Intel GMA X3000

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2837#comments



GMA X3000



Support resolutions up to 2048x1536



Pixel Shader 3, Vertex shader 3

are both hardware supported.



A new transform and lightening engine

is now hardware driven and offers more

dynamic range.



The X3000 will use Intel Clear Video technology that supports MPEG2 and VC1 on hardware. Picture in picture will support one full HD and one SD stream. Improved de-interlacing algorithm.



The X3000 has 8 pipelines to the GMA 950 4 pipelines. The X3000 is clocked at 667 Mhz to the GMA 950 400 Mhz. But it appears the X3000 mobile version will still be clocked at 400 Mhz to deal with heat and battery life.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 111
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,289member
    I'm awaiting some bencharks on this new Int chipset. Frankly I don't have a problem with them unless they're in an expensive computer with no way to upgrade.



    I'd accept a GMA iMac if it was $999 for the 17" and 1299 for the 20"



    Then Apple could start the Mac Pro with a Conroe based model at $1499 with a PCIe graphics card.
  • Reply 2 of 111
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    The 2048x1536 number is useless because it refers to analog. Pretty much any non-stone-age card can do that resolution in analog. Digital is a completely different matter and doesn't really have much to do with the card either; the limitation is in the bus.



    As for all the other features, well, that's nice, but pretty much useless as well, since the shared memory simply doesn't allow for enough bandwidth to really make use of it.



    What GMA needs is a semi-shared system like ATi and nVidia offer.
  • Reply 3 of 111
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Useless is a pretty relative term.



    Is it useful for general computer use, video playback, video conferencing, 2D games, monitor spanning? Yes it is.



    Is it useful for high resolution 3D games? Not very likely.



    Which one of these activities will 90% of the people who buy a computer do with said computer?
  • Reply 4 of 111
    zandroszandros Posts: 537member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TenoBell



    A new transform and lightening engine





    I was under the impression that the old GMA-integrated graphics accelerators didn't support hardware transform and lighting at all?



    Anyway, I expect it to handle strategy games pretty well.
  • Reply 5 of 111
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,289member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Zandros

    I was under the impression that the old GMA-integrated graphics accelerators didn't support hardware transform and lighting at all?



    Anyway, I expect it to handle strategy games pretty well.






    You're correct. The old GMA did software T&L only.
  • Reply 6 of 111
    What is with you integrated graphics guys. The best Intel integrated graphics, performs worse then a 2 or 3 year old low end graphics card. The only argument you have for them is that they are cheap. But, what does a 2 or 3 year old dedicated graphics card or chipset cost. It isn't even worth talking about. Integrated graphics for Apples are a huge step backwards. Period.
  • Reply 7 of 111
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aircft.sys.spec.

    What is with you integrated graphics guys. The best Intel integrated graphics, performs worse then a 2 or 3 year old low end graphics card. The only argument you have for them is that they are cheap. But, what does a 2 or 3 year old dedicated graphics card or chipset cost. It isn't even worth talking about. Integrated graphics for Apples are a huge step backwards. Period.



    Blah blah blah blah blah.



    Quote:

    The only argument you have for them is that they are cheap.



    They aren't just cheap. They're also more than good enough for most uses.
  • Reply 8 of 111
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,289member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aircft.sys.spec.

    What is with you integrated graphics guys. The best Intel integrated graphics, performs worse then a 2 or 3 year old low end graphics card. The only argument you have for them is that they are cheap. But, what does a 2 or 3 year old dedicated graphics card or chipset cost. It isn't even worth talking about. Integrated graphics for Apples are a huge step backwards. Period.



    When you go shopping for clothes do you just grab any item in any size? Clearly you do not. Computers are no different. You must tailor them to meet the customers requirements. I could tell my mother to get a computer with a nvidia 7000 series GPU because it's sooo cool. But is that really going to run her MS Office better? Does the web run faster or look better? Cheap "is" a feature and it's and often requested one.



    I welcome integrated graphics as a way of making computers less expensive. The very purpose of AGP was to reduce the amount of local memory that a card needed. In essence it was the precursor to integrated graphics. The only way to truly understand this is to shift your center and look at it from the perpective of millions of consumers each with their own value systems and needs. To simply state integrated graphics is a step backwards absolutely is to merely shut off the possibility of other options which is never a good way to develop critical thinking.



