The X3000 is mediocre
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2...5/index.x?pg=1
This is what future Mac Mini and likely MacBook models will sport. While the X3000 is a definite leap over the atrocious 950, it is still sub-par and will hardly handle all of the GUI features of Vista and Leopard.
At least there will be faster CPUs and higher capacity hard disks to look forward to. Most $1000 laptops now come with 160Gb or larger HDDs, DVD burners, and 1Gb Ram, but like Apple, almost all of these models use Intel graphics
This is what future Mac Mini and likely MacBook models will sport. While the X3000 is a definite leap over the atrocious 950, it is still sub-par and will hardly handle all of the GUI features of Vista and Leopard.
At least there will be faster CPUs and higher capacity hard disks to look forward to. Most $1000 laptops now come with 160Gb or larger HDDs, DVD burners, and 1Gb Ram, but like Apple, almost all of these models use Intel graphics
Comments
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2...5/index.x?pg=1
This is what future Mac Mini and likely MacBook models will sport. While the X3000 is a definite leap over the atrocious 950, it is still sub-par and will hardly handle all of the GUI features of Vista and Leopard.
At least there will be faster CPUs and higher capacity hard disks to look forward to. Most $1000 laptops now come with 160Gb or larger HDDs, DVD burners, and 1Gb Ram, but like Apple, almost all of these models use Intel graphics
don't be hating on the integrated graphics. the gma 950 is just fine and will definetly be great for leopard. apple would not leave its currently best selling computer (macbook) to be rendered useless for leopard. the x3000 will be bounds better than the 950 and be great. integrated tech. is getting much better and will be the best option in time for mobile platforms due to less heat and power consumption.
why can't Intel have a chip with some of it's own ram with it takeing the rest form the system ram. Like some of the low end ATI and Nvidia video cards.
The apple TV has a video card 64 megs of it's own ram.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2...5/index.x?pg=1
This is what future Mac Mini and likely MacBook models will sport. While the X3000 is a definite leap over the atrocious 950, it is still sub-par and will hardly handle all of the GUI features of Vista and Leopard.
At least there will be faster CPUs and higher capacity hard disks to look forward to. Most $1000 laptops now come with 160Gb or larger HDDs, DVD burners, and 1Gb Ram, but like Apple, almost all of these models use Intel graphics
Sub par according to whom? Do youn have any real reason or evidence to support your claim that it will be inadequate, or your claim about it not handling the GUI features of Vista and Leopard?
We've seen these kind of posts for years. You're likely a college kid complaining about lacking features and performance you don't actually need anyway.
"When the hell is Apple going to get with the program and offer a 3.0 GHZ MacBook Pro costing $1500 that includes Leopard, iLife, iWork, a 512MB graphics card, a 32X DVD burner, 10 hour battery, LED backlight, and 3.5 lb weight? I'm never impressed with Apple anymore!"
While the X3000 is a definite leap over the atrocious 950, it is still sub-par
There were benchmarks a while ago putting the X3000 around 700-1000 in 3DMark06. I had hoped as the drivers got better that would improve but this benchmark gets 660. The Radeon x1300 gets around 1000. Dell offers either that card or the x1400 (which is a fair bit faster again) for less than Apple. Paying more for Apple's stuff, you expect more in return. I really want to see them go back to dedicated cards. Integrated cards perform adequately for general use but they cheapen the brand and the compatibility issues are just a pain in the ass. We never had any sort of problems with the PPCs with dedicated cards but we get interface glitches here and there and software refusing to work because the integrated chips don't have even basic features.
and will hardly handle all of the GUI features of Vista and Leopard.
That's just hardware accelerated compositing. It's not as demanding as 3D acceleration, which is where the low end cards really struggle. The GMA 950 and up should be fine.
"The GMA X3000's problems don't end with 3D performance, either. Intel's Clear Video processing suite also has issues, including choppy 1080p WMV HD playback and lower scores in HQV's DVD playback tests than competing solutions."
HD playback might be important to more than just gamers, perhaps? GPU T&L and Shader processing are becoming very important in basic GUI usage, not just gaming. Without at least 2Gb of Ram to boost the video memory to 128Mb, the 950 can't even do Aero at 1.3 megapixels, so how is that "adequate?"
