It's not mediocre compared to the 950. It's drivers are crap for now, it has issues for now, but it's an improvement over 950 no matter what.
It won't win you a UT championship, but it is not meant for that, so suck it up. The macbook is an entry level system, don't forget that. Apple wants us to buy MBP's
The GPU is not there for gaming for graphics intensive programs, it's for quartz pro. If you need the extra power, you probably bought the wrong system.
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.
This is a statement I both agree, and disagree with. Here is part of the reason why ...
Quote from the MacWorld San Francisco 2007 keynote on the 9th of January 2007:
?There?s an old Wayne Gretsky quote I love ? ?I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it?s been.? That?s what we try to do at Apple?
The iPod was not the first, but it did (in my opinion) represent Apple aiming for the future. The same thing could be said for HD playback. Where will the HD "puck" be in 5 years? I really can't say, but if Apple still has the kind of vision they had when introducing the iPod, they could possibly create the same kind of legacy with video.
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
Most $1000 laptops come with 160GB or larger hard disk, DVD burners, and 1GB RAM? Could you name some of these "most" laptops (with features comparable to MacBook)?
"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!"
Oh come off it, it's a perfectly reasonable request.
And while you're at it that should have a 2560 x 1600 display on the 15" model, 4 eSata ports and that 32x DVD Burner should be a dual Blu-ray HD-DVD writer at those speeds. And it wouldn't hurt to knock another 200 hundred bucks off the price either.
This is just what the average college kid needs to compete these days.
And corroborates further my initial suspicion that the integrated graphics make part of the Apple-Intel deal.
Yeah, I think that must be it. What I don't understand is why Intel bother. Surely rather than putting the effort and money into the graphics chip R&D, they could easily just buy a batch of low end chips from ATI or NVidia. I actually wouldn't mind paying $4 or whatever it costs, for them to not put their chips in plus the full cost of an Nvidia or ATI chip.
Your ignorance is almost laughable. The average gamer is, um, over THIRTY-years-old. You actually think that gamers are all children or teenagers?
Do some research before you type.
The idea that 3D processing is only important for gaming is long dead with the "enlightened."
Windows Aero doesn't work with any GPU that isn't 128Mb for 1280x1024 res, NOT UXGA.
Those of you who actually use Quicktime as a main video player seriously need to get out more. VLC is far superior and, um, enables GPU processing. Try it; your CPU will thank you for it.
HD content is not "high end," not when there are sub $500 HDTVs everywhere, and when a $500 Windows PC can easily decode HD with an integrated AMD, nVidia, or ATi GPU.
Most $1000 laptops come with 160GB or larger hard disk, DVD burners, and 1GB RAM? Could you name some of these "most" laptops (with features comparable to MacBook)?
It's not mediocre compared to the 950. It's drivers are crap for now, it has issues for now, but it's an improvement over 950 no matter what.
It won't win you a UT championship, but it is not meant for that, so suck it up. The macbook is an entry level system, don't forget that. Apple wants us to buy MBP's
Now that's a statement that's definitely defensible. The X3000 is still mediocre compared to super-cheap, entry GPUs, but compared to the 950, it's still a big step forward.
Your ignorance is almost laughable. The average gamer is, um, over THIRTY-years-old. You actually think that gamers are all children or teenagers?
Actually, last I heard, the average gaming age was 29. The average age which people bought games was above 30...but come on, you really think a 14 year old kid buys his own games with his own money? At the least he goes to the store with his parents and pay them back later.
Also personally I've found that older kids and younger adults play games more heavily while that 27-29 year old range plays an occasional game of Halo or something.
Personally I think the X3000 is good enough. If you want more power get a better Mac.
Also is it really fair to compare a PC to a Mac? I mean you should add to the price all the other things you will pay for, like taking it to GeekSquad to get fixed, anti-malware programs and such. Slightly irrelevant though.
You know I find it funny how all Apple fans compare Apple to other companies. Their moto is "think different." They are supposed to be different, so why do we compare. It's apples and oranges.
Now that's a statement that's definitely defensible. The X3000 is still mediocre compared to super-cheap, entry GPUs, but compared to the 950, it's still a big step forward.
I haven't kept up on entry level nvidia or ati chips for a while, but how does power consumption compare to dedicated chips?
Your ignorance is almost laughable. The average gamer is, um, over THIRTY-years-old. You actually think that gamers are all children or teenagers?
