This is a VERY common misconception. I can't say how often I read people refer to their video card solely by the amount of memory it has. "Oh... I just got a new 256MB video card that'll blow anything away.". I'm surprised how often I hear that from people who I tend to think are actually pretty knowledgeable about computer hardware (meaning these are people that never interchange "memory" for hard drive space, don't refer to the monitor as the "computer", etc).
From everything I read, when playing games in Bootcap, the Intel integrated chip is about on par with or better than the 9700 that came in the powerbooks and was about ~3-4 years old...combine that with the dual core 2 GHz cpu with faster bus to memory and I/O and Motion could give the old PBs a run for their money...
What bothers me the most is Apple does not indicate anywhere on the tech specs portion of the pages that deal with both the MB and MBP that they underclock the cards from their base specs. If I buy a computer with an x1600 card in it, I will assume that it has atleast the bare min specs that ATI states unless otherwise noted. I think Apple should charge less since they are giving you less for your money.
I also disagree with the so called "preformance" that was meantioned with size, battery life, ect... I would not call that preformance.
If anything Apple should let you toggle the options not sell you something you really aren't getting.
I do agree with most of the posts but why can't someone desire to have an Intel GMA clocked to 400Mhz and (shared) VRAM up to 224Mbyte as the card can afford (even if it is a "robbish" of GA)? The only reason I recently bought a MacBook is because I want a little portable on my belly mostly for office use, not a matter of money or a sort of prejudice vs. a Win or Mac desktop or whatelse. I've been questioning with another user in another forum about another graphic intensive 3D game about the limit of 64Mbyte of this GA and the fact that the same game is really faster under WinXP/BootCamp. The answers I got where a sort of "not going to argue with somebody that has something less than the most recent and powerful and dedicated VRAM loaded GA". What the hell does this "man" want? I know the tone of this topic is not the same but am I authorized or not to ask myself why my Intel GMA 950 has some limits not found elsewhere (OSes or different brand portables)? I know that the answer may be: "if you want extreme 3D performance buy a better machine... yours is built just for office-internet use... not for gaming" and then its a commercial matter if video drivers are limited and not efficient. But I'm still asking myself why the same game is sluggish in OS X and fluid in (the greatly hated) WIN XP (please note that Win XP has never killed nobody).
Come on hackers!!! You may not be able to improve the driver's efficiency but at least the assigned shared memory.
(my brain is boiling... was this a thought or a poem?)
What bothers me the most is Apple does not indicate anywhere on the tech specs portion of the pages that deal with both the MB and MBP that they underclock the cards from their base specs. If I buy a computer with an x1600 card in it, I will assume that it has atleast the bare min specs that ATI states unless otherwise noted. I think Apple should charge less since they are giving you less for your money.
I also disagree with the so called "preformance" that was meantioned with size, battery life, ect... I would not call that preformance.
If anything Apple should let you toggle the options not sell you something you really aren't getting.
battery life isnt part of a laptops performance.....
Comments
Originally posted by Joey
This is a VERY common misconception. I can't say how often I read people refer to their video card solely by the amount of memory it has. "Oh... I just got a new 256MB video card that'll blow anything away.". I'm surprised how often I hear that from people who I tend to think are actually pretty knowledgeable about computer hardware (meaning these are people that never interchange "memory" for hard drive space, don't refer to the monitor as the "computer", etc).
From everything I read, when playing games in Bootcap, the Intel integrated chip is about on par with or better than the 9700 that came in the powerbooks and was about ~3-4 years old...combine that with the dual core 2 GHz cpu with faster bus to memory and I/O and Motion could give the old PBs a run for their money...
I also disagree with the so called "preformance" that was meantioned with size, battery life, ect... I would not call that preformance.
If anything Apple should let you toggle the options not sell you something you really aren't getting.
I also disagree with the so called "preformance" that was meantioned with size, battery life, ect... I would not call that preformance.
As much as people bitch about weight, heat, and battery life. i would consider it apart of performance. Because they all perform differently.
Come on hackers!!! You may not be able to improve the driver's efficiency but at least the assigned shared memory.
(my brain is boiling... was this a thought or a poem?)
Originally posted by scavanger
What bothers me the most is Apple does not indicate anywhere on the tech specs portion of the pages that deal with both the MB and MBP that they underclock the cards from their base specs. If I buy a computer with an x1600 card in it, I will assume that it has atleast the bare min specs that ATI states unless otherwise noted. I think Apple should charge less since they are giving you less for your money.
I also disagree with the so called "preformance" that was meantioned with size, battery life, ect... I would not call that preformance.
If anything Apple should let you toggle the options not sell you something you really aren't getting.
battery life isnt part of a laptops performance.....
good dog almighty!