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.
I'm inclined to agree with the above assessment. It supports all neat new stuff, and it should because everything uses it all now, but at what level? I don't think intel is touting this as a high-performance graphics solution. I think it just saying that integrated graphics is now fully prepared to move onward on the same level that it already is at, but it now has all the things that will be needed in the future to continue on.
Honestly though integrated graphics are a necessary evil. I'd prefer discrete graphics with a decent GPU but on the lowend I realize that Apple is competing one-on-one with low cost PCs now which will invariably have integrated
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)!
Actually in MacWorld Benchmark tests between the MacBook and PowerBook found the MacBook to play games just as well as the PowerBook with its own discrete graphics. In fact the PPC native Quake 3 played better on the MacBook under Rosetta than it did on the PowerBook. Universal Games all played better on the MacBook than on the PowerBook.
Still the MacBook is not a gaming machine.
Quote:
Until the benchmarks are published, I would not be so quick to ignore all the history of integrated graphics.
There is a history with every part of a computer system and they all have improved.
Quote:
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.
How can you barely run Aero either is does or it doesn't.
Quote:
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.
The GMA 950 can do these things now. The X3000 will certainly support Quartz Extreme with no problem. The X3000 is also programmable so that Intel can update it in the future, looking at its specs I'm sure it will support Quartz 2D Extreme whenever Apple uses it.
Quote:
Keeping games off these machines will push them to another platform, and you know what I mean by that.
Games are already on another platform.
Quote:
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."
This demographic might play solitaire or some other strategy game, but you won't see them playing high end 3D games in large numbers. The PC gaming market is much smaller than the console gaming market. The console market is mostly teenagers and young adult men.
Quote:
However, just because it runs everything, doesn't mean it runs anything well.
You cannot pass judgment until we see it in action.
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.
I don't think you should stereotype computer users' habits based on the machine choices Apple provides.
I think some people missed what aircft.sys.spec was saying. For the miniscule amount extra for an older dedicated card, you get better performance than an integrated chip.
You can buy a Radeon 9600 256MB retail for under £50 these days.
If Apple made two models of the Mini, one with a GMA and another with a dedicated GPU equivalent to say a Radeon 9600 for £50 extra then we'd see exactly what the Mini consumer goes for.
Yes those consumers have a lower budget but Apple treats customers in two groups - rich and poor. The poor grouping gets shafted with very little build to order options and well sealed machines that can't be upgraded while the rich get the full works albeit with a huge form factor.
If I walk into a store with £700 in my pocket and I look at the Mac section, I see a Mini with a GMA for £529 that I can add Ram too (1GB brings it to £599) and an imac at £879. The imac is out of my price range and ugly. So I'm left with £100 spare cash but I will leave the store feeling annoyed that with the money I was willing to part with I could have had a decent GPU too. Not only that, it would make my 1GB Ram go further because its' not being used for graphics.
I believe there is such a thing as too much choice but with Apple there is not enough. We get a low end headless Mac, a mid range all-in one and a high end headless Mac. Where is the mid-range head-less Mac?
Someone at my work is getting an imac and I asked why. He said he wanted better graphics than the Mini for the occasional game under Windows - that was the only reason. I asked if they sold a Mini with a good GPU, would he have gone for that over the imac and he said definitely.
I think some people missed what aircft.sys.spec was saying. For the miniscule amount extra for an older dedicated card, you get better performance than an integrated chip.
You can buy a Radeon 9600 256MB retail for under £50 these days.
That would be true if we're talking about the GMA 950. However Teno's thread is about the upcoming X3000 Integrated Graphics and the Radeon 9600 is not as full featured as the GMA X3000.
Asking someone if they want a mini with fast graphics is like asking do you want $100 more on your next paycheck. Not many people are going to say no. The market realities are that the mini is a bit of a lifestyle computer. It's quite and fast enough to do many things with. The iMac is the more full featured desktop and it does contain discrete graphics.
