Whats the point of a nice fast new Cpu if you are throwing in cheapo Integrated graphics that cant match the performance of real GPU's from 2- 3 years ago?
Because almost nothing apart from games requires a decent GPU.
I've got a MacBook, and I honestly don't give a shit that it's got a GMA950. I like having a fast processor because, amongst other things, it means I can compress MPEG2 to H.264 at an acceptable speed. Having a faster GPU would not improve my computing experience at all, but it would have made my computer more expensive and the battery not last as long.
Because almost nothing apart from games requires a decent GPU.
I've got a MacBook, and I honestly don't give a shit that it's got a GMA950. I like having a fast processor because, amongst other things, it means I can compress MPEG2 to H.264 at an acceptable speed. Having a faster GPU would not improve my computing experience at all, but it would have made my computer more expensive and the battery not last as long.
Im happy you are so happy with the $4 graphics chip Apple uses. Maybe next year they will use a $2 chip and save you more battery life. Enjoy your compressing,sounds like lots of fun. You could be the PC guy in Apples commercials but I do notice when the Mac guy is talking about all the fun things he does on his Mac he never mentions games? I guess games arent fun?
Im happy you are so happy with the $4 graphics chip Apple uses. Maybe next year they will use a $2 chip and save you more battery life. Enjoy your compressing,sounds like lots of fun. You could be the PC guy in Apples commercials but I do notice when the Mac guy is talking about all the fun things he does on his Mac he never mentions games? I guess games arent fun?
Wow! What a well thought-out explanation as to why everyone needs a dedicated GPU. Well done.
Im happy you are so happy with the $4 graphics chip Apple uses. Maybe next year they will use a $2 chip and save you more battery life. Enjoy your compressing,sounds like lots of fun. You could be the PC guy in Apples commercials but I do notice when the Mac guy is talking about all the fun things he does on his Mac he never mentions games? I guess games arent fun?
Yes, because back when all Macs used dedicated GPUs, there were tons upon tons of great games for the Mac!
Apple are not using an all-inclusive Intel solution.
You mean the MacBook doesn't use the Intel GMA 950 for the graphics chip? And it doesn't use the 1.83GHz or 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo processor? Huh, I guess then it wouldn't be all-inclusive (in the CPU, GPU sense, which is what we were talking about).
Yes, because back when all Macs used dedicated GPUs, there were tons upon tons of great games for the Mac!
Hee-hee-hee....
Actually, I'm sure the GPU's will get better, and more games will be played better, but no matter what is put in a MacBook, someone will complain because the MacBook Pro has something better, or a bigger screen, or something that should be in the MacBook for a lower price because they don't want to fork over the money for a MBP. And even the MBP, someone will complain that Dell, three times thicker, clunkier and uglier, has something even better that sucks battery life to hell and back, but THAT GPU should be in the MBP. And then, when they finally realize what they want is a Mac Pro... they'll complain it isn't portable. Go figure.
Actually, I'm sure the GPU's will get better, and more games will be played better, but no matter what is put in a MacBook, someone will complain because the MacBook Pro has something better, or a bigger screen, or something that should be in the MacBook for a lower price because they don't want to fork over the money for a MBP. And even the MBP, someone will complain that Dell, three times thicker, clunkier and uglier, has something even better that sucks battery life to hell and back, but THAT GPU should be in the MBP. And then, when they finally realize what they want is a Mac Pro... they'll complain it isn't portable. Go figure.
Fuck, I have nothing to complain about. You already did it for me...
Aurora, would it make you feel any better to know that Intel GMA is the most used graphics chip in the world?
As good as knowing most the world uses Toilet paper but that doesnt mean i want the leftovers. Most of the world drives Chevys but I sure as hell dont want one. I guess GMA950 is like that? I expect better out of Apple.
One part that is ignored in rants about Intel GMA is the fact that it can do what previous dedicated graphics Apple used were not able. Fully supporting Core Image and full support for Aperture being two examples.
Quote:
I expect better out of Apple.
Apple is a billion dollar publicly traded company. That must meet quarterly Wall Street profit predictions. They are in business do develop products and make as much profit from the sale of those products as the market will allow. Which is the exact same every other company does.
Every other computer company uses Intel GMA in the same class of laptops as the MacBook. Intel GMA is even used in $2000 laptops. Some may offer options for dedicated card but it has been shown that the far majority of laptops sold ship with Intel GMA. Which means few people take up the dedicated graphic option.
Outside of irrational cultism why do you expect Apple to act so differently?
One part that is ignored in rants about Intel GMA is the fact that it can do what previous dedicated graphics Apple used were not able. Fully supporting Core Image and full support for Aperture being two examples.
Apple is a billion dollar publicly traded company. That must meet quarterly Wall Street profit predictions. They are in business do develop products and make as much profit from the sale of those products as the market will allow. Which is the exact same every other company does.
