I hate integrated graphics but I don't recall ever reading which current graphic card (from ATE or nVidia) Intel's current integrated graphic system compares to.
I hate integrated graphics but I don't recall ever reading which current graphic card (from ATE or nVidia) Intel's current integrated graphic system compares to.
Anybody have any idea?
It depends though. The chip is crap but it performs quite well inside the Intel machines. So even though the chip would probably be worse than the Radeon 9200 in the old machines, the graphics are still faster in the new machines than in the old G4s.
The lack of features is really what's killing it. Take for example Maya hardware rendering. My old Radeon 7500 was supported on my ancient G3. The GMA isn't supported.
It depends though. The chip is crap but it performs quite well inside the Intel machines. So even though the chip would probably be worse than the Radeon 9200 in the old machines, the graphics are still faster in the new machines than in the old G4s.
The lack of features is really what's killing it. Take for example Maya hardware rendering. My old Radeon 7500 was supported on my ancient G3. The GMA isn't supported.
The GMA 950 is actually about twice as fast as the Radeon 9200.
The GMA 950 is actually about twice as fast as the Radeon 9200.
I doubt that with the two chips in the same machine that the GMA will be faster. If you use hardware transform and lighting, the Radeon 9200 supports it and it runs about an order of magnitude faster than software T&L.
You can't play Splinter Cell on low with a GMA but you can play it at medium on a 9200 and get 25fps+.
I doubt that with the two chips in the same machine that the GMA will be faster. If you use hardware transform and lighting, the Radeon 9200 supports it and it runs about an order of magnitude faster than software T&L.
You can't play Splinter Cell on low with a GMA but you can play it at medium on a 9200 and get 25fps+.
But is that because the GMA can't handle it or because Splinter Cell won't support it?
Because while the GMA 950 can't handle hardware T&L, current dual core CPU's can generally handle it fine, particularly if the game isn't threaded.
It's almost always the fill rate that's the limit in games, and that's where I got the "twice as fast" from.
I doubt that with the two chips in the same machine that the GMA will be faster. If you use hardware transform and lighting, the Radeon 9200 supports it and it runs about an order of magnitude faster than software T&L.
You can't play Splinter Cell on low with a GMA but you can play it at medium on a 9200 and get 25fps+.
That's hogwash.
I play Splinter Cell and Far Cry on GMA 950 without any problems on my Fujitsu notebook. Just have to have the latest Intel drivers.
T&L is handled fine by the modern processors. Not that much overhead.
but after some real world testing concluded that it doesn't always translate to better performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skatman
That's hogwash.
I play Splinter Cell and Far Cry on GMA 950 without any problems on my Fujitsu notebook. Just have to have the latest Intel drivers.
T&L is handled fine by the modern processors. Not that much overhead.
Perhaps I should have said it doesn't play properly on my Mac Mini with GMA card in it. I tested both the Mac version (which admittedly is under Rosetta) and the Windows version and the environments updated very quickly i.e when rotating the view. But as soon as I or other characters moved, it slowed to a crawl. After moving a little while, I heard my fans kick in so I presumed my CPU was maxing out. If I can get newer drivers for the GMA on the Windows side for my computer, I will try them out.
I hate integrated graphics but I don't recall ever reading which current graphic card (from ATE or nVidia) Intel's current integrated graphic system compares to.
Anybody have any idea?
- Mark
the proud user of intel integrated graphics is that one indicated by the red pointer
In every gaming benchmark, the GMA 950 performs worse than even the integrated solutions from Nvidia/ATI, even Nvidia Turbocache and ATI Hypermemory cards (those cards do have actually video RAM, as well as being able to share system RAM) trounce it.
So are these two featured discrete graphics technologies a step up from current integrated offerings? The answer is a resounding yes, as both NVIDIA and ATI have successfully converted their existing graphics architectures to new price points that directly compete with Intel’s integrated graphics. By looking at the performance numbers, and even the driver support both companies offer for their graphics products, upgrading from integrated graphics really is a no-brainer: it’s cheap enough for everyone to do it. The truth is, Intel’s 945G has been out for almost a month and still the chipset doesn’t support Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory!