Apple simply doesn't want to ship commodity boxes at under $1k that offer upgradability. Gamers instinctively are not going to choose Macs are the predominant platform so Apple isn't likely going to spend the additional money on faster and hotter GPU.
For those of you complaining that the iBooks and Minis used to have discrete graphics: uhm...thats all that was available with the PowerPC. Now that Apple has the option they are chosing to save a few bucks.
Actually in MacWorld Benchmark tests between the MacBook and PowerBook found the MacBook to play games just as well as the PowerBook with its own discrete graphics. In fact the PPC native Quake 3 played better on the MacBook under Rosetta than it did on the PowerBook. Universal Games all played better on the MacBook than on the PowerBook.
In other news, a pentium II with a GeForce FX 6800 doesn't play games as well as an Athlon 64 with a Radeon 9700. Processors matter too
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
How can you barely run Aero either is does or it doesn't.
Actually, it can do one of 3 things: Run, run well, or run slow.
As far as the X3000 somehow having more features than a 9600, that's outright false unless I'm missing something. And yes, the 9600 does support OGL2. I doubt Apple would use it in their machines if it didn't. The 9600 has more features than the 9700, which is weird given the naming scheme. It came out at the same time as the 9800.
[section removed after I remembered the NDA I signed with my company]
Well it seems that would be factored into people complaints. Apple is now using two processors that are individually faster than the single processor used before. People make it seem as though Intel GMA will bring the performance of the machine below what it was previously.
Quote:
Actually, it can do one of 3 things: Run, run well, or run slow.
That's all a matter of circumstance and interpretation. To run or run well you need the proper amount of RAM. Vista requires 1GB of system memory and 128MB of video memory.
I have Panther loaded on my old iMac G3. Which has 128MB of system memory and 12MB of video memory. Expose' works fine. Under normal circumstances it moves the windows at near the same speed as my PM G5. If I have too many apps open or too many windows open it is possible to get the beach ball before Expose' will move the windows.
What matters are frame rates, im sure a 9600 will still slaughter,hammer,destroy any Integrated cheapo graphics. We could see Apple bump up the cpu in a new machine and then use these cheapo graphics. Anyone know what a gma950 cost apple? 5 bucks? maybe ten at most but I bet Intel gives em to them free.
I Apple wanted a cheap, versatile, powerful laptop, geard towards just about anybody, they could have opted for cheaper CPUs and a discrete GPU. Instead they went fot rather pricey CPUs and a cheap GPU, leaving gamers and people who might want to use apps like Aperture witch rely on GPUs in the cold.
The Core Dup processors are quite powerful, even at low speeds (1.66 GHz). I think I remember from en MacBook was introduced that almost everyone was surprised that Apple chose such powerful CPUs. Before, people were talking about Core Solos and such.
I think it's sad. A MacBook with a dedicated GPU could been an awsome portable gaming machine, it might even have attracted hard core PC-games who'd like a cheap laptop. No now.. probably not.
GMA graphis are standard fare on PCs of the Macbook's ilk. Apple could have added discrete graphics and raided the price by a $100 or so but they have pricing pressures equivelent to any other vendor.
On these boards a lone I continually see comparisons to Dell or the PC flava of the month. We can't have it both ways. We can't pine for extra features and complain that the price is higher.
Frankly Apple doesn't care about trying to convert gamers. They don't and they never have. Options are nice to have but Apple's trying to keep the the lineup clean.
Perhaps Apple will eventually create a $1499 laptop with dedicated graphics. That would alleviate a lot of the problem. I just don't think an $1100 laptop should be spending such a large portion of its BoM on graphics.
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.
Exactly!
Apple has usually offered high quality and very matched system components such that owners often continued to use their macs for years. Apple certainly doesn't like it when mac owners don't upgrade for years. Now that Apple's on the Intel diet, they (Apple) are taking a page from all the other PC oems and building machines with built-in obsolescence. Graphics is one area that's going to continue to push the envelope of computers with more complex games and more OS and application eye candy. It's one thing to offer a machine with integrated graphics but it's another to offer the bottom of the barrel integrated graphics. Is Apple cutting just too many corners to make a buck by making machines with Intel integrated graphics?
