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.
from the article linked by the OP
Quote:
Early roadmaps showed the graphics core as being Microsoft Windows Vista Premium compatible with support for Aero Glass. It was also said the graphics core would have Clear Video Technology to improve video playback.
Aero Glass is the premium windowing enviromnent so all functionality is enabled. Plain Areo would be what you speak of above with the 9000 but Aero Glass is all the trimmings added in.
Wow, all this fuss over graphics cards. Apple's MDE's know what they are doing. One of the driving forces behind any engineering decision is cost. I don't care if my computer has integrated graphics or not. Anything to save me money and power is great. Seriously, how many people play intensive 3D games? Maybe a majority of people on this forum, but that definetly isn't representative of all computer users.
Lets just accept that integrated chips are here to stay. They'll be improved over time. The reasoning behind them being here is that they meet the needs of a majority of the consumers. If you want something more high end, buy the high end system.
You shouldn't slam a GPU just because it is "integrated". Consider that the XBox360 is effectively an "integrated" GPU with a unified memory architecture. You going to tell me that it can't play 3D games? You may find a day coming soon where Intel delivers an integrated system that outperforms the latest that nVidia can deliver.
Seriously, how many people play intensive 3D games? Maybe a majority of people on this forum, but that definetly isn't representative of all computer users.
Yet again I will say that graphics cards aren't just for games. They accelerate a lot of things, especially in OS X.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmwogan
If you want something more high end, buy the high end system.
Yeah 'cos everybody has a spare $2000 lying around. $150 extra is all that should be needed at most.
Quote:
Originally posted by programmer
You may find a day coming soon where Intel delivers an integrated system that outperforms the latest that nVidia can deliver.
Then again, we may not. Conjecture is all very well but the fact is that for a few bucks extra, Apple could have put in a dedicated chip that is far better than Intel's current GPU offerings.
If the Core Duo Mini had a 64-128MB Radeon 9600 for just $50 more, I'd own one right now.
If the Core Duo Mini had a 64-128MB Radeon 9600 for just $50 more, I'd own one right now.
Which, of course, is completely impossible, even when you consider it merely hypothetical. The Radeon 9600 dissipates too much heat to fit into the mini and doesn't come with a PCI Express slot. Lastly, arguably, if it wasn't for the bandwidth issues inherent in the shared memory architecture of the GMA 950, it would probably be equal or even better.
Yet again I will say that graphics cards aren't just for games. They accelerate a lot of things, especially in OS X.
Yeah 'cos everybody has a spare $2000 lying around. $150 extra is all that should be needed at most.
Then again, we may not. Conjecture is all very well but the fact is that for a few bucks extra, Apple could have put in a dedicated chip that is far better than Intel's current GPU offerings.
If the Core Duo Mini had a 64-128MB Radeon 9600 for just $50 more, I'd own one right now.
As somebody else has pointed out the 9600 is AGP which puts the X300SE as the most likely ATI product that could be incorporated into the current Apple home/budget computers. This chip is better than the GMA950 but it will still leave a lot of people complaining as it isn't really very high on the list of desirable GPUs. It will pick up a few more customers but there will still be complaints that it isn't good enough. There will be the next person that will buy a mini today if it had an ATI X600.
It is always interesting to see the compromises that Apple makes on home versions/Performa computers. Generally the video causes the most complaints. The GMA950 bothered me at first on the MacBook but both video/processers have come such a long way in the last 5 years that even 'budget' video/computers handle even some of the most demanding tasks. Games are the exception and will probably always be the exception.
I appreciate the dollars and dedication that 'Gamers' give the industry to push the envelope.
Graphics cards can supply ~90% of the power behind some tasks.
It's not like we're talking about how apple put a "crappy" card into their computers, it's that they put "no" card into their computers. The GMA 950 is, as I've just implied, equivelent to having no acceleration at all.
Apple has absolutely no machines in a decent price range with a mid-range video card or better. Gamers WOULD MIGRATE if Apple supplied some decent hardware for a reasonable price!
I paid waaay too much for a G5, just so I could run OS X and have some room to add RAM, another GPU, and some PCI cards. That's absurd, I paid through the nose just for a chance to upgrade my computer. I did it because I needed to run OS X.
Gamers don't need to run OS X, they just want to. Apple can't exploit them and make them buy G5s or Mac Pros (when they come out). Apple's just plain ditching the market, and I think it's a bad move to snub gamers, who pay more for their machines than just about anyone.
For God's sake, just make a mini with a 9600 at the very least, maybe an x1600 or an x1800 for a fee. Keep it under $1k. IMO Apple shouldn't be releasing a product with intel graphics, period. If they're going to, they should at least give people a choice within a comparable price range. A $800 upgrade to an iMac just for an x1600 is not acceptable. A $1300 upgrade just for a 7800 GT is even moreso.
