You are correct. I have found that 99% of the "graphics card nuts" don't actually know anything about how GPUs work. All they "know" is what they have been told by other graphics card nuts. You can tell the ones who don't actually know what the specs of a GPU mean by their use of the phrase "decent" graphics "card" - they always say "decent" and they think even notebooks have a "card" in them.
I don't "get" why anyone pays any attention to graphics card specs other than for speculative purposes ie. "when card X comes out, since it will have Y vertex units, it'll probably achieve this speed".
Just read a benchmark, look at (minimum) fps at relevant settings and resolution, look at noise measurements, find prices, and you are a fully informed graphics card consumer. What do transistor and vertex unit and pipeline counts and clock frequencies matter?
You say laptops don't have cards? Some laptops do. That said, I talk about "graphics cards" even for laptops that do not in fact have any. Why? Dunno. It doesn't bother anyone except nitpickers, and them I like to piss off. "GPU" is enginerese. I am an engineer at work and in school, I don't need to be one at home.
Heck, I'm impressed that integrated MacBook graphics will run a 20-inch or 23-inch external monitor! I had to buy a new video card to do that on my PC. The only "3D" game I run is Bejeweled 2, and that runs very smoothly.
I am wondering how the graphics will compare to the CD2 Blackbook?
It's hard to find benchmarks with integrated chips because of the treatment they get from the gaming community but it seems the GF4 MX is slower than the 5200fx:
Since my GMA is faster than the 5200fx, the blackbook will certainly be graphically faster than your current laptop. I'm not certain how much faster but the CPU difference of 400% is worth the upgrade as well as Core Image, Video etc support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrowdy
The only graphics issue I might have is running Keynote and all the transitions, etc. Will the Blackbooks perform all the desired tasks? Keynote is huge for me.
No need to worry here. Keynote runs very smoothly. I just decided to stress test it a bit on my Mini and I put my CRT up to 1600x1200, made a few slides at 1600x1200 containing a few images of 1280x500 and also one with a 1920x1080p H264 trailer using effects like droplet, reflection etc. The HD trailer jittered very slightly when it started but overall it played just fine and the transitions were as smooth as silk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDel
I kept reading here how much the integrated graphics weren't great and how everyone wants dedicated graphics. But then I loaded bootcamp with Windows XP and installed the current game I'm playing, Fable: The Lost Chapters and was surprised to find it runs fine.
I think the big point is that it depends on the overall system and that's what we shouldn't forget whether we are defending or criticizing integrated graphics. The current Mac lineup only gets by because the processors and overall systems are so fast. If they had dedicated GPUs then we'd see even faster performance:
In summary, integrated graphics are acceptable when they are inside fast machines and certainly shouldn't be dismissed as unusable but they are still among the lowest performing dedicated chips and Apple offering a mid range option would go a long way.
I think the biggest concern people had was that the integrated graphics would actually be slower than the old low-end PPC machines and I actually assumed they were judging by some of the benchmark tables posted online before I actually tested them myself but they most certainly aren't.
Comments
You are correct. I have found that 99% of the "graphics card nuts" don't actually know anything about how GPUs work. All they "know" is what they have been told by other graphics card nuts. You can tell the ones who don't actually know what the specs of a GPU mean by their use of the phrase "decent" graphics "card" - they always say "decent" and they think even notebooks have a "card" in them.
I don't "get" why anyone pays any attention to graphics card specs other than for speculative purposes ie. "when card X comes out, since it will have Y vertex units, it'll probably achieve this speed".
Just read a benchmark, look at (minimum) fps at relevant settings and resolution, look at noise measurements, find prices, and you are a fully informed graphics card consumer. What do transistor and vertex unit and pipeline counts and clock frequencies matter?
You say laptops don't have cards? Some laptops do. That said, I talk about "graphics cards" even for laptops that do not in fact have any. Why? Dunno. It doesn't bother anyone except nitpickers, and them I like to piss off. "GPU" is enginerese. I am an engineer at work and in school, I don't need to be one at home.
My current machine: 17" 1GHZ PB.
Graphics: Chipset Model
Type
Bus
VRAM (Total)
I am wondering how the graphics will compare to the CD2 Blackbook?
It's hard to find benchmarks with integrated chips because of the treatment they get from the gaming community but it seems the GF4 MX is slower than the 5200fx:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797&p=6
Since my GMA is faster than the 5200fx, the blackbook will certainly be graphically faster than your current laptop. I'm not certain how much faster but the CPU difference of 400% is worth the upgrade as well as Core Image, Video etc support.
The only graphics issue I might have is running Keynote and all the transitions, etc. Will the Blackbooks perform all the desired tasks? Keynote is huge for me.
No need to worry here. Keynote runs very smoothly. I just decided to stress test it a bit on my Mini and I put my CRT up to 1600x1200, made a few slides at 1600x1200 containing a few images of 1280x500 and also one with a 1920x1080p H264 trailer using effects like droplet, reflection etc. The HD trailer jittered very slightly when it started but overall it played just fine and the transitions were as smooth as silk.
I kept reading here how much the integrated graphics weren't great and how everyone wants dedicated graphics. But then I loaded bootcamp with Windows XP and installed the current game I'm playing, Fable: The Lost Chapters and was surprised to find it runs fine.
I think the big point is that it depends on the overall system and that's what we shouldn't forget whether we are defending or criticizing integrated graphics. The current Mac lineup only gets by because the processors and overall systems are so fast. If they had dedicated GPUs then we'd see even faster performance:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=1
In summary, integrated graphics are acceptable when they are inside fast machines and certainly shouldn't be dismissed as unusable but they are still among the lowest performing dedicated chips and Apple offering a mid range option would go a long way.
I think the biggest concern people had was that the integrated graphics would actually be slower than the old low-end PPC machines and I actually assumed they were judging by some of the benchmark tables posted online before I actually tested them myself but they most certainly aren't.