    There is a time and place for just about everything.
  • Reply 9 of 111
    nathan22tnathan22t Posts: 317member
    So when does this get in a new Mac mini?
  • Reply 10 of 111
    When I buy clothes and I see a nameless brand of jeans 10% less than Levis........I buy the Levis. The price difference from Intel integrated graphics and real dedicated graphics (Nvidia or ATI) is less than 50 dollars in overall cost. So the computer that costs 500 dollars would cost 550........big deal. So your argument for welcoming cheap computing is lame. I say the 500 dollars you spent, instead of the 550, is a bad investment. Why waste your money on something that is sub-standard.........why even promote this sub-standard thinking.



    Why make a journey to the South Pole, just to give up 100 feet short of your goal.



    People were so starved for the Intel Macbook and Mac Mini, they bought them regardless of what was in them. Maybe your right, People that buy them will never know the difference, just like the people that buy cheap Dells. They want a computer, they don't care what it performs like. Businesses buy what's cheapest...........the minimum to get the job done



    I didn't think that was Apple. But, maybe, NOW it is. It looks as if you've won. Congratulations. Maybe Apple should change it's sign to DELL..........worlds cheapest computers.
  • Reply 11 of 111
    Apple isn't competing for the "world's cheapest computers" crown, but at the same time, it has to be semi-competitive. People who use minis use them to type Word (or Appleworks or OpenOffice hopefully) stuff, and surf the net. Maybe some media playback. People who buy minis don't play Oblivion or Crysis at 1080p or whatever. Those people want a computer, and they want it cheap and easy. Integrated graphics is cheap and easy. And a X1300 or even X300 is probably overkill for them. So they save $50 and get what they need.
  • Reply 12 of 111
    You miss my point. The iBook and the mini used to offer MORE than the average inexpensive computer BY featuring dedicated graphics cards/chips. Sometimes, even eclipsing laptops and or computers twice their price. Now instead of being better for the price.........now they are exactly the same for the price. Why step backwards.



    Really, the only problem they encountered was the lack of progression with motherboards and main chips............hindered by a partnership with a non-competitive partnership.
  • Reply 13 of 111
    oops.......I meant.........non-competitive manufacterer.
  • Reply 14 of 111
    damn it..........manufacturer. Geez, I had better quit, while I can.
  • Reply 15 of 111
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,289member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aircft.sys.spec.

    You miss my point. The iBook and the mini used to offer MORE than the average inexpensive computer BY featuring dedicated graphics cards/chips. Sometimes, even eclipsing laptops and or computers twice their price. Now instead of being better for the price.........now they are exactly the same for the price. Why step backwards.



    Really, the only problem they encountered was the lack of progression with motherboards and main chips............hindered by a partnership with a non-competitive partnership.




    The point I think is tailoring the computer for the largest group of users. If you know you want games then you get an iMac or Powermac today. If you want a nice general purpose computer than a mac mini with integrated graphics isn't a bad thing at all. I think the Macbook and mini both offer something that is more important to the majority of consumers vs a discrete GPU. That is speed.
  • Reply 16 of 111
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    Why have more than 256MB RAM? OS X can handle virtual memory just fine. Sure, do all your iphotoing with iMovie open on the machine. It may be slow, but some users don't neeeed it!



    yeah, intel video works, but when you pay as much as you would for a Dell with an upgradable card (albeit in a crappy form factor), you expect something better.



    Integrated graphics rob from the CPU. Even when performing simple operations like playing HD DVDs and stuff, frames are lost and the CPU usage goes through the roof. Not to mention you need more RAM.



    So you're paying all this money for a dual core with more RAM, when you'd be much better off having a better video card. I'm pretty sure that the G4 mac minis had a better video card in them than the new intels (ATI 9200 Vs GMA)!



    I'm not an ATI fan--not after all the crap they've done, especially to us mac users--but I'd put up a freakin 9800 against anything intel makes today.



    Intel doesn't make video cards, they make crappy video chips that allow a mobo to output video. I think it started as some sort of diagnostic tool, because it's so worthless that using it for much else deprives system resources and ends up on non-upgradable boards most of the time.



    What are we running? Bash CLI all day? isn't one of these years supposed to be 'the year of HD'? Was that this year?



    These are not dumb terminals here, these are powerful machines that Apple claims can give you the world right out of the box. Integrated video, though in keeping with Apple's apparent loathing of high-end GPUs, is cheap crap. I don't care who's buying these things, it's almost assured that they'll run into a road block some day , if not the first day they bring it home, just because someone decided to make a few bucks because "the customer doesn't need it."



