But I'm not a GPU-guy. I don't do any major video editing or play any graphics intensive games so I am definitely out of my league here. So can anyone tell me how moving to NVIDIA will affect the power usage over Intel's X4500 which has an even lower TDP than X3100? What will this offer the average MacBook user? Does this mean that even the MacBook will get DL-DVI, HDMI or DisplayPort connector capable of running 30" ACDs?
It just seems like a huge gamble and price increase for Apple for something that most MacBook users doesn't care about or need.
You got a point, if the Nvidia Integrated GPU will consume more power then Intel Integrated then possibly the MB will have a shorter battery life unless Apple negates this with a more energy efficient system.
The reason why Apple would want to put a proper integrated GPU in it is because during the iBook time, it uses ATi which is a GPU manufacturer, Intel is not known for their GPU cards so people are complaining about MB GPU, besides, now Apple MB is selling like hot cakes, by changing to Nvidia GPU it will give old iBook owners a reason to upgrade.
I wonder what happen if the new MB will be listed as Amazon no.1 best selling laptop, beating those puny netbooks :amazed:
I the integrated graphics never seemed to be a real issue for me. It's better than the discrete offerings than Apple had in the old ATI Mobility Radeon 9550 in the late iBooks. X3100 can play HD my HD video just fine and the specs for X4500 are considerably better.
But I'm not a GPU-guy. I don't do any major video editing or play any graphics intensive games so I am definitely out of my league here. So can anyone tell me how moving to NVIDIA will affect the power usage over Intel's X4500 which has an even lower TDP than X3100? What will this offer the average MacBook user? Does this mean that even the MacBook will get DL-DVI, HDMI or DisplayPort connector capable of running 30" ACDs?
It just seems like a huge gamble and price increase for Apple for something that most MacBook users doesn't care about or need.
Did you watch a video on your MacBook? Did you use iPhoto to increase the brightness on a picture? Voila. You just became a "GPU-guy". I'm not being silly here, a discrete GPU of good performance, eg. 9300 or 9400, will have many overall benefits, which may not be immediately realised in the next few months. I'm not "feeling" the X4500 yet, but of course, it remains a possibility... smaller possibility, in my view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
Apple probably doesn't have to pay them anything (other than the actual cost of the product). Apple being the first to use Nvidia chip sets in this way would be invaluable to Nvidia. If anything Nvidia should be paying Apple.
Yup, the way Apple operates is to make you give Apple a nice discount, then still feel like Apple is doing *you* the favour. Standard Apple operating procedure.
All the time. I even watch HD video encoded with x264 with 5.1 channel AAC encapsulated as MKV files. Until the latest Perian update I had to use VLC Player, but now QT works quite well. Excpet if there is built in subtitles, which requires turning off the subtitle video track from Command+J, since the Menu option doesn't show a subtitle option.
I've even played 1080p connect while using Exposé and running other apps and I have never had an issue with playback stuttering, even when using using ScreenFlow.app to capture to demostate the power of CoreAnimation.
The only thing I haven't tried is using an external, power-sucking Blu-ray drive to play back video on a MacBook, but that is pointless until we get HDCP support with Montevina (or NVIDIA?)
So NVDA at 6 bucks atm, which is pretty damn cheap, but then they have been blowing their own feet off very well of late, anyone feel game? I might try a quick trade but maxed out on AAPL. Ultimately wouldn't want to be long on NVDA.
All the time. I even watch HD video encoded with x264 with 5.1 channel AAC encapsulated as MKV files. Until the latest Perian update I had to use VLC Player, but now QT works quite well. Excpet if there is built in subtitles, which requires turning off the subtitle video track from Command+J, since the Menu option doesn't show a subtitle option.
I've even played 1080p connect while using Exposé and running other apps and I have never had an issue with playback stuttering, even when using using ScreenFlow.app to capture to demostate the power of CoreAnimation.
The only thing I haven't tried is using an external, power-sucking Blu-ray drive to play back video on a MacBook, but that is pointless until we get HDCP support with Montevina (or NVIDIA?)
Interesting. Do you think MKV with Perian and QT is using quite a bit of the GPU or is it still mostly CPU bound... I haven't actually kept myself informed on this. Sounds like CoreAnimation is using a lot of GPU there...?
As per my post, we need a bit more of the nitty gritty details on how much CoreAnimation/ ETC will try to get out of the GPU before it falls back to having the CPU render.
So NVDA at 6 bucks atm, which is pretty damn cheap, but then they have been blowing their own feet off very well of late, anyone feel game? I might try a quick trade but maxed out on AAPL. Ultimately wouldn't want to be long on NVDA.
Ooh... Very risky to fiddle with NVDA right now, IMHO.
So unless the new set is some radical breakthrough, I am dubious that there are any significant performance advantages, especially for a notebook system. Intels next gen integrated graphics chip probably moves closer to Nvidia dedicated performance than Nvidia moves towards intels chipset power/performance.