If you want to see games for mac, most of the tiny marketshare of mac users need gaming cards that can do the job. In the meantime, Apple's "core" technology will work better and maybe Apple, using the new-found specs in macs, will be able to upgrade the interface. As it stands, jumping from GMA to GMA is only making the volcano God angry.
The GMA 950 is, as I've just implied, equivelent to having no acceleration at all.
This is simply completely wrong. The GMA 950 has many modern features of dedicated graphics chips. It fully supports Core Image, for instance.
The problem with the GMA 950 isn't with its acceleration features; it's that they don't get much of a chance due to the low memory bandwidth.
Quote:
Apple has absolutely no machines in a decent price range with a mid-range video card or better. Gamers WOULD MIGRATE if Apple supplied some decent hardware for a reasonable price!
Apple WOULD CARE FOR GAMERS TO MIGRATE if they represented an interesting group of customers.
Quote:
I paid waaay too much for a G5, just so I could run OS X and have some room to add RAM, another GPU, and some PCI cards. That's absurd, I paid through the nose just for a chance to upgrade my computer. I did it because I needed to run OS X.
And you needed this kind of customizability exactly why?
Quote:
Gamers don't need to run OS X, they just want to.
No, they don't. Just like they enjoy tinkering with their hardware for asinine reasons, they do the same with their software. OS X is very unsuited for that. They'd be much better off with x86 Linux, if only running Windows games through Wine was reliable, which at this point it still isn't and perhaps never will be. As such, they are sticking with Windows, and will continue to do so.
Quote:
I think it's a bad move to snub gamers, who pay more for their machines than just about anyone.
Correction: they pay more for high-end graphics cards, overclocking their CPUs, frying their motherboards and repairing the damages and saving money on the RAM sticks' speeds because they don't realize their significance.
But what chunk of that would go to Apple? Hardly anything.
Gamers and a brand like Apple don't match. Never will.
The problem with the GMA 950 isn't with its acceleration features; it's that they don't get much of a chance due to the low memory bandwidth.
i dont really agree with you.
if the mini (or alike) would have been equipped with a dedicated gpu it would probably be a ati x300 or nvidia 6200, like said.
these low budget gpus are often paired with low budget 200 mhz ddr-sdram though a 64bit path. (~3.2 GBps)
the bandwidth supplied trough one memory channel of the mini is acually a fair bit more. (~5.3 GBps, with the other memory channel considered 'reserved' for the cpu.)
the true problem with the gma 950 (considered for all-round home use) is the lack of some important geometry features, imo.
however, the new intel x3000 look like making all the low end graphic cards from ati and nvidia out of work...
Wow, all this fuss over graphics cards. Apple's MDE's know what they are doing. One of the driving forces behind any engineering decision is cost. I don't care if my computer has integrated graphics or not. Anything to save me money and power is great. Seriously, how many people play intensive 3D games? Maybe a majority of people on this forum, but that definetly isn't representative of all computer users.
Lets just accept that integrated chips are here to stay. They'll be improved over time. The reasoning behind them being here is that they meet the needs of a majority of the consumers. If you want something more high end, buy the high end system.
Funny that, seeing as computer games have been one of the main drives of the advancement of CPU, GPU and RAM technologies. New graphics cards come out specifically to run games. That is what they are designed for, if no one played games, no one would need a Radeon X1900XTX, and we would be years behind what we have now. This technology then trickles down to the midrange cards (such as the X1600). If not many people played 3d intensive games, then why would there be an entire hardware industry to specifically cater for it?
these low budget gpus are often paired with low budget 200 mhz ddr-sdram though a 64bit path. (~3.2 GBps)
the bandwidth supplied trough one memory channel of the mini is acually a fair bit more. (~5.3 GBps, with the other memory channel considered 'reserved' for the cpu.)
"Other memory channel"? As far as I'm aware, there is only one, which is exactly the problem. While the CPU accesses memory, the GPU can't, and vice versa. So the 5.3 GB/s provided by PC2-5300 are barely ever used. DDR2 has a latency problem as it is; this (two devices autonomously accessing it), however, throws it out of proportion.
Comments
Originally posted by DVD_Junkie
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.
from the article linked by the OP
Early roadmaps showed the graphics core as being Microsoft Windows Vista Premium compatible with support for Aero Glass. It was also said the graphics core would have Clear Video Technology to improve video playback.
Aero Glass is the premium windowing enviromnent so all functionality is enabled. Plain Areo would be what you speak of above with the 9000 but Aero Glass is all the trimmings added in.
The GMA 950 with shared memory does fully support Core Image. But the GMA 950 does not fully support Aero glass.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Will the X3000 be in the next MacBook?