Do YOU have any evidence that the X3000 or the 950 is adequate when the latter can't even handle all of the Core Animation and Core Image features?
Don't make ridiculous assumptions about people: "You're likely a college kid complaining about lacking features and performance you don't actually need anyway."
For one thing, college "kids" would want features like 3D gaming, and any thinking person would like to think that a $1000 laptop can playback HD video without any problems.
There were benchmarks a while ago putting the X3000 around 700-1000 in 3DMark06. I had hoped as the drivers got better that would improve but this benchmark gets 660. The Radeon x1300 gets around 1000. Dell offers either that card or the x1400 (which is a fair bit faster again) for less than Apple. Paying more for Apple's stuff, you expect more in return. I really want to see them go back to dedicated cards. Integrated cards perform adequately for general use but they cheapen the brand and the compatibility issues are just a pain in the ass. We never had any sort of problems with the PPCs with dedicated cards but we get interface glitches here and there and software refusing to work because the integrated chips don't have even basic features.
That's just hardware accelerated compositing. It's not as demanding as 3D acceleration, which is where the low end cards really struggle. The GMA 950 and up should be fine.
Good post marvin. You got me interested in this topic and I'm not even looking for a MacBook. If intel integrated graphics processors are not cutting it Apple is going to have to do something damn quick. The MacBook is IMO their entry level Mac - more so than the Mini, which will also need graphics support for Apples most highly praised entry level Apps in the iLife suite. Maybe they need to move away from integrated graphics and into something new such as a dedicated graphics processing. They can forget about a mac Tablet being a huge hit unless it can handle graphics processing of artist applications like Photoshop and Painter. A graphics card seems big, but maybe it was premature to start transitioning to these integrated graphics units before they were capable of handling the workload of their users. Mac users are quite used to using multiple applications at once especially artists. It sounds to me that maybe Apple jumped the gun, or maybe they need to try a new approach. Because nowadays everything is about graphics processing IMO. While graphics power is getting increasingly more important Apple is, and has been, slouching in graphics for everything regardless IMO anyway - even the Mac Book Pro. You would think the Mac Book Pro would have an optional GeForce Go 7950 GTX or something.
There were benchmarks a while ago putting the X3000 around 700-1000 in 3DMark06. I had hoped as the drivers got better that would improve but this benchmark gets 660. The Radeon x1300 gets around 1000.
The problem with the X3000 is that it achieves a half decent (not by my standards) score because of its high pixel fill rate, while the vertex shader scores are well below the last generation of integrated graphics from nVidia, AMD, and ATi.
The X3000's idle power consumption is TERRIBLE compared to the other GPUs in its class, and while its full load rates are about equivalent to the 690G, most Mac Mini and Macbook users will hardly be using their Macs at full load very often. There explodes the "low heat" myth of Intel GPUs.
These complaints are, however, moot if Apple decides to use low-end dedicated chips from ATi or nVidia.
Currently the Vertex Shader functions are being emulated in CPU which results in much lower performance.
The driver suppose to fix things with Clear Video and much better for gaming.
After the Getting Vertex function working then Intel will start to tweak and iron out bugs with the X3000 drivers. This when compare to Nvidia and ATI offering which had many years to work on their drivers, x3000 does seem to have a bright future.
Although that will depends on when Intel will release new driver. Last time i read it was suppose to be Mid - late April.
Did you read the article? I guess not.
"The GMA X3000's problems don't end with 3D performance, either. Intel's Clear Video processing suite also has issues, including choppy 1080p WMV HD playback and lower scores in HQV's DVD playback tests than competing solutions."
HD playback might be important to more than just gamers, perhaps?
Irrelevant, because Apple doesn't use GPU-integrated decoding.
Irrelevant, because Apple doesn't use GPU-integrated decoding.
Even if this is true, and I highly doubt that it is, other software makers certainly do. VLC, DivX, Flip4Mac to name just a few.
For the Mini to get decent 1080i playback on VLC, around 2Gb of Ram is almost mandatory.
Read the article and benches and it's clear that the X3000 part contains a lot of potential.
Things Apple will have to address with Intel's help.
1. OpenGL performance. It's clear from the benches that this card shows an affinity for Microsoft applications and DirectX. The OpenGL performance stunk and that's not going to cut it under OS X.
