"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.
nope.... even they doubled or quadrupled the memory bandwith for the GMA950, it would still be crappy performer because of crappy chip design. It's not only a poor 3d performer, but it is also pretty crappy media performer as well. Just say no to intergrated graphics even on GMA 9million from intel. I thought ATI and Nvida has better solution for integrated graphics chipsets....so why not use that?.... Oh if they did, apple will make something better than dell.
nope.... even they doubled or quadrupled the memory bandwith for the GMA950, it would still be crappy performer because of crappy chip design. It's not only a poor 3d performer, but it is also pretty crappy media performer as well. Just say no to intergrated graphics even on GMA 9million from intel. I thought ATI and Nvida has better solution for integrated graphics chipsets....so why not use that?.... Oh if they did, apple will make something better than dell.
This is true enough, but the GMA950 is significantly better than Intel's previous attempt, and the X3000 is another leap forward. Intel is advancing faster than ATI/nVidia are currently, and they have better process technology and the ability to tightly couple to the CPU. People are constantly deriding the concept of an integrated GPU, and that is a mistake plain-and-simple. As Intel's GPU technology catches up the inherent strengths of an integrated approach will begin to manifest, and (in the low to mid range) Intel is likely to dominate the market. The add-in board makers will very likely dominate the high end for the foreseeable future, but only for very large sums of money and power.
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.
All the features except speed above a voodoo 2 from 1997, I guess.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Apple WOULD CARE FOR GAMERS TO MIGRATE if they represented an interesting group of customers.
Was that meant to be elitist or were you trying to say something else? .. elitism in computing.. I thought it was a myth, even among mac users.
So Apple shouldn't make a mid-range computer because gamers aren't "interesting" people?
Well programmers smell, I think Apple should drop XCode!
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
And you needed this kind of customizability exactly why?
Uh, so I could upgrade? I moved from the stock 9600 to a 6800U, put in 2.5 gigs of RAM, have an external SATA array, and a 3rd monitor.
PS, my PC can hold 5 times as many hard drives, twice as many PCI cards, and 4 times as many optical drives and it cost $1000. Oh, and it runs games at about the same speed.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
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.
As a gamer, I believe you have no idea what you're talking about.
99.99% of gamers don't overclock or anything like that. In fact, most gamers prefer to use simpler systems like video-game consoles just to AVOID the stupidity of getting games to work with windows and the complexity of buying new hardware and upgrading.
As far as OS X being 'unsuited' for customizing hardware, that's hardly true. You can overclock your processor and it will "detect" it just fine, I really have no idea what you're talking about here.
Gamers who do upgrade mainly buy new video cards and processors, and when finally, when the motherboard starts limiting their upgrades, they buy a new DELL or ALIENWARE or something. Apple could cash in on this quite easily if they'd just introduce a moderately priced bring-your-own-monitor solution to the table with a PCIe slot.
Oh, by the way, since you were probably unaware:
ALL INTEL PROCESSORS IN MACS ARE UPGRADABLE WITH NO SOFTWARE HACKS NECESSARY
I saw an article a few weeks ago about someone buying a new processor for their mac mini.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
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.
What a great story, too bad you're way off. Most gamers don't overclock. Even gamers who stick to computers rarely overclock. It's not as widespread as you think, you're just making up reasons why Apple shouldn't do games because you don't like gamers.
I will make one assumption though: Most gamers own iPods.
All the features except speed above a voodoo 2 from 1997, I guess.
Which has nothing to do with the chip itself.
Quote:
Was that meant to be elitist or were you trying to say something else? .. elitism in computing.. I thought it was a myth, even among mac users.
It was economical.
Quote:
As a gamer, I believe you have no idea what you're talking about.
As a user, developer and stockholder, I couldn't care less.
Quote:
99.99% of gamers don't overclock or anything like that. In fact, most gamers prefer to use simpler systems like video-game consoles just to AVOID the stupidity of getting games to work with windows and the complexity of buying new hardware and upgrading.
That's a different type of gaming.
When we speak of "gamers" on here, we usually mean those who build PCs or buy them from special brands such as Alienware.
The casual Nintendo gamer is a completely different market.