    These are Entry-level machines here, they should be able to do a bit of everything. Yes, gaming matters, even on a mac. You can damn well be sure that when the customer pops half-life 2 (is that even out for mac??) in that drive and gets a warning about lack of met system requirements, they're going to be pissed that their new machine can't run this old game. And they're right to be. It's a joke to be selling these things to people, and if it weren't for the obvious engineering issues, I'd say Apple should be ashamed. The mac mini should be advertised as another Apple "Cube"



    ... except that G4 cubes can now utilize better video cards
  • Reply 17 of 111
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,289member
    Quote:

    Why have more than 256MB RAM? OS X can handle virtual memory just fine. Sure, do all your iphotoing with iMovie open on the machine. It may be slow, but some users don't neeeed it!



    Virtual Memory entails using your hard drive which is an order of magnitude slower than main memory. Is a dedicated GPU an order of magnitude faster than an integrated chip? Depends I guess but I'd venture to say that most probably aren't.



    Quote:

    So you're paying all this money for a dual core with more RAM, when you'd be much better off having a better video card. I'm pretty sure that the G4 mac minis had a better video card in them than the new intels (ATI 9200 Vs GMA)!



    They likely did but if we're talking about the new GMA X3000 then that wouldn't be the case. The GMA 950 was certainly showing its age but I'm liking the specs of the new stuff.



    Quote:

    These are not dumb terminals here, these are powerful machines that Apple claims can give you the world right out of the box. Integrated video, though in keeping with Apple's apparent loathing of high-end GPUs, is cheap crap. I don't care who's buying these things, it's almost assured that they'll run into a road block some day , if not the first day they bring it home, just because someone decided to make a few bucks because "the customer doesn't need it."



    Pure FUD. The GMA x3000 supports OpenGL 2.0, Shader Model 3 and 4, improved scaling and de-interlacing, h.264 and VC-1 acceleration, improved anisotropic filtering, improved power management features, hardware clipping and rotation and so on. It supports the highest Aero setting in Vista. Granted it's not going to beat a top of the line GPU for daily tasks and light gaming it's going to work just fine for Quartz and Aero.



    I'd rather save the money. If GPU performance is important then let the people who want it spend the extra money on a GPU upgradable computer. Gamers don't rule the computing world.
  • Reply 18 of 111
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    Actually, gamers drove the 3D revolution. Gamers buy the highest profit margin computing products and constantly push the envelope of high end home computing. Who else would upgrade their 2 month old machine to get 10 more FPS from FEAR/Far Cry/Oblivion/Quake 4/Doom 3/etc.?



    Gamers are some of the most desirable customers because of their constant quest for high end power. Computer hardware companies ignore them at their peril.
  • Reply 19 of 111
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member


    Pure FUD. The GMA x3000 supports OpenGL 2.0, Shader Model 3 and 4, improved scaling and de-interlacing, h.264 and VC-1 acceleration, improved anisotropic filtering, improved power management features, hardware clipping and rotation and so on. It supports the highest Aero setting in Vista. Granted it's not going to beat a top of the line GPU for daily tasks and light gaming it's going to work just fine for Quartz and Aero.





    Support means nothing. Doom III supports the Radeon 9200, you're certainly welcome to try it.



    It seems to me like they've just made this new chip more like a real video card. Until the benchmarks are published, I would not be so quick to ignore all the history of integrated graphics.



    This chip was probably released to barely meet the specs for the highest vista Aero, which is about the most impressive feat I've seen in integrated graphics ever.



    However, just because it runs everything, doesn't mean it runs anything well.



    With Apple now making use of the GPU in tasks not-related to on-screen rendering, even non-gamers can appreciate having some more power. Apple's "core" technology means that if you don't have a good GPU, you're missing out on productivity and even 2D tasks.



    I'll grant you that some users don't need a faster GPU. That hardly means that Apple should release another computer with a crappy integrated graphics chip.



    I applaud Apple for recently and for the first time including a decent graphics chip with their iMac, but these entry level machines need SOMETHING, even a minimal GPU, to show the game companies that Macs can run games, so they should make games for Mac.



    The Mac Mini is marketted to 18-35 year old men and women. The majority of this demographic play games. Playing WoW with all the effects turned off is not "gaming," it's "annoying."



    Everyone seems to mention their grandmother not needing a good GPU. How many freakin grandmothers use computers?! More and more every day, true, however that is NOT what this computer was designed for. This one was released for YOUNG novices, not old ones. Keeping games off these machines will push them to another platform, and you know what I mean by that.
  • Reply 20 of 111
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    I'd accept a GMA iMac if it was $999 for the 17"



    Looks like you got your wish with cash to spare
Sign In or Register to comment.