Apple has usually offered high quality and very matched system components such that owners often continued to use their macs for years. Apple certainly doesn't like it when mac owners don't upgrade for years. Now that Apple's on the Intel diet, they (Apple) are taking a page from all the other PC oems and building machines with built-in obsolescence. Graphics is one area that's going to continue to push the envelope of computers with more complex games and more OS and application eye candy. It's one thing to offer a machine with integrated graphics but it's another to offer the bottom of the barrel integrated graphics. Is Apple cutting just too many corners to make a buck by making machines with Intel integrated graphics?
They still do they just don't attempt to convince someone looking at at an $800 machine that they'll be playing games at warp speed. Those that want to push the envelope will get a Powermac or Mac Pro. Just as HP doesn't expect their Pavillion desktops to compete with their Workstations.
Here's a good test for you. If your computer has less than 4 dimm slots then you're likely not buying a computer that's going to have a beefy GPU.
Champagne tastes on a beer budget are not generally not fulfilled in the computer sector and especially when talking about Apple.
It's not fast, it's not slow, it's just... integrated
The onboard Intel video that drives the e1405's screen is perfectly capable of handling all the 2D tasks you throw at it, and turns in modest 3D scores as well. You're not to going to run F.E.A.R. in all its glory with 4x anti-aliasing, but older 3D titles should work just fine. Unreal Tournament 2003, for instance, runs without a hitch and has a silky framerate (along with some minor texture tearing)
If you are worried about gaming, just remember that you can pick up an e1405, a 360, and an HDTV for what you'll spend on a gaming laptop.
"But can it run Aero?" you ask, and that answer to that is yes. It can run the upcoming Aero interface to Windows Vista; Microsoft's own Vista upgrade advisor says so. The e1405 passes the video portion of the test without problems.
They still do they just don't attempt to convince someone looking at at an $800 machine that they'll be playing games at warp speed. Those that want to push the envelope will get a Powermac or Mac Pro. Just as HP doesn't expect their Pavillion desktops to compete with their Workstations.
There's a world of difference between warp speed and adequate speed though. I don't think it's reasonable that the alternative to a Mini if you need a bit extra is the monstrosity that will be the Mac Pro at probably 3 times the price.
I just want to pay £100 or so more for a better GPU even if it's not pushing me to the bleeding edge of 3D acceleration, which I'm not bothered about as I'm not a gamer. I'd just like to be able to open higher resolution 3D scenes in animation software to then allow the powerful Core Duo to render it.
Apple's lineup should be:
Mini Solo, GMA: £398
Mini Solo, x1600: £529
Mini Duo, GMA: £529
Mini Duo, x1600: £679
imac 17" Solo, GMA: £598
imac 17" Solo, x1600: £649
imac 17" Duo, GMA: £729
imac 17" Duo, x1600: £879
imac 20" Solo, x1600: £999
imac 20" Duo, x1600: £1129
I'm sure there are errors in there but you get the idea. It means an option for everyone no matter their budget. People are smart enough to weigh up for themselves what's more important to them - all-in-one design, more powerful CPU, more powerful GPU.
"But can it run Aero?" you ask, and that answer to that is yes. It can run the upcoming Aero interface to Windows Vista; Microsoft's own Vista upgrade advisor says so. The e1405 passes the video portion of the test without problems.
How much of Aero will work with this integrated gpu? Saying it's supported means absolutely nothing. Radeon 9000 and older work with OSX core graphics but not all the eye candy will be available.
Comments
Originally posted by slughead
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.
I'm inclined to agree with the above assessment. It supports all neat new stuff, and it should because everything uses it all now, but at what level? I don't think intel is touting this as a high-performance graphics solution. I think it just saying that integrated graphics is now fully prepared to move onward on the same level that it already is at, but it now has all the things that will be needed in the future to continue on.