The bottom line is that NVIDIA’s TurboCache outperforms ATI’s HyperMemory technology. The XFX GeForce 6200TC 128MB featuring a 64-bit memory interface was noticeably faster than the ATI RADEON X300SE 128MB in most of our gaming benchmarks, that coupled with the extra features incorporated in the 6200TC GPU, give NVIDIA the upper hand in the latest standoff between the two graphics giants.
My problem with integrated graphics is that they also use up a bit of your system RAM as well, although they are OK for non-demanding tasks, but in general something I turn my nose at.
I play Splinter Cell and Far Cry on GMA 950 without any problems on my Fujitsu notebook. Just have to have the latest Intel drivers.
T&L is handled fine by the modern processors. Not that much overhead.
Ok, I sorted the issue. It was the same thing with Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil and Deus Ex 2. A few games don't like dual processors. Once I set the affinity to 1, it let me put the settings up to maximum and it runs fine. I keep the effects on low because it slows down when you hit some volumetric lighting but it looks good enough.
I still don't like the GMA though. Even if it's faster than the Radeon 9200, it still lacks a great deal of support in applications. The Shake interface has scrolling issues. 3D apps are affected - Maya hardware rendering isn't supported and texture views all screw up. I wouldn't have expected Apple to use the 9200 anyway given how old it is. They should have gone with something like a Radeon X1400 mobility. This is only half the speed of the X1600 whereas the GMA is less than 1/10th the speed. It likely wouldn't have added more than $50 to the price.
In every gaming benchmark, the GMA 950 performs worse than even the integrated solutions from Nvidia/ATI, even Nvidia Turbocache and ATI Hypermemory cards (those cards do have actually video RAM, as well as being able to share system RAM) trounce it.
So are these two featured discrete graphics technologies a step up from current integrated offerings? The answer is a resounding yes, as both NVIDIA and ATI have successfully converted their existing graphics architectures to new price points that directly compete with Intel?s integrated graphics. By looking at the performance numbers, and even the driver support both companies offer for their graphics products, upgrading from integrated graphics really is a no-brainer: it?s cheap enough for everyone to do it. The truth is, Intel?s 945G has been out for almost a month and still the chipset doesn?t support Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory!
The bottom line is that NVIDIA?s TurboCache outperforms ATI?s HyperMemory technology. The XFX GeForce 6200TC 128MB featuring a 64-bit memory interface was noticeably faster than the ATI RADEON X300SE 128MB in most of our gaming benchmarks, that coupled with the extra features incorporated in the 6200TC GPU, give NVIDIA the upper hand in the latest standoff between the two graphics giants.
My problem with integrated graphics is that they also use up a bit of your system RAM as well, although they are OK for non-demanding tasks, but in general something I turn my nose at.
You do realize that the GMA945A and GMA950 are different chipsets, right? Re-read the FiringSquad article.
Bullsmuck,GMA 950 is pure crap but what do you expect from a $5.oo chip. A 9200 mated to a highspeed Intel cpu would melt the pants off crapo integrated cheapass graphics. I had a G4 mini 1.42 with a 9200 and a mini with integrated cheapo graphics and there was almost no difference. If the 9200 had a new intel chip it would have looked much better then the integrated crap. Apple scewed us all going to integrated garbage.
Marvin, there is no doubt that, for gaming, current Intel solutions are not the ideal solution. But they were never meant to be. They're meant mostly for multimedia, office apps, very low power consumption, low heat, and easy integration as well as light casual gaming. And that is does very well, IMHO.
Compatibility problems are rather expected because games are never written strictly by the rules of the accepted API... rather they often take hardware/ platfrom specific short cuts. Games are written for Ati or Invidia GFX hardware.