Every other computer company uses Intel GMA in the same class of laptops as the MacBook. Intel GMA is even used in $2000 laptops. Some may offer options for dedicated card but it has been shown that the far majority of laptops sold ship with Intel GMA. Which means few people take up the dedicated graphic option.
Outside of irrational cultism why do you expect Apple to act so differently?
Many pc makers use intergrated graphics on budget desktop systems. If you need a graphics card, by all means get one. But if it's not necessary for one's uses, I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like Apple doesn't offer laptops and desktops with dedicated graphics.
So the next MacBook, the rev. B, will have the same graphics? The GMA 950? I've heard it's great with video. What is it equivalent to in terms of a dedicated chip? It's better than the NVIDIA GeForce 2 Go in my rev. A 12" PB G4 or at least as good right?
Many pc makers use intergrated graphics on budget desktop systems. If you need a graphics card, by all means get one. But if it's not necessary for one's uses, I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like Apple doesn't offer laptops and desktops with dedicated graphics.
So the next MacBook, the rev. B, will have the same graphics? The GMA 950? I've heard it's great with video. What is it equivalent to in terms of a dedicated chip? It's better than the NVIDIA GeForce 2 Go in my rev. A 12" PB G4 or at least as good right?
I'm sure it sucks at video and probably isn't as good as the card in your PB. But you miss the point, shouldn't a MBP(powerbook) have a better video card than a Macbook? Of course it should.
Depends what you mean. It's no good at video scaling so picture quality when hooked up to a TV isn't as good as it could be, but if you mean in terms of speed of 2-D acceleration, this has been a non-issue for about 5 years now (i.e., all video cards have pretty much equal 2-D performance). The GPU has no bearing whatsoever on things like video editing.
Not as good as the graphics card in my PowerBook G4 from 3 YEARS ago, backtomac? That is what I was asking. It's an NVIDIA GeForce 2 Go, which basically is a GeForce MX squished in a laptop. Is a GeForce MX better than the Intel GMA 950 at anything? How would I go about comparing them?
Aurora are you serious, youre not a gamer. I mean come on if you really were you wouldnt be buying an apple. For the price of the mbp you can get xps m1710 and that should serve all of you gaming needs. I plan on getting the mb and then using the extra cash to build a good gaming desktop my self. Gaming on a laptop is jsut foolish. The only thing i would ever even consider playing on a mb is either civ 4 or flash internet games.
Not as good as the graphics card in my PowerBook G4 from 3 YEARS ago, backtomac? That is what I was asking. It's an NVIDIA GeForce 2 Go, which basically is a GeForce MX squished in a laptop. Is a GeForce MX better than the Intel GMA 950 at anything? How would I go about comparing them?
If you're expecting all components of a Macbook to be superior to that of a Powerbook(even one 3 years ago), I think you'll be disappointed. There's a reason why the Macbook is $500 cheaper.
Comments
Whats the point of a nice fast new Cpu if you are throwing in cheapo Integrated graphics that cant match the performance of real GPU's from 2- 3 years ago?
Because almost nothing apart from games requires a decent GPU.
I've got a MacBook, and I honestly don't give a shit that it's got a GMA950. I like having a fast processor because, amongst other things, it means I can compress MPEG2 to H.264 at an acceptable speed. Having a faster GPU would not improve my computing experience at all, but it would have made my computer more expensive and the battery not last as long.
I bet Apple gets some good deals from the all-inclusive Intel solution.
Apple are not using an all-inclusive Intel solution.
Because almost nothing apart from games requires a decent GPU.
I've got a MacBook, and I honestly don't give a shit that it's got a GMA950. I like having a fast processor because, amongst other things, it means I can compress MPEG2 to H.264 at an acceptable speed. Having a faster GPU would not improve my computing experience at all, but it would have made my computer more expensive and the battery not last as long.
Im happy you are so happy with the $4 graphics chip Apple uses. Maybe next year they will use a $2 chip and save you more battery life. Enjoy your compressing,sounds like lots of fun. You could be the PC guy in Apples commercials but I do notice when the Mac guy is talking about all the fun things he does on his Mac he never mentions games? I guess games arent fun?
Im happy you are so happy with the $4 graphics chip Apple uses. Maybe next year they will use a $2 chip and save you more battery life. Enjoy your compressing,sounds like lots of fun. You could be the PC guy in Apples commercials but I do notice when the Mac guy is talking about all the fun things he does on his Mac he never mentions games? I guess games arent fun?
Wow! What a well thought-out explanation as to why everyone needs a dedicated GPU. Well done.
Im happy you are so happy with the $4 graphics chip Apple uses. Maybe next year they will use a $2 chip and save you more battery life. Enjoy your compressing,sounds like lots of fun. You could be the PC guy in Apples commercials but I do notice when the Mac guy is talking about all the fun things he does on his Mac he never mentions games? I guess games arent fun?