Originally posted by slughead
Looks like you got your wish with cash to spare
Yeah but it has GMA 950 graphics yuck
Honestly though integrated graphics are a necessary evil. I'd prefer discrete graphics with a decent GPU but on the lowend I realize that Apple is competing one-on-one with low cost PCs now which will invariably have integrated
"craphics"
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)!
Actually in MacWorld Benchmark tests between the MacBook and PowerBook found the MacBook to play games just as well as the PowerBook with its own discrete graphics. In fact the PPC native Quake 3 played better on the MacBook under Rosetta than it did on the PowerBook. Universal Games all played better on the MacBook than on the PowerBook.
Still the MacBook is not a gaming machine.
Until the benchmarks are published, I would not be so quick to ignore all the history of integrated graphics.
There is a history with every part of a computer system and they all have improved.
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.
How can you barely run Aero either is does or it doesn't.
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.
The GMA 950 can do these things now. The X3000 will certainly support Quartz Extreme with no problem. The X3000 is also programmable so that Intel can update it in the future, looking at its specs I'm sure it will support Quartz 2D Extreme whenever Apple uses it.
Keeping games off these machines will push them to another platform, and you know what I mean by that.
Games are already on another platform.
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."
This demographic might play solitaire or some other strategy game, but you won't see them playing high end 3D games in large numbers. The PC gaming market is much smaller than the console gaming market. The console market is mostly teenagers and young adult men.
However, just because it runs everything, doesn't mean it runs anything well.
You cannot pass judgment until we see it in action.
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
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.
I don't think you should stereotype computer users' habits based on the machine choices Apple provides.
I think some people missed what aircft.sys.spec was saying. For the miniscule amount extra for an older dedicated card, you get better performance than an integrated chip.
You can buy a Radeon 9600 256MB retail for under £50 these days.
If Apple made two models of the Mini, one with a GMA and another with a dedicated GPU equivalent to say a Radeon 9600 for £50 extra then we'd see exactly what the Mini consumer goes for.
Yes those consumers have a lower budget but Apple treats customers in two groups - rich and poor. The poor grouping gets shafted with very little build to order options and well sealed machines that can't be upgraded while the rich get the full works albeit with a huge form factor.
If I walk into a store with £700 in my pocket and I look at the Mac section, I see a Mini with a GMA for £529 that I can add Ram too (1GB brings it to £599) and an imac at £879. The imac is out of my price range and ugly. So I'm left with £100 spare cash but I will leave the store feeling annoyed that with the money I was willing to part with I could have had a decent GPU too. Not only that, it would make my 1GB Ram go further because its' not being used for graphics.
I believe there is such a thing as too much choice but with Apple there is not enough. We get a low end headless Mac, a mid range all-in one and a high end headless Mac. Where is the mid-range head-less Mac?
Someone at my work is getting an imac and I asked why. He said he wanted better graphics than the Mini for the occasional game under Windows - that was the only reason. I asked if they sold a Mini with a good GPU, would he have gone for that over the imac and he said definitely.
I think some people missed what aircft.sys.spec was saying. For the miniscule amount extra for an older dedicated card, you get better performance than an integrated chip.
You can buy a Radeon 9600 256MB retail for under £50 these days.
That would be true if we're talking about the GMA 950. However Teno's thread is about the upcoming X3000 Integrated Graphics and the Radeon 9600 is not as full featured as the GMA X3000.
http://www.ati.com/products/radeon96...pro/specs.html
DirectX 9 support only. No OpenGL 2.0.
Asking someone if they want a mini with fast graphics is like asking do you want $100 more on your next paycheck. Not many people are going to say no. The market realities are that the mini is a bit of a lifestyle computer. It's quite and fast enough to do many things with. The iMac is the more full featured desktop and it does contain discrete graphics.
Apple simply doesn't want to ship commodity boxes at under $1k that offer upgradability. Gamers instinctively are not going to choose Macs are the predominant platform so Apple isn't likely going to spend the additional money on faster and hotter GPU.