That is one of the big reasons why no other company has been able to break in to the GFX market lately, although a few tried and had very decent hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I still don't like the GMA though. Even if it's faster than the Radeon 9200, it still lacks a great deal of support in applications. The Shake interface has scrolling issues. 3D apps are affected - Maya hardware rendering isn't supported and texture views all screw up. I wouldn't have expected Apple to use the 9200 anyway given how old it is. They should have gone with something like a Radeon X1400 mobility. This is only half the speed of the X1600 whereas the GMA is less than 1/10th the speed. It likely wouldn't have added more than $50 to the price.
Marvin, there is no doubt that, for gaming, current Intel solutions are not the ideal solution. But they were never meant to be. They're meant mostly for multimedia, office apps, very low power consumption, low heat, and easy integration as well as light casual gaming. And that is does very well, IMHO.
Compatibility problems are rather expected because games are never written strictly by the rules of the accepted API... rather they often take hardware/ platfrom specific short cuts. Games are written for Ati or Invidia GFX hardware.
That is one of the big reasons why no other company has been able to break in to the GFX market lately, although a few tried and had very decent hardware.
You're right, for what the GMA is designed for, it performs pretty well. I think what most people have a problem with is that we expect more from Apple when we pay so much money for it. An $800 desktop machine just shouldn't come with integrated graphics with no upgrade options or 512MB Ram for that matter.
Also, if integrated graphics were adequate then why bother using X1600 chips in the iMacs? Why give them the option to have a faster GPU and not the Mini owners? Why give them Core 2 Duo chips and not us? It seems to me it's because they are crippling their lineup deliberately to sell more iMacs. That's up to them to do that but I look at them very differently when they do things like that.
Also, heat, power etc is not an issue. If they can put these chips in a laptop, they can go into a Mini. They had dedicated chips in the old Mini so there is no excuse.
I still don't like the GMA though. Even if it's faster than the Radeon 9200, it still lacks a great deal of support in applications. The Shake interface has scrolling issues. 3D apps are affected - Maya hardware rendering isn't supported and texture views all screw up.
Shake & Maya just aren't the type of products I'd expect a consumer computer to support.
I agree that Apple's hardware strategy can be a real pain.
Shake & Maya just aren't the type of products I'd expect a consumer computer to support.
I agree that Apple's hardware strategy can be a real pain.
I think Apple are really going to have to start blurring the boundary between their idea of consumers and professionals. Their laptop lineup really highlights how this simplistic way of categorizing users just isn't working any more. As a lot of professionals have discovered, the difference between a MB and MBP really amounts to very little - A better GPU, a higher screen res and some extras like FW800. For double the price, this just isn't worth it a lot of the time and it's why I think the MBs are selling so well.
The BTO way of working like Dell use is far more appealling to end users because it's easier to see what you are paying for and I really think Apple would make a lot more sales if they increased their range of options. That's why I found it extremely funny that they said they had millions of configurations for their Mac Pro to make out as though Apple are giving people choice. In all of their machines, they offer less choice than any PC manufacturer I've seen.
I think Apple are really going to have to start blurring the boundary between their idea of consumers and professionals. Their laptop lineup really highlights how this simplistic way of categorizing users just isn't working any more. As a lot of professionals have discovered, the difference between a MB and MBP really amounts to very little - A better GPU, a higher screen res and some extras like FW800. For double the price, this just isn't worth it a lot of the time and it's why I think the MBs are selling so well.
While I don't doubt that pros are using them, I really don't think pro use is pushing a significant amount of MacBook sales. I'm pretty sure it's selling well because it's the cheapest Mac notebook, with the graphics being the biggest detractor to the package, but otherwise fairly solid for what it is and its price. I don't think a person that's going to be using a collection of software that costs several thousand dollars a seat is really going to balk at paying more for a machine to run it well. For a pro user, the extra clock speed, the larger screens and so on would probably more than pay for itself over the life of the unit in productivity.
As it is, getting the specs of a base MB as close to a MBP as possible netted a price of $1375, and that's still two CPU speed notches below MBP and half the CPU cache of the MBP, with no card slot, no backlit keyboard, only one Firewire channel, smaller screen, much slower graphics, no DVD writer. When all that is put together, it really doesn't look like such a great disparity with in the model line it does initially.
