said that Apple's US marketshare was about 5%, depending on which company's estimate you read. He also made the point that if just 5% of PC owners bought a Mac, Apple's marketshare would go to 10%. He didn't talk about the numbers of machines sold, just marketshare.
I would be surprised if the lowest end MacBook were not $999 by the back to school period.
Originally posted by rinnin
Here's a vid to prove how the video lacks behind and stutters while loading a simple iMovie theme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnO5uJIvZG8
The user also performs an Xbench test and shows that the video card sux.
Still the machine itself is pretty sweet.
Just a pity about the graphics card (if it can even be called that).
Actually, that probably has very little to do with the graphics card, and more to do with the way iMovie is coded and the nature of the task.
Graphics cards capabilities differ in their rendering of 3D polygons and shaders. Integrated graphics are often not good for games for this reason, as many modern games rely on rendering complex scenes of polygons and textures, and having the bandwidth to update these many times per second.
However, the iMovie theme is a task involving overlaying bitmapped graphics onto video, and has more to do with memory management and video caching at the application level than the graphics card.
As such, you'd find something like using a 7200rpm drive would have more impact than a dedicated graphics card.
That hasn't translated into the stock pricing, so I wonder how widely this confidence is shared. This product might be pretty popular, but people apparently aren't buying enough of the stock. This Monday's average price was around $68, this Friday, it was averaging $64.
Originally posted by scavanger
Keep in mind for the last 2 weeks the entire stock market was pretty crappy. Personally I want Apple to drop farther.
I don't.
Originally posted by scavanger
Keep in mind for the last 2 weeks the entire stock market was pretty crappy. Personally I want Apple to drop farther.
Something I didn't say before, but if you looked at last week's pricing, the Tuesday pricing dropped pretty quickly (in the first couple hours) from the day before and held pretty stable through the week.
Why, I don't know, it doesn't make sense to me. The only change between the two days was the MacBook announcement, it would seem to show that investors in general don't have the confidence that the article tries to portray.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Something I didn't say before, but if you looked at last week's pricing, the Tuesday pricing dropped pretty quickly (in the first couple hours) from the day before and held pretty stable through the week.
Why, I don't know, it doesn't make sense to me. The only change between the two days was the MacBook announcement, it would seem to show that investors in general don't have the confidence that the article tries to portray.
Originally posted by lundy
Buy on the rumor; sell on the news. That's what it sounds like to me.
The way the prices are going, I would suggest that anyone that buys on news and sells on rumor would be the one making money here.