Originally posted by hmurchison
No OpenGL 2.0
really, i thought r300 and up all supported ogl 2.0?
anyhow, the new intel gma look absolutely fantastic for low end home and office computers.
Originally posted by tubgirl
really, i thought r300 and up all supported ogl 2.0?
anyhow, the new intel gma look absolutely fantastic for low end home and office computers.
Actually it just might. I can't confirm on ATI's site. They only hype DirectX but I know some flavor of OpenGL is supported. It could be OGL 2.0.
I hate sloppy specs.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Actually in MacWorld Benchmark tests between the MacBook and PowerBook found the MacBook to play games just as well as the PowerBook with its own discrete graphics. In fact the PPC native Quake 3 played better on the MacBook under Rosetta than it did on the PowerBook. Universal Games all played better on the MacBook than on the PowerBook.
In other news, a pentium II with a GeForce FX 6800 doesn't play games as well as an Athlon 64 with a Radeon 9700. Processors matter too
Originally posted by TenoBell
How can you barely run Aero either is does or it doesn't.
Actually, it can do one of 3 things: Run, run well, or run slow.
As far as the X3000 somehow having more features than a 9600, that's outright false unless I'm missing something. And yes, the 9600 does support OGL2. I doubt Apple would use it in their machines if it didn't. The 9600 has more features than the 9700, which is weird given the naming scheme. It came out at the same time as the 9800.
[section removed after I remembered the NDA I signed with my company]
Processors matter too
Well it seems that would be factored into people complaints. Apple is now using two processors that are individually faster than the single processor used before. People make it seem as though Intel GMA will bring the performance of the machine below what it was previously.
Actually, it can do one of 3 things: Run, run well, or run slow.
That's all a matter of circumstance and interpretation. To run or run well you need the proper amount of RAM. Vista requires 1GB of system memory and 128MB of video memory.
I have Panther loaded on my old iMac G3. Which has 128MB of system memory and 12MB of video memory. Expose' works fine. Under normal circumstances it moves the windows at near the same speed as my PM G5. If I have too many apps open or too many windows open it is possible to get the beach ball before Expose' will move the windows.
The Core Dup processors are quite powerful, even at low speeds (1.66 GHz). I think I remember from en MacBook was introduced that almost everyone was surprised that Apple chose such powerful CPUs. Before, people were talking about Core Solos and such.
I think it's sad. A MacBook with a dedicated GPU could been an awsome portable gaming machine, it might even have attracted hard core PC-games who'd like a cheap laptop. No now.. probably not.
On these boards a lone I continually see comparisons to Dell or the PC flava of the month. We can't have it both ways. We can't pine for extra features and complain that the price is higher.
Frankly Apple doesn't care about trying to convert gamers. They don't and they never have. Options are nice to have but Apple's trying to keep the the lineup clean.
Perhaps Apple will eventually create a $1499 laptop with dedicated graphics. That would alleviate a lot of the problem. I just don't think an $1100 laptop should be spending such a large portion of its BoM on graphics.
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.
Exactly!
Apple has usually offered high quality and very matched system components such that owners often continued to use their macs for years. Apple certainly doesn't like it when mac owners don't upgrade for years. Now that Apple's on the Intel diet, they (Apple) are taking a page from all the other PC oems and building machines with built-in obsolescence. Graphics is one area that's going to continue to push the envelope of computers with more complex games and more OS and application eye candy. It's one thing to offer a machine with integrated graphics but it's another to offer the bottom of the barrel integrated graphics. Is Apple cutting just too many corners to make a buck by making machines with Intel integrated graphics?
Originally posted by DVD_Junkie
Exactly!
Apple has usually offered high quality and very matched system components such that owners often continued to use their macs for years. Apple certainly doesn't like it when mac owners don't upgrade for years. Now that Apple's on the Intel diet, they (Apple) are taking a page from all the other PC oems and building machines with built-in obsolescence. Graphics is one area that's going to continue to push the envelope of computers with more complex games and more OS and application eye candy. It's one thing to offer a machine with integrated graphics but it's another to offer the bottom of the barrel integrated graphics. Is Apple cutting just too many corners to make a buck by making machines with Intel integrated graphics?