Comments
Keep in mind that it's not the integrated-ness of the chip that sucks, just the chip itself. Apparently, the 3000 will be pretty nice.
I hate integrated graphics but I don't recall ever reading which current graphic card (from ATE or nVidia) Intel's current integrated graphic system compares to.
Anybody have any idea?
It depends though. The chip is crap but it performs quite well inside the Intel machines. So even though the chip would probably be worse than the Radeon 9200 in the old machines, the graphics are still faster in the new machines than in the old G4s.
The lack of features is really what's killing it. Take for example Maya hardware rendering. My old Radeon 7500 was supported on my ancient G3. The GMA isn't supported.
It depends though. The chip is crap but it performs quite well inside the Intel machines. So even though the chip would probably be worse than the Radeon 9200 in the old machines, the graphics are still faster in the new machines than in the old G4s.
The lack of features is really what's killing it. Take for example Maya hardware rendering. My old Radeon 7500 was supported on my ancient G3. The GMA isn't supported.
The GMA 950 is actually about twice as fast as the Radeon 9200.
The GMA 950 is actually about twice as fast as the Radeon 9200.
I doubt that with the two chips in the same machine that the GMA will be faster. If you use hardware transform and lighting, the Radeon 9200 supports it and it runs about an order of magnitude faster than software T&L.
You can't play Splinter Cell on low with a GMA but you can play it at medium on a 9200 and get 25fps+.
I doubt that with the two chips in the same machine that the GMA will be faster. If you use hardware transform and lighting, the Radeon 9200 supports it and it runs about an order of magnitude faster than software T&L.
You can't play Splinter Cell on low with a GMA but you can play it at medium on a 9200 and get 25fps+.
But is that because the GMA can't handle it or because Splinter Cell won't support it?
Because while the GMA 950 can't handle hardware T&L, current dual core CPU's can generally handle it fine, particularly if the game isn't threaded.
It's almost always the fill rate that's the limit in games, and that's where I got the "twice as fast" from.
I doubt that with the two chips in the same machine that the GMA will be faster. If you use hardware transform and lighting, the Radeon 9200 supports it and it runs about an order of magnitude faster than software T&L.
You can't play Splinter Cell on low with a GMA but you can play it at medium on a 9200 and get 25fps+.
That's hogwash.
I play Splinter Cell and Far Cry on GMA 950 without any problems on my Fujitsu notebook. Just have to have the latest Intel drivers.
T&L is handled fine by the modern processors. Not that much overhead.
Because while the GMA 950 can't handle hardware T&L, current dual core CPU's can generally handle it fine, particularly if the game isn't threaded.
True, I've found a lot of hardware T&L games to play just fine though some show graphical glitches.
It's almost always the fill rate that's the limit in games, and that's where I got the "twice as fast" from.
They noted that on this site too:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1821813,00.asp
but after some real world testing concluded that it doesn't always translate to better performance.
That's hogwash.
I play Splinter Cell and Far Cry on GMA 950 without any problems on my Fujitsu notebook. Just have to have the latest Intel drivers.
T&L is handled fine by the modern processors. Not that much overhead.
Perhaps I should have said it doesn't play properly on my Mac Mini with GMA card in it. I tested both the Mac version (which admittedly is under Rosetta) and the Windows version and the environments updated very quickly i.e when rotating the view. But as soon as I or other characters moved, it slowed to a crawl. After moving a little while, I heard my fans kick in so I presumed my CPU was maxing out. If I can get newer drivers for the GMA on the Windows side for my computer, I will try them out.
I hate integrated graphics but I don't recall ever reading which current graphic card (from ATE or nVidia) Intel's current integrated graphic system compares to.
Anybody have any idea?
- Mark
the proud user of intel integrated graphics is that one indicated by the red pointer
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=1
http://www.firingsquad.com/print_art...rticle_id=1679
Even the x3000 isn't much better.
From the Firing Squad article:
So are these two featured discrete graphics technologies a step up from current integrated offerings? The answer is a resounding yes, as both NVIDIA and ATI have successfully converted their existing graphics architectures to new price points that directly compete with Intel’s integrated graphics. By looking at the performance numbers, and even the driver support both companies offer for their graphics products, upgrading from integrated graphics really is a no-brainer: it’s cheap enough for everyone to do it. The truth is, Intel’s 945G has been out for almost a month and still the chipset doesn’t support Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory!