Quote:
As far as OS X being 'unsuited' for customizing hardware, that's hardly true. You can overclock your processor and it will "detect" it just fine, I really have no idea what you're talking about here.
Yes, and I see modified kernels all the time. Right? Right?
Quote:
Oh, by the way, since you were probably unaware:
ALL INTEL PROCESSORS IN MACS ARE UPGRADABLE
In desktop Macs, but not in laptop ones.
Quote:
I saw an article a few weeks ago about someone buying a new processor for their mac mini.
Good for you.
I'm not in the mood to argue with you any further. *ignores*
I'm a developer and a stockholder too, I don't understand what your problem is with gamers.. they buy more computers than anybody else.
Somebody help me out here, why is Apple catering to gamers such a bad thing? Will Halo 3: Solitare Edition suddenly be bundled with OS X and rob mac users of their productivity? I'm not getting it.
Also:
[the performance] has nothing to do with the chip itself.
If you would have read other peoples' posts, you would've realized this was untrue. I didn't address it because I thought you'd realized your error. Moreover, regardless of the reason behind the GMA chips' poor performance, it still does not change the fact that they have, for all intents and purposes, no acceleration worth speaking of. They are the minimum possible video adapter that you can get an OS to 'function' with. The GMA X3000, as someone pointed out, is the first GMA to work with all the features of Windows Vista. That was, presumably, the only reason they upgraded at all.
I'm a developer and a stockholder too, I don't understand what your problem is with gamers.. they buy more computers than anybody else.
Somebody help me out here, why is Apple catering to gamers such a bad thing?
Because gamers require highly customizable computers, which are very low-margin for Apple. Don't like a component any more? Replace it. What does Apple get? Nothing, because they merely resell the component, so you might as well get it cheaper elsewhere.
Hence Apple's love for laptops, all-in-ones and non-customizables (Mac mini). Once the components don't fulfill your needs any more, you're inclined, instead, to get a new Mac, which in turn drives Apple revenues.
That's why Apple won't offer a low-cost / mid-range customizable Mac. Their high-end tower will remain high-end.
Quote:
Also:
[the performance] has nothing to do with the chip itself.
If you would have read other peoples' posts, you would've realized this was untrue.
How so?
Quote:
Moreover, regardless of the reason behind the GMA chips' poor performance, it still does not change the fact that they have, for all intents and purposes, no acceleration worth speaking of.
How so?
Quote:
They are the minimum possible video adapter that you can get an OS to 'function' with.
GMA 950 support for pixel and vertex shaders, the Direct X 9 feature set and two simultaneous 1080p video streams. I wouldn't call that "minimum possible". In fact, I would call it quite impressive for an integrated chip.
Quote:
The GMA X3000, as someone pointed out, is the first GMA to work with all the features of Windows Vista.
Because gamers require highly customizable computers, which are very low-margin for Apple. Don't like a component any more? Replace it. What does Apple get? Nothing, because they merely resell the component, so you might as well get it cheaper elsewhere.
It is true that Apple prefers to force people to buy more than what they would need if the form factor were different. However, this does not mean that their revenues would somehow be lower if they offered a medium-range, upgradable machine.
Gamers do buy more machines, not just upgrades than regular users, in addition to spending more on new video cards and such. Each time they do, that's more revenue for Apple. Who cares that 100% of their money doesn't go to Apple?
I think the only worry here is that regular users might get wind of this whole "upgradibility" thing and start buying mid-range Apples with these new-fangled "pci slots." I do not think this is a concern though, because most [current] mac users wouldn't upgrade, even if given the chance. Similarly, I doubt that those who do upgrade would buy fewer machines. A mid-range, upgradable machine with upgradibility would be nice because you could buy a whole new machine, put all your fancy components in that you had in your old machine, and do it in a more efficient fashion than just buying a new machine each time you need a new video card.
It is a definite concern--giving consumers a choice. I think it would pay off in the long run, however.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
How so? [referring to why the GMA 950 sucks]
Originally posted by bitemymac
nope.... even they doubled or quadrupled the memory bandwith for the GMA950, it would still be crappy performer because of crappy chip design.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
How so? [referring to why the GMA's are basically software accel.]