I think it would have to be a part of the Santa Rosa platform. Crestline is the chipset that should support Merom.
Originally posted by Aquatic
So when will it be in the MacBook? When will the MacBook get Core 2? And when will the MacBook next be updated? (Septemberish?)
Apple could go as late as a November event for the Macbook. The MBPs will get it first - they were last done over in January.
I could see:
WWDC - Mac Pros, Leopard, maybe MBP or iMac
Mid-Sept - MBP or iMac, maybe Mini
Nov - Macbook, Mini (if not already updated), new iPods.
early Dec - maybe, if we're super-lucky, Leopard.
January MWSF - more likely Leopard, new Mac Pros.
Lets just accept that integrated chips are here to stay. They'll be improved over time. The reasoning behind them being here is that they meet the needs of a majority of the consumers. If you want something more high end, buy the high end system.
Originally posted by dmwogan
Seriously, how many people play intensive 3D games? Maybe a majority of people on this forum, but that definetly isn't representative of all computer users.
Yet again I will say that graphics cards aren't just for games. They accelerate a lot of things, especially in OS X.
Originally posted by dmwogan
If you want something more high end, buy the high end system.
Yeah 'cos everybody has a spare $2000 lying around. $150 extra is all that should be needed at most.
Originally posted by programmer
You may find a day coming soon where Intel delivers an integrated system that outperforms the latest that nVidia can deliver.
Then again, we may not. Conjecture is all very well but the fact is that for a few bucks extra, Apple could have put in a dedicated chip that is far better than Intel's current GPU offerings.
If the Core Duo Mini had a 64-128MB Radeon 9600 for just $50 more, I'd own one right now.
Originally posted by Marvin
If the Core Duo Mini had a 64-128MB Radeon 9600 for just $50 more, I'd own one right now.
Which, of course, is completely impossible, even when you consider it merely hypothetical. The Radeon 9600 dissipates too much heat to fit into the mini and doesn't come with a PCI Express slot. Lastly, arguably, if it wasn't for the bandwidth issues inherent in the shared memory architecture of the GMA 950, it would probably be equal or even better.
Originally posted by dmwogan
Wow, all this fuss over graphics cards. Apple's MDE's know what they are doing. One of the driving forces behind any engineering decision is cost.
And in the case in question, I suppose, the Apple-Intel deal too for which we know nothing.
Originally posted by Marvin
Yet again I will say that graphics cards aren't just for games. They accelerate a lot of things, especially in OS X.
Yeah 'cos everybody has a spare $2000 lying around. $150 extra is all that should be needed at most.
Then again, we may not. Conjecture is all very well but the fact is that for a few bucks extra, Apple could have put in a dedicated chip that is far better than Intel's current GPU offerings.
If the Core Duo Mini had a 64-128MB Radeon 9600 for just $50 more, I'd own one right now.
These are just graphics cards, people!
Originally posted by Marvin
If the Core Duo Mini had a 64-128MB Radeon 9600 for just $50 more, I'd own one right now.
Here is an interesting link about the relative performance of notebook graphics cards.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568
As somebody else has pointed out the 9600 is AGP which puts the X300SE as the most likely ATI product that could be incorporated into the current Apple home/budget computers. This chip is better than the GMA950 but it will still leave a lot of people complaining as it isn't really very high on the list of desirable GPUs. It will pick up a few more customers but there will still be complaints that it isn't good enough. There will be the next person that will buy a mini today if it had an ATI X600.
It is always interesting to see the compromises that Apple makes on home versions/Performa computers. Generally the video causes the most complaints. The GMA950 bothered me at first on the MacBook but both video/processers have come such a long way in the last 5 years that even 'budget' video/computers handle even some of the most demanding tasks. Games are the exception and will probably always be the exception.
I appreciate the dollars and dedication that 'Gamers' give the industry to push the envelope.
Originally posted by dmwogan
These are just graphics cards, people!
Graphics cards can supply ~90% of the power behind some tasks.
It's not like we're talking about how apple put a "crappy" card into their computers, it's that they put "no" card into their computers. The GMA 950 is, as I've just implied, equivelent to having no acceleration at all.
Apple has absolutely no machines in a decent price range with a mid-range video card or better. Gamers WOULD MIGRATE if Apple supplied some decent hardware for a reasonable price!
I paid waaay too much for a G5, just so I could run OS X and have some room to add RAM, another GPU, and some PCI cards. That's absurd, I paid through the nose just for a chance to upgrade my computer. I did it because I needed to run OS X.
Gamers don't need to run OS X, they just want to. Apple can't exploit them and make them buy G5s or Mac Pros (when they come out). Apple's just plain ditching the market, and I think it's a bad move to snub gamers, who pay more for their machines than just about anyone.