Do some research before you type.
All I said was that serious PC gaming does not seem to be prevalent among college students. That's plain truth. The age statistics of video game players is irrelevant, since video game players are free to buy computers with non-integrated graphics. There might be a problem if large numbers of college students who buy the school-sponsored macbook package become disappointed because 3D game performance is lacking on their computerrs. But that's not what's happening.
It's also worth noting that even with the existing drivers, X3000 performance is superior to GPUs that are known to work quite acceptably with Quartz effects. If Apple thought that X3000 performance would greatly degrade the user experience, they'd probably not use it.
You do make a good point splinemodel. and I'm at a toss up on the Mac Book graphics. Obviously more than just students buy the machine so graphics options would be a better solution IMO, but the Mac Book Pro obviously still needs better graphics, or options on graphics cards.
"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.
I'm of course just jabbing you with the college kid comment, so relax. But really..I think you're overreacting here. You toss around the $1000 latpop moniker quite a bit, but stop and think. It's an entry level, consumer level machine. E-mail, Word, iLife, mid to low level games, internet, etc. That's what it's made to do. A "thinking person" would not bitch about a $1000 entry level machine not being as good a graphics tasks as other machines that cost twice as much. Let's see how the Macbook runs leopard. I would be real money it runs it just fine, better than a PPC machine certainly.
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.
Let me add to that. My 1.25GHZ Powerbook with 1 GB of RAM couldn't handle 1080p either. 720 was a stretch, as it was on my G5 iMac. The former was a "pro" machine purchased at the every end of 2003. The iMac was purchased in late 2005. Now we have someone complaining the entry level hardware isn't up to his standards, or won't be.
The Macbook is for non-demanding users. It's for the housewife that wants e-mail and internet. It's for the student who plays low level and mid level games. It's for internet, e-mail, and iLife. It's for sharing pictures and iMovies. No one who cares about core animation and what not should even be considering a Macbook. Anyone who wants decent to good graphics performance should buy a Macbook Pro.
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.
I like how you make up a statistic, and then expect someone else to verify it for you.
Comments
It won't win you a UT championship, but it is not meant for that, so suck it up. The macbook is an entry level system, don't forget that. Apple wants us to buy MBP's
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.
Intel introduces the G965 end of July 2006.
Must have been a short year!
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.
This is a statement I both agree, and disagree with. Here is part of the reason why ...
Quote from the MacWorld San Francisco 2007 keynote on the 9th of January 2007:
?There?s an old Wayne Gretsky quote I love ? ?I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it?s been.? That?s what we try to do at Apple?
The iPod was not the first, but it did (in my opinion) represent Apple aiming for the future. The same thing could be said for HD playback. Where will the HD "puck" be in 5 years? I really can't say, but if Apple still has the kind of vision they had when introducing the iPod, they could possibly create the same kind of legacy with video.
...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.
And corroborates further my initial suspicion that the integrated graphics make part of the Apple-Intel deal.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2...5/index.x?pg=1
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
Most $1000 laptops come with 160GB or larger hard disk, DVD burners, and 1GB RAM? Could you name some of these "most" laptops (with features comparable to MacBook)?
"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!"
Oh come off it, it's a perfectly reasonable request.
And while you're at it that should have a 2560 x 1600 display on the 15" model, 4 eSata ports and that 32x DVD Burner should be a dual Blu-ray HD-DVD writer at those speeds. And it wouldn't hurt to knock another 200 hundred bucks off the price either.
This is just what the average college kid needs to compete these days.
It's not like we're asking the world here.
Intel introduces the G965 end of July 2006.
Must have been a short year!
I'm measuring in Mercurian years not Earth years.
And corroborates further my initial suspicion that the integrated graphics make part of the Apple-Intel deal.
Yeah, I think that must be it. What I don't understand is why Intel bother. Surely rather than putting the effort and money into the graphics chip R&D, they could easily just buy a batch of low end chips from ATI or NVidia. I actually wouldn't mind paying $4 or whatever it costs, for them to not put their chips in plus the full cost of an Nvidia or ATI chip.
Do some research before you type.
The idea that 3D processing is only important for gaming is long dead with the "enlightened."
Windows Aero doesn't work with any GPU that isn't 128Mb for 1280x1024 res, NOT UXGA.
Those of you who actually use Quicktime as a main video player seriously need to get out more. VLC is far superior and, um, enables GPU processing. Try it; your CPU will thank you for it.