When you have no power in the GPU, the CPU takes over. So basically, the GMA 950 is what we used to call "software acceleration" back in the day. Now, we usually call it "GMA", as nobody else is offering unaccelerated graphics.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
GMA 950 support for pixel and vertex shaders, the Direct X 9 feature set and two simultaneous 1080p video streams. I wouldn't call that "minimum possible". In fact, I would call it quite impressive for an integrated chip.
Yes, maybe it is impressive.. if it were being released in 1997. The fact that it 'supports' DX9 and HD merely means that the computer won't crash or throw an error while performing those tasks, it'll just slow to a crawl.
It is possible to run OS X 10.4 on a beige 233mhz G3. I've actually done it. It's quite terrible, believe me. It's also possible to run Doom III on a G4 with a radeon 9000. I've done that too. I literally unplugged the thing because +Q took over 10 minutes.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
What makes you think that [the x3000 may have been in response to vista]?
TenoBell: The 950 does not fully support Aero Glass [Vista GUI feature]
OP's article: Early roadmaps showed the graphics core [of the x3000] as being Microsoft Windows Vista Premium compatible with support for Aero Glass.
hutch: Aero Glass is the premium windowing enviromnent so all functionality is enabled.
So the 950 doesn't do Aero glass, the x3000 does. It's possible Intel only created it to keep up with minimum specs for popular operating systems.
I'm a developer and a stockholder too, I don't understand what your problem is with gamers.. they buy more computers than anybody else.
Somebody help me out here, why is Apple catering to gamers such a bad thing? Will Halo 3: Solitare Edition suddenly be bundled with OS X and rob mac users of their productivity? I'm not getting it.
Gamers aren't that profitable and they really don't have platform loyalty. The money is in SMB and Enterprise sales. I know that's not a fair comparison but I've never sold 50 computers to a gamer but businesses refresh 100s of computers every few years.
If gamers bought so many computers Apple would be focused on them but as Chucker has said before gamers tend to blow the budget on graphics cards and put those into avg computers. All Apple is saying is that they value design over appealing to the needs of a gamer. The iMac is a decent machine for gaming. The mac mini is aimed at general computing.
If Apple can (and they should) deliver a $1499 Mac Pro then gamers will have a Mac that can be delivered for under $2k with a great graphics card.
nope.... even they doubled or quadrupled the memory bandwith for the GMA950, it would still be crappy performer because of crappy chip design. It's not only a poor 3d performer, but it is also pretty crappy media performer as well. Just say no to intergrated graphics even on GMA 9million from intel. I thought ATI and Nvida has better solution for integrated graphics chipsets....so why not use that?
This all sounds like opinion to me. You should post some real world tests or benchmarks to back this up. The credible benchmarks that have been shown say the GMA is excellent for general computer tasks, excellent for media playback, excellent for 2D tasks, pretty good for older 3D games. The only place they have problems are the newest 3D games.
Quote:
TenoBell: The 950 does not fully support Aero Glass [Vista GUI feature]
That's a quote, not a proof.
LOL, I guess its a bit of a stretch to use me as a credible source.
From everything I've read the 950 does not support all of the bells and whistles in Aero Glass.
As Intel's GPU technology catches up the inherent strengths of an integrated approach will begin to manifest, and (in the low to mid range) Intel is likely to dominate the market.
From what I've read Intel is the largest manufacturer or graphics with the GMA. Most of the computers Dell sell come with GMA and most people don't order the optional dedicated card. Many computers don't need a dedicated graphics card and pretty much all business computers use GMA.
Even at $300 difference I see these two as equals of close to it, there are extra features on the Mac, so the actual difference is closer to $150 if it wer epossible to add the missing features to the PC, maybe make that $100 difference (just noticed the 10/10/1000BaseT Ethernet). So if the difference is 10% or less maybe even a little more they are equals or pretty close, close enough for me
So I don't understand, these, in my mind, are equals.
Yes the point is to show the market the MacBook competing in. It is not competing in the gaming/3D graphics market. It competes in the general consumer market.
You had Direct X 9 in 1997, while everyone else only had DirectX 3?
I'm sorry I'm not impressed by "features".
I suppose you're the kind that buy a fully-loaded geo metro and add aftermarket rear object detection.