For God's sake, just make a mini with a 9600 at the very least, maybe an x1600 or an x1800 for a fee. Keep it under $1k. IMO Apple shouldn't be releasing a product with intel graphics, period. If they're going to, they should at least give people a choice within a comparable price range. A $800 upgrade to an iMac just for an x1600 is not acceptable. A $1300 upgrade just for a 7800 GT is even moreso.
If you want to see games for mac, most of the tiny marketshare of mac users need gaming cards that can do the job. In the meantime, Apple's "core" technology will work better and maybe Apple, using the new-found specs in macs, will be able to upgrade the interface. As it stands, jumping from GMA to GMA is only making the volcano God angry.
Originally posted by slughead
The GMA 950 is, as I've just implied, equivelent to having no acceleration at all.
This is simply completely wrong. The GMA 950 has many modern features of dedicated graphics chips. It fully supports Core Image, for instance.
The problem with the GMA 950 isn't with its acceleration features; it's that they don't get much of a chance due to the low memory bandwidth.
Apple has absolutely no machines in a decent price range with a mid-range video card or better. Gamers WOULD MIGRATE if Apple supplied some decent hardware for a reasonable price!
Apple WOULD CARE FOR GAMERS TO MIGRATE if they represented an interesting group of customers.
I paid waaay too much for a G5, just so I could run OS X and have some room to add RAM, another GPU, and some PCI cards. That's absurd, I paid through the nose just for a chance to upgrade my computer. I did it because I needed to run OS X.
And you needed this kind of customizability exactly why?
Gamers don't need to run OS X, they just want to.
No, they don't. Just like they enjoy tinkering with their hardware for asinine reasons, they do the same with their software. OS X is very unsuited for that. They'd be much better off with x86 Linux, if only running Windows games through Wine was reliable, which at this point it still isn't and perhaps never will be. As such, they are sticking with Windows, and will continue to do so.
I think it's a bad move to snub gamers, who pay more for their machines than just about anyone.
Correction: they pay more for high-end graphics cards, overclocking their CPUs, frying their motherboards and repairing the damages and saving money on the RAM sticks' speeds because they don't realize their significance.
But what chunk of that would go to Apple? Hardly anything.
Gamers and a brand like Apple don't match. Never will.
Originally posted by Chucker
The problem with the GMA 950 isn't with its acceleration features; it's that they don't get much of a chance due to the low memory bandwidth.
i dont really agree with you.
if the mini (or alike) would have been equipped with a dedicated gpu it would probably be a ati x300 or nvidia 6200, like said.
these low budget gpus are often paired with low budget 200 mhz ddr-sdram though a 64bit path. (~3.2 GBps)
the bandwidth supplied trough one memory channel of the mini is acually a fair bit more. (~5.3 GBps, with the other memory channel considered 'reserved' for the cpu.)
the true problem with the gma 950 (considered for all-round home use) is the lack of some important geometry features, imo.
however, the new intel x3000 look like making all the low end graphic cards from ati and nvidia out of work...
Originally posted by dmwogan
Wow, all this fuss over graphics cards. Apple's MDE's know what they are doing. One of the driving forces behind any engineering decision is cost. I don't care if my computer has integrated graphics or not. Anything to save me money and power is great. Seriously, how many people play intensive 3D games? Maybe a majority of people on this forum, but that definetly isn't representative of all computer users.
Lets just accept that integrated chips are here to stay. They'll be improved over time. The reasoning behind them being here is that they meet the needs of a majority of the consumers. If you want something more high end, buy the high end system.
Funny that, seeing as computer games have been one of the main drives of the advancement of CPU, GPU and RAM technologies. New graphics cards come out specifically to run games. That is what they are designed for, if no one played games, no one would need a Radeon X1900XTX, and we would be years behind what we have now. This technology then trickles down to the midrange cards (such as the X1600). If not many people played 3d intensive games, then why would there be an entire hardware industry to specifically cater for it?
Originally posted by tubgirl
these low budget gpus are often paired with low budget 200 mhz ddr-sdram though a 64bit path. (~3.2 GBps)
the bandwidth supplied trough one memory channel of the mini is acually a fair bit more. (~5.3 GBps, with the other memory channel considered 'reserved' for the cpu.)
"Other memory channel"? As far as I'm aware, there is only one, which is exactly the problem. While the CPU accesses memory, the GPU can't, and vice versa. So the 5.3 GB/s provided by PC2-5300 are barely ever used. DDR2 has a latency problem as it is; this (two devices autonomously accessing it), however, throws it out of proportion.
Originally posted by Chucker
As far as I'm aware, there is only one
then you are not aware.
this has been covered a hundred times before in every other gma950 thread in these forums...