Yes, because back when all Macs used dedicated GPUs, there were tons upon tons of great games for the Mac!
Apple are not using an all-inclusive Intel solution.
You mean the MacBook doesn't use the Intel GMA 950 for the graphics chip? And it doesn't use the 1.83GHz or 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo processor? Huh, I guess then it wouldn't be all-inclusive (in the CPU, GPU sense, which is what we were talking about).
Yes, because back when all Macs used dedicated GPUs, there were tons upon tons of great games for the Mac!
Hee-hee-hee....
Actually, I'm sure the GPU's will get better, and more games will be played better, but no matter what is put in a MacBook, someone will complain because the MacBook Pro has something better, or a bigger screen, or something that should be in the MacBook for a lower price because they don't want to fork over the money for a MBP. And even the MBP, someone will complain that Dell, three times thicker, clunkier and uglier, has something even better that sucks battery life to hell and back, but THAT GPU should be in the MBP. And then, when they finally realize what they want is a Mac Pro... they'll complain it isn't portable. Go figure.
Hee-hee-hee....
Actually, I'm sure the GPU's will get better, and more games will be played better, but no matter what is put in a MacBook, someone will complain because the MacBook Pro has something better, or a bigger screen, or something that should be in the MacBook for a lower price because they don't want to fork over the money for a MBP. And even the MBP, someone will complain that Dell, three times thicker, clunkier and uglier, has something even better that sucks battery life to hell and back, but THAT GPU should be in the MBP. And then, when they finally realize what they want is a Mac Pro... they'll complain it isn't portable. Go figure.
Fuck, I have nothing to complain about. You already did it for me...
Aurora, would it make you feel any better to know that Intel GMA is the most used graphics chip in the world?
As good as knowing most the world uses Toilet paper but that doesnt mean i want the leftovers. Most of the world drives Chevys but I sure as hell dont want one. I guess GMA950 is like that? I expect better out of Apple.
I expect better out of Apple.
Apple is a billion dollar publicly traded company. That must meet quarterly Wall Street profit predictions. They are in business do develop products and make as much profit from the sale of those products as the market will allow. Which is the exact same every other company does.
Every other computer company uses Intel GMA in the same class of laptops as the MacBook. Intel GMA is even used in $2000 laptops. Some may offer options for dedicated card but it has been shown that the far majority of laptops sold ship with Intel GMA. Which means few people take up the dedicated graphic option.
Outside of irrational cultism why do you expect Apple to act so differently?
One part that is ignored in rants about Intel GMA is the fact that it can do what previous dedicated graphics Apple used were not able. Fully supporting Core Image and full support for Aperture being two examples.
Apple is a billion dollar publicly traded company. That must meet quarterly Wall Street profit predictions. They are in business do develop products and make as much profit from the sale of those products as the market will allow. Which is the exact same every other company does.
Every other computer company uses Intel GMA in the same class of laptops as the MacBook. Intel GMA is even used in $2000 laptops. Some may offer options for dedicated card but it has been shown that the far majority of laptops sold ship with Intel GMA. Which means few people take up the dedicated graphic option.
Outside of irrational cultism why do you expect Apple to act so differently?
Many pc makers use intergrated graphics on budget desktop systems. If you need a graphics card, by all means get one. But if it's not necessary for one's uses, I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like Apple doesn't offer laptops and desktops with dedicated graphics.
Many pc makers use intergrated graphics on budget desktop systems. If you need a graphics card, by all means get one. But if it's not necessary for one's uses, I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like Apple doesn't offer laptops and desktops with dedicated graphics.
Amen, brother, amen!
So the next MacBook, the rev. B, will have the same graphics? The GMA 950? I've heard it's great with video. What is it equivalent to in terms of a dedicated chip? It's better than the NVIDIA GeForce 2 Go in my rev. A 12" PB G4 or at least as good right?
I'm sure it sucks at video and probably isn't as good as the card in your PB. But you miss the point, shouldn't a MBP(powerbook) have a better video card than a Macbook? Of course it should.
I'm sure it sucks at video
Depends what you mean. It's no good at video scaling so picture quality when hooked up to a TV isn't as good as it could be, but if you mean in terms of speed of 2-D acceleration, this has been a non-issue for about 5 years now (i.e., all video cards have pretty much equal 2-D performance). The GPU has no bearing whatsoever on things like video editing.
Not as good as the graphics card in my PowerBook G4 from 3 YEARS ago, backtomac? That is what I was asking. It's an NVIDIA GeForce 2 Go, which basically is a GeForce MX squished in a laptop. Is a GeForce MX better than the Intel GMA 950 at anything? How would I go about comparing them?
If you're expecting all components of a Macbook to be superior to that of a Powerbook(even one 3 years ago), I think you'll be disappointed. There's a reason why the Macbook is $500 cheaper.