They still do they just don't attempt to convince someone looking at at an $800 machine that they'll be playing games at warp speed. Those that want to push the envelope will get a Powermac or Mac Pro. Just as HP doesn't expect their Pavillion desktops to compete with their Workstations.
Here's a good test for you. If your computer has less than 4 dimm slots then you're likely not buying a computer that's going to have a beefy GPU.
Champagne tastes on a beer budget are not generally not fulfilled in the computer sector and especially when talking about Apple.
Intel Core Duo T2300 CPU (1.66GHz)
14.1" WXGA LCD (1280x800)
1GB DDR2 SDRAM
Intel GMA950 integrated graphics
100GB 5400rpm SATA hard drive
Windows XP Media Center Edition
10/100 BaseT Ethernet
Combo CD-RW/DVD-ROM optical drive
802.11b/g wireless card
VGA port
S-Video port
SD/MMC card reader
Apple Macbook @ $1099
Intel Core Duo T2400 (1.83GHz)
13.3" WXGA LCD (1280x800)\t
512MB DDR2 SDRAM
Hard Drive 60GB SATA\t
Intel GMA950 integrated graphics
Mac OS X
iLife 06
10/100/1000BaseT Gigabit Ethernet
Combo Drive (CD-RW/DVD-ROM)
802.11b/g Airport card
Bluetooth 2.0
Mini DVI port
Built in iSight
Wireless Remote Control
Optical Digital Audio Out
The onboard Intel video that drives the e1405's screen is perfectly capable of handling all the 2D tasks you throw at it, and turns in modest 3D scores as well. You're not to going to run F.E.A.R. in all its glory with 4x anti-aliasing, but older 3D titles should work just fine. Unreal Tournament 2003, for instance, runs without a hitch and has a silky framerate (along with some minor texture tearing)
If you are worried about gaming, just remember that you can pick up an e1405, a 360, and an HDTV for what you'll spend on a gaming laptop.
"But can it run Aero?" you ask, and that answer to that is yes. It can run the upcoming Aero interface to Windows Vista; Microsoft's own Vista upgrade advisor says so. The e1405 passes the video portion of the test without problems.
Originally posted by hmurchison
They still do they just don't attempt to convince someone looking at at an $800 machine that they'll be playing games at warp speed. Those that want to push the envelope will get a Powermac or Mac Pro. Just as HP doesn't expect their Pavillion desktops to compete with their Workstations.
There's a world of difference between warp speed and adequate speed though. I don't think it's reasonable that the alternative to a Mini if you need a bit extra is the monstrosity that will be the Mac Pro at probably 3 times the price.
I just want to pay £100 or so more for a better GPU even if it's not pushing me to the bleeding edge of 3D acceleration, which I'm not bothered about as I'm not a gamer. I'd just like to be able to open higher resolution 3D scenes in animation software to then allow the powerful Core Duo to render it.
Apple's lineup should be:
Mini Solo, GMA: £398
Mini Solo, x1600: £529
Mini Duo, GMA: £529
Mini Duo, x1600: £679
imac 17" Solo, GMA: £598
imac 17" Solo, x1600: £649
imac 17" Duo, GMA: £729
imac 17" Duo, x1600: £879
imac 20" Solo, x1600: £999
imac 20" Duo, x1600: £1129
I'm sure there are errors in there but you get the idea. It means an option for everyone no matter their budget. People are smart enough to weigh up for themselves what's more important to them - all-in-one design, more powerful CPU, more powerful GPU.
Originally posted by TenoBell
"But can it run Aero?" you ask, and that answer to that is yes. It can run the upcoming Aero interface to Windows Vista; Microsoft's own Vista upgrade advisor says so. The e1405 passes the video portion of the test without problems.
How much of Aero will work with this integrated gpu? Saying it's supported means absolutely nothing. Radeon 9000 and older work with OSX core graphics but not all the eye candy will be available.