HD content is not "high end," not when there are sub $500 HDTVs everywhere, and when a $500 Windows PC can easily decode HD with an integrated AMD, nVidia, or ATi GPU.
Most $1000 laptops come with 160GB or larger hard disk, DVD burners, and 1GB RAM? Could you name some of these "most" laptops (with features comparable to MacBook)?
Acer: http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/pro...0086065&catid=
Toshiba: http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/pro...0084126&catid=
HP:
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodde...87&catid=20354
Check Dell and some other companies for similar offerings. All prices are in CAD.
I can't believe that anyone would even question the idea that most $1000 laptops are 1Gb, 160Gb, DVD-burner, etc.
Seriously, folks, do some research.
It's not mediocre compared to the 950. It's drivers are crap for now, it has issues for now, but it's an improvement over 950 no matter what.
It won't win you a UT championship, but it is not meant for that, so suck it up. The macbook is an entry level system, don't forget that. Apple wants us to buy MBP's
Now that's a statement that's definitely defensible. The X3000 is still mediocre compared to super-cheap, entry GPUs, but compared to the 950, it's still a big step forward.
Your ignorance is almost laughable. The average gamer is, um, over THIRTY-years-old. You actually think that gamers are all children or teenagers?
Actually, last I heard, the average gaming age was 29. The average age which people bought games was above 30...but come on, you really think a 14 year old kid buys his own games with his own money? At the least he goes to the store with his parents and pay them back later.
Also personally I've found that older kids and younger adults play games more heavily while that 27-29 year old range plays an occasional game of Halo or something.
Personally I think the X3000 is good enough. If you want more power get a better Mac.
Also is it really fair to compare a PC to a Mac? I mean you should add to the price all the other things you will pay for, like taking it to GeekSquad to get fixed, anti-malware programs and such. Slightly irrelevant though.
You know I find it funny how all Apple fans compare Apple to other companies. Their moto is "think different." They are supposed to be different, so why do we compare. It's apples and oranges.
You know I find it funny how all Apple fans compare Apple to other companies. Their moto is "think different." They are supposed to be different...
Not so much different anymore.
Now that's a statement that's definitely defensible. The X3000 is still mediocre compared to super-cheap, entry GPUs, but compared to the 950, it's still a big step forward.
I haven't kept up on entry level nvidia or ati chips for a while, but how does power consumption compare to dedicated chips?
Your ignorance is almost laughable. The average gamer is, um, over THIRTY-years-old. You actually think that gamers are all children or teenagers?
Do some research before you type.
All I said was that serious PC gaming does not seem to be prevalent among college students. That's plain truth. The age statistics of video game players is irrelevant, since video game players are free to buy computers with non-integrated graphics. There might be a problem if large numbers of college students who buy the school-sponsored macbook package become disappointed because 3D game performance is lacking on their computerrs. But that's not what's happening.
It's also worth noting that even with the existing drivers, X3000 performance is superior to GPUs that are known to work quite acceptably with Quartz effects. If Apple thought that X3000 performance would greatly degrade the user experience, they'd probably not use it.
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? 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.
I'm of course just jabbing you with the college kid comment, so relax. But really..I think you're overreacting here. You toss around the $1000 latpop moniker quite a bit, but stop and think. It's an entry level, consumer level machine. E-mail, Word, iLife, mid to low level games, internet, etc. That's what it's made to do. A "thinking person" would not bitch about a $1000 entry level machine not being as good a graphics tasks as other machines that cost twice as much. Let's see how the Macbook runs leopard. I would be real money it runs it just fine, better than a PPC machine certainly.
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.
Let me add to that. My 1.25GHZ Powerbook with 1 GB of RAM couldn't handle 1080p either. 720 was a stretch, as it was on my G5 iMac. The former was a "pro" machine purchased at the every end of 2003. The iMac was purchased in late 2005. Now we have someone complaining the entry level hardware isn't up to his standards, or won't be.
The Macbook is for non-demanding users. It's for the housewife that wants e-mail and internet. It's for the student who plays low level and mid level games. It's for internet, e-mail, and iLife. It's for sharing pictures and iMovies. No one who cares about core animation and what not should even be considering a Macbook. Anyone who wants decent to good graphics performance should buy a Macbook Pro.
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.
I like how you make up a statistic, and then expect someone else to verify it for you.