Who cares that it can run DX9 games? the only games the thing will run at a decent framerate are DX 3 :P
Oh, and PS, this is an Apple forum so who cares about DX?
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
LOL, I guess its a bit of a stretch to use me as a credible source.
Actually, I was pointing out a fact: someone else said this and he hadn't read it.
As for the point about the card, I've read a lot of things about Vista, almost all of them point out that all the old GMA-using computers will be a pain to use. Referring to, of course, 950 and the like.
Getting back to the point (I think), obviously GMA's are good for some, bad for others. The fact that you have to buy an iMac just to get something without one is a huge issue.
And by the way, just because Apple doesn't do something, doesn't mean they shouldn't. I get this a lot around here--people saying "well APPLE didn't do it so therefore it's a dumb idea." Look first for the reasons they might do it: risk, development cost, marketting. Sometimes if they could just snap their fingers and the product would appear, we'd see some of these ideas.
Apple makes so much product every year they have to build dormatories for their chinese workers who make iPods by the MILLIONS. Do you even remotely think that a machine like that turns on a dime? If Apple were smaller, some of these ideas would come to light.
Now, to recap my idea (which I'm sure I stole from somewhere): Offer a midrange computer with a midrange video card for less than $1k. No monitor, no input devices. Just sell the freakin thing. It'll be like a performa.. but not crappy.
Points about the GMA's:
- GMA's Suck (pretty well covered)
- GMA 950's don't have enough power to fully PERFORM all the operations in Vista, let alone perform them well
- The GMA X3000 is not out yet but is assured to be less powerful than video cards released by ATI/NVidia from.. well let's be nice and say 2001
- You can't even buy a new Apple computer with a GMA for less than $1300, and that comes with a monitor and other stuff one may not need
- The leading demographic for Mac Minis are the same that are the gaming demographic. However, the mini makes a better paperweight than a gaming platform.
- Gamers DO buy many computers (though they pay an equal amount on their video card), and even people who only play occasionally will sometimes overlook computers with low video capabilities.
- Novices who buy the mini will probably buy another computer in their lifetime. Giving the mini a low-end Radeon would increase the likelyhood of their next computer being a mac, while costing very little. Actually, 9600 AGP cards are going for $15 wholesale these days.
The way I see it, the mini should be Apple putting it's best foot forward. Make it cheap, powerful, and 'neat.'
I saw a report that 80% of new laptops and 55% of new desktops sold today have integrated graphics. Between 2003 and 2005 300 million of 500 million computers sold had integrated graphics.
Its clear that integrated graphics is fine for the far majority of the computer market. IG saves money, uses less power, and create less heat. Apple is going along with a trend that has obvious advantages.
That's not the point at all. You keep looking it from your needs or wants. You have to view it from the needs of the majority general consumer.
In the sake of genearal consumers, the macmini G4 was a good machine with ATI 9200 backing it up. It was a nice word processor and a internet brower machine fews years ago and it still is a good machine today compared to the core duo macmini. So, why should anyone buy new macmini over the older G4 model that you can get for about $150 to $200 off ebay? and the new macmini coreduo's capability is as limited to the G4 macmini....other than fast cd or dvd ripping........ Unless general consumers are as stupid as you think........ maybe they are? I don't think so... Macmini will be a best seller as soon as Apple makes it a more balanced pc. Not asking to beat nvidia 7900.... but anything closer in features to ati x1300 or nvidia 7000 series would be appropriate, even if it's GMA-intella. However, as you all know intel GMAxxxx is far from having upto date features..... and this is why Apple shouldn't use it now.... maybe when intel finally catches up...in 3 years?
Comments
Originally posted by Chucker
"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.
nope.... even they doubled or quadrupled the memory bandwith for the GMA950, it would still be crappy performer because of crappy chip design. It's not only a poor 3d performer, but it is also pretty crappy media performer as well. Just say no to intergrated graphics even on GMA 9million from intel. I thought ATI and Nvida has better solution for integrated graphics chipsets....so why not use that?.... Oh if they did, apple will make something better than dell.
Originally posted by tubgirl
this has been covered a hundred times before in every other gma950 thread in these forums...
How about you provide some sources then.