The bottom line is that NVIDIA’s TurboCache outperforms ATI’s HyperMemory technology. The XFX GeForce 6200TC 128MB featuring a 64-bit memory interface was noticeably faster than the ATI RADEON X300SE 128MB in most of our gaming benchmarks, that coupled with the extra features incorporated in the 6200TC GPU, give NVIDIA the upper hand in the latest standoff between the two graphics giants.
My problem with integrated graphics is that they also use up a bit of your system RAM as well, although they are OK for non-demanding tasks, but in general something I turn my nose at.
That's hogwash.
I play Splinter Cell and Far Cry on GMA 950 without any problems on my Fujitsu notebook. Just have to have the latest Intel drivers.
T&L is handled fine by the modern processors. Not that much overhead.
Ok, I sorted the issue. It was the same thing with Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil and Deus Ex 2. A few games don't like dual processors. Once I set the affinity to 1, it let me put the settings up to maximum and it runs fine. I keep the effects on low because it slows down when you hit some volumetric lighting but it looks good enough.
I still don't like the GMA though. Even if it's faster than the Radeon 9200, it still lacks a great deal of support in applications. The Shake interface has scrolling issues. 3D apps are affected - Maya hardware rendering isn't supported and texture views all screw up. I wouldn't have expected Apple to use the 9200 anyway given how old it is. They should have gone with something like a Radeon X1400 mobility. This is only half the speed of the X1600 whereas the GMA is less than 1/10th the speed. It likely wouldn't have added more than $50 to the price.
In every gaming benchmark, the GMA 950 performs worse than even the integrated solutions from Nvidia/ATI, even Nvidia Turbocache and ATI Hypermemory cards (those cards do have actually video RAM, as well as being able to share system RAM) trounce it.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=1
http://www.firingsquad.com/print_art...rticle_id=1679
Even the x3000 isn't much better.
From the Firing Squad article:
So are these two featured discrete graphics technologies a step up from current integrated offerings? The answer is a resounding yes, as both NVIDIA and ATI have successfully converted their existing graphics architectures to new price points that directly compete with Intel?s integrated graphics. By looking at the performance numbers, and even the driver support both companies offer for their graphics products, upgrading from integrated graphics really is a no-brainer: it?s cheap enough for everyone to do it. The truth is, Intel?s 945G has been out for almost a month and still the chipset doesn?t support Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory!
The bottom line is that NVIDIA?s TurboCache outperforms ATI?s HyperMemory technology. The XFX GeForce 6200TC 128MB featuring a 64-bit memory interface was noticeably faster than the ATI RADEON X300SE 128MB in most of our gaming benchmarks, that coupled with the extra features incorporated in the 6200TC GPU, give NVIDIA the upper hand in the latest standoff between the two graphics giants.
My problem with integrated graphics is that they also use up a bit of your system RAM as well, although they are OK for non-demanding tasks, but in general something I turn my nose at.
You do realize that the GMA945A and GMA950 are different chipsets, right? Re-read the FiringSquad article.
You do realize that the GMA945A and GMA950 are different chipsets, right? Re-read the FiringSquad article.
The 945G is the motherboard chipset, it has the GMA 950 has the graphics chip.
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/945g/index.htm
Compatibility problems are rather expected because games are never written strictly by the rules of the accepted API... rather they often take hardware/ platfrom specific short cuts. Games are written for Ati or Invidia GFX hardware.
That is one of the big reasons why no other company has been able to break in to the GFX market lately, although a few tried and had very decent hardware.
I still don't like the GMA though. Even if it's faster than the Radeon 9200, it still lacks a great deal of support in applications. The Shake interface has scrolling issues. 3D apps are affected - Maya hardware rendering isn't supported and texture views all screw up. I wouldn't have expected Apple to use the 9200 anyway given how old it is. They should have gone with something like a Radeon X1400 mobility. This is only half the speed of the X1600 whereas the GMA is less than 1/10th the speed. It likely wouldn't have added more than $50 to the price.