2. Power consumption. Apple likes to keep their laptops think and that means you can't have a power hungry GPU causing cooling problems. I hope Intel addresses this as the GPU in Leopard will be under constant use.
The video stuff is irrelevant as Chucker stated. Apple funnels this stuff through Quicktime and would likely use the CPU for decoding.
Let's not trivialize things. The 6150 Nvidia chipset has been out for a while and had driver improvements. The x3000 hasn't had the same maturation time. The specs aren't lying to us..it has the potential to do very well ...as will most hardware, optimizing the drivers is not an overnight thing. Let's hope that Intel and Apple engineers have spent some quality time getting to know each other.
What about a low end video chip with it's own ram?
why can't Intel have a chip with some of it's own ram with it takeing the rest form the system ram. Like some of the low end ATI and Nvidia video cards.
The apple TV has a video card 64 megs of it's own ram.
what? no request for a mid range headless mac, joe?
Even if this is true, and I highly doubt that it is, other software makers certainly do. VLC, DivX, Flip4Mac to name just a few.
For the Mini to get decent 1080i playback on VLC, around 2Gb of Ram is almost mandatory.
Unless that Mini is hooked up to 24" Cinema Display, it wouldn't matter anyway. The Mini wasn't MEANT to be a HD playing computer. It's the ENTRY level system. Meaning it does what it needs to get by. Nothing more. If you want the best HD experience, go buy a HDTV and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player.
And Chucker is right, Apple doesn't use the GPU for decoding. It uses the GPU for Quartz Extreme, but doesn't use the GPU for video decoding.
But to alleviate any concerns you might have, Apple has been on the forefront of pushing the HD experience. The PowerMacs and MacPro's have been encoding movies at HD for sometime now with the Pro Apps. So if and when the world needs the lowest of the low end machines to do HD, Apple will address it.
High Definition is still considered by the majority of people to be "on the high end" and "for the rich". It's something of a luxury item. Like the iPod was 5 years ago. Let it catch on first.
San Francisco (CA) - Intel is trying to convince entry-level gamers to accept integrated graphics with a new hardware vertex shader for its G965 graphics chip. At the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, the company showed off some demos of popular first person shooters on the chip and also challenged journalists to pick out the integrated graphics-powered computer against a computer running a discrete card.
Nick Knupffer, PR Manager for Intel, showed off a beta hardware vertex driver that should speed up many first-person shooters. Time demos of Call of Duty 2 and Half-Life 2 Episode One were played and we saw that the G965 chip averaged around 30 to 60 frames per second. We did notice a few cases of slowness during some of the more complicated scenes, but Knupffer told us that this "Four dollar" integrated solution would still please most people.
Knupffer was quick to point out that integrated still won't replace discrete graphics cards anytime soon and added, "People who need extra power will still buy a discrete card." He also said that Intel is positioning the G965 graphics chip at running the most popular games, not necessarily the most graphically intensive games.
But the G965 isn't just getting a breath of fresh air on the games front. Company reps also showed us improved video de-interlacing with its ClearVideo technology. In a side-by-side comparison with a similarly configured computer running an ATI X1600 chip, an Intel integrated graphics-powered computer showed less jaggies and smooth playback in the HQV flag demo.
Knupffer told us that premium video players like Cyberlink can call up special routines in the chip to enhance video playback. We were quite surprised at how prominent the jaggies were on the discrete ATI X1600-powered machine and we quickly verified that it was using the latest Catalyst drivers and that the video file was the same format, resolution and size.
The new driver is in the final testing stages and Intel plans on releasing it on the company website soon.
As previously reported, the G965 chipset will be supporting DirectX 10.
Come on how are we going to slam this GPU when the drivers to enable Hardware T&L and Vertex shaders aren't available outside of Intel's beta labs. If we owned PCs we'd have the right but with no Macs using this chipset it's all for naught.
Not bad for a $4 solution provided Intel gets those drivers out.
Even if this is true, and I highly doubt that it is, other software makers certainly do. VLC, DivX, Flip4Mac to name just a few.
For the Mini to get decent 1080i playback on VLC, around 2Gb of Ram is almost mandatory.