Originally posted by bitemymac
nope.... even they doubled or quadrupled the memory bandwith for the GMA950, it would still be crappy performer because of crappy chip design. It's not only a poor 3d performer, but it is also pretty crappy media performer as well. Just say no to intergrated graphics even on GMA 9million from intel. I thought ATI and Nvida has better solution for integrated graphics chipsets....so why not use that?.... Oh if they did, apple will make something better than dell.
This is true enough, but the GMA950 is significantly better than Intel's previous attempt, and the X3000 is another leap forward. Intel is advancing faster than ATI/nVidia are currently, and they have better process technology and the ability to tightly couple to the CPU. People are constantly deriding the concept of an integrated GPU, and that is a mistake plain-and-simple. As Intel's GPU technology catches up the inherent strengths of an integrated approach will begin to manifest, and (in the low to mid range) Intel is likely to dominate the market. The add-in board makers will very likely dominate the high end for the foreseeable future, but only for very large sums of money and power.
Originally posted by Chucker
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.
All the features except speed above a voodoo 2 from 1997, I guess.
Originally posted by Chucker
Apple WOULD CARE FOR GAMERS TO MIGRATE if they represented an interesting group of customers.
Was that meant to be elitist or were you trying to say something else? .. elitism in computing.. I thought it was a myth, even among mac users.
So Apple shouldn't make a mid-range computer because gamers aren't "interesting" people?
Well programmers smell, I think Apple should drop XCode!
Originally posted by Chucker
And you needed this kind of customizability exactly why?
Uh, so I could upgrade? I moved from the stock 9600 to a 6800U, put in 2.5 gigs of RAM, have an external SATA array, and a 3rd monitor.
PS, my PC can hold 5 times as many hard drives, twice as many PCI cards, and 4 times as many optical drives and it cost $1000. Oh, and it runs games at about the same speed.
Originally posted by Chucker
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.
As a gamer, I believe you have no idea what you're talking about.
99.99% of gamers don't overclock or anything like that. In fact, most gamers prefer to use simpler systems like video-game consoles just to AVOID the stupidity of getting games to work with windows and the complexity of buying new hardware and upgrading.
As far as OS X being 'unsuited' for customizing hardware, that's hardly true. You can overclock your processor and it will "detect" it just fine, I really have no idea what you're talking about here.
Gamers who do upgrade mainly buy new video cards and processors, and when finally, when the motherboard starts limiting their upgrades, they buy a new DELL or ALIENWARE or something. Apple could cash in on this quite easily if they'd just introduce a moderately priced bring-your-own-monitor solution to the table with a PCIe slot.
Oh, by the way, since you were probably unaware:
ALL INTEL PROCESSORS IN MACS ARE UPGRADABLE WITH NO SOFTWARE HACKS NECESSARY
I saw an article a few weeks ago about someone buying a new processor for their mac mini.
Originally posted by Chucker
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.
What a great story, too bad you're way off. Most gamers don't overclock. Even gamers who stick to computers rarely overclock. It's not as widespread as you think, you're just making up reasons why Apple shouldn't do games because you don't like gamers.
I will make one assumption though: Most gamers own iPods.
Originally posted by slughead
All the features except speed above a voodoo 2 from 1997, I guess.
Which has nothing to do with the chip itself.
Was that meant to be elitist or were you trying to say something else? .. elitism in computing.. I thought it was a myth, even among mac users.
It was economical.
As a gamer, I believe you have no idea what you're talking about.
As a user, developer and stockholder, I couldn't care less.
99.99% of gamers don't overclock or anything like that. In fact, most gamers prefer to use simpler systems like video-game consoles just to AVOID the stupidity of getting games to work with windows and the complexity of buying new hardware and upgrading.
That's a different type of gaming.
When we speak of "gamers" on here, we usually mean those who build PCs or buy them from special brands such as Alienware.
The casual Nintendo gamer is a completely different market.
As far as OS X being 'unsuited' for customizing hardware, that's hardly true. You can overclock your processor and it will "detect" it just fine, I really have no idea what you're talking about here.
Yes, and I see modified kernels all the time. Right? Right?
Oh, by the way, since you were probably unaware:
ALL INTEL PROCESSORS IN MACS ARE UPGRADABLE
In desktop Macs, but not in laptop ones.