Marvin, there is no doubt that, for gaming, current Intel solutions are not the ideal solution. But they were never meant to be. They're meant mostly for multimedia, office apps, very low power consumption, low heat, and easy integration as well as light casual gaming. And that is does very well, IMHO.
Compatibility problems are rather expected because games are never written strictly by the rules of the accepted API... rather they often take hardware/ platfrom specific short cuts. Games are written for Ati or Invidia GFX hardware.
That is one of the big reasons why no other company has been able to break in to the GFX market lately, although a few tried and had very decent hardware.
You're right, for what the GMA is designed for, it performs pretty well. I think what most people have a problem with is that we expect more from Apple when we pay so much money for it. An $800 desktop machine just shouldn't come with integrated graphics with no upgrade options or 512MB Ram for that matter.
Also, if integrated graphics were adequate then why bother using X1600 chips in the iMacs? Why give them the option to have a faster GPU and not the Mini owners? Why give them Core 2 Duo chips and not us? It seems to me it's because they are crippling their lineup deliberately to sell more iMacs. That's up to them to do that but I look at them very differently when they do things like that.
Also, heat, power etc is not an issue. If they can put these chips in a laptop, they can go into a Mini. They had dedicated chips in the old Mini so there is no excuse.
I still don't like the GMA though. Even if it's faster than the Radeon 9200, it still lacks a great deal of support in applications. The Shake interface has scrolling issues. 3D apps are affected - Maya hardware rendering isn't supported and texture views all screw up.
Shake & Maya just aren't the type of products I'd expect a consumer computer to support.
I agree that Apple's hardware strategy can be a real pain.
Shake & Maya just aren't the type of products I'd expect a consumer computer to support.
I agree that Apple's hardware strategy can be a real pain.
I think Apple are really going to have to start blurring the boundary between their idea of consumers and professionals. Their laptop lineup really highlights how this simplistic way of categorizing users just isn't working any more. As a lot of professionals have discovered, the difference between a MB and MBP really amounts to very little - A better GPU, a higher screen res and some extras like FW800. For double the price, this just isn't worth it a lot of the time and it's why I think the MBs are selling so well.
The BTO way of working like Dell use is far more appealling to end users because it's easier to see what you are paying for and I really think Apple would make a lot more sales if they increased their range of options. That's why I found it extremely funny that they said they had millions of configurations for their Mac Pro to make out as though Apple are giving people choice. In all of their machines, they offer less choice than any PC manufacturer I've seen.
This thread?s title has one too many tos.
Two too many tos.
This thread’s title has one too many tos.
Which one should I delete - the first one or the last one? Ah - I got it - a preposition is never something to end a sentence with.
I think Apple are really going to have to start blurring the boundary between their idea of consumers and professionals. Their laptop lineup really highlights how this simplistic way of categorizing users just isn't working any more. As a lot of professionals have discovered, the difference between a MB and MBP really amounts to very little - A better GPU, a higher screen res and some extras like FW800. For double the price, this just isn't worth it a lot of the time and it's why I think the MBs are selling so well.
While I don't doubt that pros are using them, I really don't think pro use is pushing a significant amount of MacBook sales. I'm pretty sure it's selling well because it's the cheapest Mac notebook, with the graphics being the biggest detractor to the package, but otherwise fairly solid for what it is and its price. I don't think a person that's going to be using a collection of software that costs several thousand dollars a seat is really going to balk at paying more for a machine to run it well. For a pro user, the extra clock speed, the larger screens and so on would probably more than pay for itself over the life of the unit in productivity.
As it is, getting the specs of a base MB as close to a MBP as possible netted a price of $1375, and that's still two CPU speed notches below MBP and half the CPU cache of the MBP, with no card slot, no backlit keyboard, only one Firewire channel, smaller screen, much slower graphics, no DVD writer. When all that is put together, it really doesn't look like such a great disparity with in the model line it does initially.