While the Apple TV uses the GeForce's H.264 decoding, and while several older Macs used a dedicated chip for MPEG-2 decoding, no current Intel Mac uses the GMA 950's, MR X1600's, etc. video decoding. The H.264 decoder that ships with QuickTime 7 simply doesn't implement it. The H.264 decoder in the Apple TV is custom-built to account for the GeForce's capabilities.
Do YOU have any evidence that the X3000 or the 950 is adequate when the latter can't even handle all of the Core Animation and Core Image features?
Apple seem to be suggesting that the machines with GMA chips will fully support Core Animation. They say that Core Animation will work on any chip that supports Core Image and the GMA supports Core Image - I know it struggles sometimes but reports suggest they've done a bit of optimization in Leopard. It would be very stupid of them to release a system-level technology that doesn't work well on the largest portion of their customer base. Of course, it was stupid of them to use the chips in the first place, so we'll have to wait and see.
Maybe they need to move away from integrated graphics and into something new such as a dedicated graphics processing. They can forget about a mac Tablet being a huge hit unless it can handle graphics processing of artist applications like Photoshop and Painter.
Those programs are ok at the moment because they are CPU based but certainly for artists with high resolution displays, the integrated chips don't hold up very well. Adding resolution independence into the mix could cause more problems.
What's so annoying is that they put dedicated chips in their Apple TV. I'm still in shock over that. They screw over their loyal computer base but give away good chips in a new product to a completely new set of customers.
Check this list and compare the GMA 950 (Mini, Macbook) to the Geforce go 7300 (Apple TV):
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...00.2145.0.html
3Dmark06 for GMA = 170
3Dmark06 for go 7300 = 700
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=290096
Now, like I say if the X3000 can top that and it's cheaper then it won't be quite so bad but the fact that they have managed to put these dedicated chips into a £199 device and won't put them into £400+ computers is very disappointing. I know the CPUs in the Apple TV are much slower but I would be interested to see someone test the 3D performance of an Apple TV vs a Mini now that OS X runs on it:
http://www.appletvhacks.net/2007/04/...g-on-apple-tv/
Tomshardware recently report that Intel has a developing driver for x3000 that will boost the performance by a large margin.
That's good to hear. Let's hope it's a big jump. People who have had the x3000 chipset have been waiting more than a year for some decent drivers.
Don't make ridiculous assumptions about people: "You're likely a college kid complaining about lacking features and performance you don't actually need anyway."
For one thing, college "kids" would want features like 3D gaming, and any thinking person would like to think that a $1000 laptop can playback HD video without any problems.
So you're saying you're in high school. That's fine. Anyway, probably 98% of college kids don't play many 3D games on their computers. Yes, that's a guess, but if you do the research I bet you'll find that it's quite accurate.
The reason why people are giving you stick is because there's nothing we can do about this. low end macs will continue to have integrated graphics. Darn. The benefit is reduced cost and a simpler/smaller board, which in all honesty befit the mini and macbook.
So you're saying you're in high school. That's fine. Anyway, probably 98% of college kids don't play many 3D games on their computers. Yes, that's a guess, but if you do the research I bet you'll find that it's quite accurate.
The reason why people are giving you stick is because there's nothing we can do about this. low end macs will continue to have integrated graphics. Darn. The benefit is reduced cost and a simpler/smaller board, which in all honesty befit the mini and macbook.
Agreed. I'm a college student and no one that I know here plays games on there laptop beyond the occasional game of chess or solitare. To be quite honest, we don't have time to be playing games. And when we do get time, it's usually a 5 minute session of some party game on a PS2 or Xbox. Not on a computer. Computers are for working.
However, it would be nice to at least see more than 64Mb available to the card though.
Agreed. I'm a college student and no one that I know here plays games on there laptop beyond the occasional game of chess or solitare. To be quite honest, we don't have time to be playing games. And when we do get time, it's usually a 5 minute session of some party game on a PS2 or Xbox. Not on a computer. Computers are for working.
I play games on my laptop! When I can't be bothered to take my G5 to a LAN party, anyhow
And my aging 12" G4 (32MB VRAM) still manages Warcraft 3 and UT2k4. But then, so does a MacBook - I've seen them running on one.
I think the "No games" thing is a bit exaggerated. Some games may not work, but it's a stretch to say that none of them do.