I saw an article a few weeks ago about someone buying a new processor for their mac mini.
Good for you.
I'm not in the mood to argue with you any further. *ignores*
I'm a developer and a stockholder too, I don't understand what your problem is with gamers.. they buy more computers than anybody else.
Somebody help me out here, why is Apple catering to gamers such a bad thing? Will Halo 3: Solitare Edition suddenly be bundled with OS X and rob mac users of their productivity? I'm not getting it.
Also:
[the performance] has nothing to do with the chip itself.
If you would have read other peoples' posts, you would've realized this was untrue. I didn't address it because I thought you'd realized your error. Moreover, regardless of the reason behind the GMA chips' poor performance, it still does not change the fact that they have, for all intents and purposes, no acceleration worth speaking of. They are the minimum possible video adapter that you can get an OS to 'function' with. The GMA X3000, as someone pointed out, is the first GMA to work with all the features of Windows Vista. That was, presumably, the only reason they upgraded at all.
Originally posted by slughead
I'm a developer and a stockholder too, I don't understand what your problem is with gamers.. they buy more computers than anybody else.
Somebody help me out here, why is Apple catering to gamers such a bad thing?
Because gamers require highly customizable computers, which are very low-margin for Apple. Don't like a component any more? Replace it. What does Apple get? Nothing, because they merely resell the component, so you might as well get it cheaper elsewhere.
Hence Apple's love for laptops, all-in-ones and non-customizables (Mac mini). Once the components don't fulfill your needs any more, you're inclined, instead, to get a new Mac, which in turn drives Apple revenues.
That's why Apple won't offer a low-cost / mid-range customizable Mac. Their high-end tower will remain high-end.
Also:
[the performance] has nothing to do with the chip itself.
If you would have read other peoples' posts, you would've realized this was untrue.
How so?
Moreover, regardless of the reason behind the GMA chips' poor performance, it still does not change the fact that they have, for all intents and purposes, no acceleration worth speaking of.
How so?
They are the minimum possible video adapter that you can get an OS to 'function' with.
GMA 950 support for pixel and vertex shaders, the Direct X 9 feature set and two simultaneous 1080p video streams. I wouldn't call that "minimum possible". In fact, I would call it quite impressive for an integrated chip.
The GMA X3000, as someone pointed out, is the first GMA to work with all the features of Windows Vista.
What makes you think that?
Originally posted by Chucker
Because gamers require highly customizable computers, which are very low-margin for Apple. Don't like a component any more? Replace it. What does Apple get? Nothing, because they merely resell the component, so you might as well get it cheaper elsewhere.
It is true that Apple prefers to force people to buy more than what they would need if the form factor were different. However, this does not mean that their revenues would somehow be lower if they offered a medium-range, upgradable machine.
Gamers do buy more machines, not just upgrades than regular users, in addition to spending more on new video cards and such. Each time they do, that's more revenue for Apple. Who cares that 100% of their money doesn't go to Apple?
I think the only worry here is that regular users might get wind of this whole "upgradibility" thing and start buying mid-range Apples with these new-fangled "pci slots." I do not think this is a concern though, because most [current] mac users wouldn't upgrade, even if given the chance. Similarly, I doubt that those who do upgrade would buy fewer machines. A mid-range, upgradable machine with upgradibility would be nice because you could buy a whole new machine, put all your fancy components in that you had in your old machine, and do it in a more efficient fashion than just buying a new machine each time you need a new video card.
It is a definite concern--giving consumers a choice. I think it would pay off in the long run, however.
Originally posted by Chucker
How so? [referring to why the GMA 950 sucks]
Originally posted by bitemymac
nope.... even they doubled or quadrupled the memory bandwith for the GMA950, it would still be crappy performer because of crappy chip design.
Originally posted by Chucker
How so? [referring to why the GMA's are basically software accel.]
When you have no power in the GPU, the CPU takes over. So basically, the GMA 950 is what we used to call "software acceleration" back in the day. Now, we usually call it "GMA", as nobody else is offering unaccelerated graphics.
Originally posted by Chucker
GMA 950 support for pixel and vertex shaders, the Direct X 9 feature set and two simultaneous 1080p video streams. I wouldn't call that "minimum possible". In fact, I would call it quite impressive for an integrated chip.
Yes, maybe it is impressive.. if it were being released in 1997. The fact that it 'supports' DX9 and HD merely means that the computer won't crash or throw an error while performing those tasks, it'll just slow to a crawl.
It is possible to run OS X 10.4 on a beige 233mhz G3. I've actually done it. It's quite terrible, believe me. It's also possible to run Doom III on a G4 with a radeon 9000. I've done that too. I literally unplugged the thing because +Q took over 10 minutes.
Originally posted by Chucker
What makes you think that [the x3000 may have been in response to vista]?
TenoBell: The 950 does not fully support Aero Glass [Vista GUI feature]
OP's article: Early roadmaps showed the graphics core [of the x3000] as being Microsoft Windows Vista Premium compatible with support for Aero Glass.
hutch: Aero Glass is the premium windowing enviromnent so all functionality is enabled.
So the 950 doesn't do Aero glass, the x3000 does. It's possible Intel only created it to keep up with minimum specs for popular operating systems.
I'm a developer and a stockholder too, I don't understand what your problem is with gamers.. they buy more computers than anybody else.
Somebody help me out here, why is Apple catering to gamers such a bad thing? Will Halo 3: Solitare Edition suddenly be bundled with OS X and rob mac users of their productivity? I'm not getting it.
Gamers aren't that profitable and they really don't have platform loyalty. The money is in SMB and Enterprise sales. I know that's not a fair comparison but I've never sold 50 computers to a gamer but businesses refresh 100s of computers every few years.
If gamers bought so many computers Apple would be focused on them but as Chucker has said before gamers tend to blow the budget on graphics cards and put those into avg computers. All Apple is saying is that they value design over appealing to the needs of a gamer. The iMac is a decent machine for gaming. The mac mini is aimed at general computing.
If Apple can (and they should) deliver a $1499 Mac Pro then gamers will have a Mac that can be delivered for under $2k with a great graphics card.
Originally posted by slughead
Yes, maybe it is impressive.. if it were being released in 1997.
You had Direct X 9 in 1997, while everyone else only had DirectX 3?
TenoBell: The 950 does not fully support Aero Glass [Vista GUI feature]
That's a quote, not a proof.
nope.... even they doubled or quadrupled the memory bandwith for the GMA950, it would still be crappy performer because of crappy chip design. It's not only a poor 3d performer, but it is also pretty crappy media performer as well. Just say no to intergrated graphics even on GMA 9million from intel. I thought ATI and Nvida has better solution for integrated graphics chipsets....so why not use that?
This all sounds like opinion to me. You should post some real world tests or benchmarks to back this up. The credible benchmarks that have been shown say the GMA is excellent for general computer tasks, excellent for media playback, excellent for 2D tasks, pretty good for older 3D games. The only place they have problems are the newest 3D games.
TenoBell: The 950 does not fully support Aero Glass [Vista GUI feature]
That's a quote, not a proof.
LOL, I guess its a bit of a stretch to use me as a credible source.
From everything I've read the 950 does not support all of the bells and whistles in Aero Glass.
As Intel's GPU technology catches up the inherent strengths of an integrated approach will begin to manifest, and (in the low to mid range) Intel is likely to dominate the market.
From what I've read Intel is the largest manufacturer or graphics with the GMA. Most of the computers Dell sell come with GMA and most people don't order the optional dedicated card. Many computers don't need a dedicated graphics card and pretty much all business computers use GMA.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Dell Inspiron e1405 @ $800
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
Even at $300 difference I see these two as equals of close to it, there are extra features on the Mac, so the actual difference is closer to $150 if it wer epossible to add the missing features to the PC, maybe make that $100 difference (just noticed the 10/10/1000BaseT Ethernet). So if the difference is 10% or less maybe even a little more they are equals or pretty close, close enough for me
So I don't understand, these, in my mind, are equals.
Ty
Originally posted by Chucker
You had Direct X 9 in 1997, while everyone else only had DirectX 3?
I'm sorry I'm not impressed by "features".
I suppose you're the kind that buy a fully-loaded geo metro and add aftermarket rear object detection.
Who cares that it can run DX9 games? the only games the thing will run at a decent framerate are DX 3 :P
Oh, and PS, this is an Apple forum so who cares about DX?
Originally posted by TenoBell
LOL, I guess its a bit of a stretch to use me as a credible source.
Actually, I was pointing out a fact: someone else said this and he hadn't read it.
As for the point about the card, I've read a lot of things about Vista, almost all of them point out that all the old GMA-using computers will be a pain to use. Referring to, of course, 950 and the like.
Getting back to the point (I think), obviously GMA's are good for some, bad for others. The fact that you have to buy an iMac just to get something without one is a huge issue.
And by the way, just because Apple doesn't do something, doesn't mean they shouldn't. I get this a lot around here--people saying "well APPLE didn't do it so therefore it's a dumb idea." Look first for the reasons they might do it: risk, development cost, marketting. Sometimes if they could just snap their fingers and the product would appear, we'd see some of these ideas.
Apple makes so much product every year they have to build dormatories for their chinese workers who make iPods by the MILLIONS. Do you even remotely think that a machine like that turns on a dime? If Apple were smaller, some of these ideas would come to light.
Now, to recap my idea (which I'm sure I stole from somewhere): Offer a midrange computer with a midrange video card for less than $1k. No monitor, no input devices. Just sell the freakin thing. It'll be like a performa.. but not crappy.
Points about the GMA's:
- GMA's Suck (pretty well covered)
- GMA 950's don't have enough power to fully PERFORM all the operations in Vista, let alone perform them well
- The GMA X3000 is not out yet but is assured to be less powerful than video cards released by ATI/NVidia from.. well let's be nice and say 2001
- You can't even buy a new Apple computer with a GMA for less than $1300, and that comes with a monitor and other stuff one may not need
- The leading demographic for Mac Minis are the same that are the gaming demographic. However, the mini makes a better paperweight than a gaming platform.
- Gamers DO buy many computers (though they pay an equal amount on their video card), and even people who only play occasionally will sometimes overlook computers with low video capabilities.
- Novices who buy the mini will probably buy another computer in their lifetime. Giving the mini a low-end Radeon would increase the likelyhood of their next computer being a mac, while costing very little. Actually, 9600 AGP cards are going for $15 wholesale these days.
The way I see it, the mini should be Apple putting it's best foot forward. Make it cheap, powerful, and 'neat.'
Originally posted by slughead
I suppose you're the kind that buy a fully-loaded geo metro and add aftermarket rear object detection.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Originally posted by Chucker
You couldn't be more wrong.
I was trying to point out how pointless DX 9 is on a GMA .... screen door on a submarine? ... tits on a bull? ...
Am I getting through to you at all?
Oh, I got it: A seatbelt on an ICBM!
...
......
...
I give up, you win, GMAs are great, the GMA 950 can run doom3 at 900FPS, Apple can do no wrong, yadda yadda yadda.
Its clear that integrated graphics is fine for the far majority of the computer market. IG saves money, uses less power, and create less heat. Apple is going along with a trend that has obvious advantages.
I give up, you win, GMAs are great, the GMA 950 can run doom3 at 900FPS, Apple can do no wrong, yadda yadda yadda.
That's not the point at all. You keep looking it from your needs or wants. You have to view it from the needs of the majority general consumer.
Originally posted by TenoBell
That's not the point at all. You keep looking it from your needs or wants. You have to view it from the needs of the majority general consumer.
In the sake of genearal consumers, the macmini G4 was a good machine with ATI 9200 backing it up. It was a nice word processor and a internet brower machine fews years ago and it still is a good machine today compared to the core duo macmini. So, why should anyone buy new macmini over the older G4 model that you can get for about $150 to $200 off ebay? and the new macmini coreduo's capability is as limited to the G4 macmini....other than fast cd or dvd ripping........ Unless general consumers are as stupid as you think........ maybe they are? I don't think so... Macmini will be a best seller as soon as Apple makes it a more balanced pc. Not asking to beat nvidia 7900.... but anything closer in features to ati x1300 or nvidia 7000 series would be appropriate, even if it's GMA-intella. However, as you all know intel GMAxxxx is far from having upto date features..... and this is why Apple shouldn't use it now.... maybe when intel finally catches up...in 3 years?