In conjunction with the Nvidia 9100M G integrated graphics, the 9600M GT supports Hybrid-SLI (only HybridPower). HybridPower is a technique to choose between the integrated and dedicated graphics core, if performance or battery runtime is needed. This works only in Windows Vista. Up to now the user has to use a tool to switch between the GPUs. Later Nvidia wants to switch automatically in the drivers. GeForceBoost is not supported with this card, as there would be no performance gain.
Overall, their pruchases may be minor, but their purchases for a specific model chip would seem to be excessive compared to other OEMs. Apple is forcasted to sell some 12M units this year or next and has only a handful of options for their HW. As well as the free advertising, for better or worse) that comes along with being Apple.
PS: I'm still saying that X4500 is most likely for MB and MBAs.
Plus, they are able to pay their bills without much worry for cash. . Now that is a good customer.
I really hope this means nVidia will actually bother with Apple as a real customer from now on. The last SEVERAL point releases containing GPU driver updates for OS X with nVidia hardware have been an absolute nightmare while the ATI machines have been fine.
X3100 can play HD my HD video just fine and the specs for X4500 are considerably better.
Are you sure? Does that include 1080p Blurays? For instance, my old PC played H264 720p videos fine, but 1080p bluray where just slideshows...
And when playing these videos, what is actually doing the job? Your integrated GPU or your CPU? If the later, having the CPU at full throttle during the whole movie is not really helping the power usage...
Quote:
But I'm not a GPU-guy. I don't do any major video editing or play any graphics intensive games so I am definitely out of my league here.
You don't play games, but you use Core Animation, desktop effects and the like... And these rely on the GPU - or the CPU emulation the missing functions.
It's even worse if you intend to use Boot Camp to use other OS on your notebook.
Anyway, the use of the GPU for stuff outside of the strictly 3D world is the next trend. It started with the GUI - both Vista and Core Animation do that. It also started with scientific calculations - nVidia now sales GPU without any graphic output, so you can fit half a dozen into a computer for scientific calculation. Photo and Video software can also use the power of the GPU - which is after all a matrix calculation unit - to speed up filters. What takes seconds to the CPU could be calculated in real time in the GPU. I would not be surprised to see this kind of use in softwares like Lightroom, Photoshop or their plugins...
The only thing I haven't tried is using an external, power-sucking Blu-ray drive to play back video on a MacBook, but that is pointless until we get HDCP support with Montevina (or NVIDIA?)
That's beyond pointless- even if you got that HDCP support. Why would anyone ever want to use or watch blu-ray on a MacBook? It's screen is so small and not only that-its screen is so far from being HD!!?!?!?!?!
And as far as power-sucking goes, you obviously don't own an Apple TV. My AppleTV right now is not powered up and is generating heat as I type. And when on - I swear could make a cheese melt on it.
I still don't get why you have such a grudge against blu-ray??
Ah man.. if they only put a 9600M GT in the MacBook Pro.. I might actually switch to PC That card is already out of date
9650M GS at LEAST, I mean come on! Why would they put a 9600M GT in over a 9650M GT which is far far more powerful and yet has the same power draw? (((
That's beyond pointless- even if you got that HDCP support. Why would anyone ever want to use or watch blu-ray on a MacBook? It's screen is so small and not only that-its screen is so far from being HD!!?!?!?!?!
Some people only want to have to buy one copy of a movie, pointless having to get it on blu-ray and DVD just so you can watch it while travelling
I the integrated graphics never seemed to be a real issue for me. It's better than the discrete offerings than Apple had in the old ATI Mobility Radeon 9550 in the late iBooks. X3100 can play HD my HD video just fine and the specs for X4500 are considerably better.
But I'm not a GPU-guy. I don't do any major video editing or play any graphics intensive games so I am definitely out of my league here. So can anyone tell me how moving to NVIDIA will affect the power usage over Intel's X4500 which has an even lower TDP than X3100? What will this offer the average MacBook user? Does this mean that even the MacBook will get DL-DVI, HDMI or DisplayPort connector capable of running 30" ACDs?
It just seems like a huge gamble and price increase for Apple for something that most MacBook users doesn't care about or need.
Oh, you're right that the Intel graphics are perfectly fine for the Macbook, but I get the feeling that they were a sticking point for a lot of people (then again, internet forums are full of complaints about everything). According to Intel, the X4500HD is able to decode 1080p Blu-Ray in hardware, by the way. Not that you'd be able to play it on a Macbook's screen. X4500 can also handle a dual-link DVI port.
I don't know how power consumption compares, but they should both be in the same range. One advantage Nvidia's IGPs have is that they are a single chip. There is no southbridge chip, which means manufacturers can design a smaller, simpler motherboard. But that's only an advantage until late next year when Intel will debut an all-new mobile platform.
According to Intel, the X4500HD is able to decode 1080p Blu-Ray in hardware, by the way. Not that you'd be able to play it on a Macbook's screen. X4500 can also handle a dual-link DVI port.
Assuming that Apple will offer BRD in some way (which I don't think they will), I can't help but wonder if Apple would still go the micro- or mini-DVI route when people may occasionally want to connect to their HDTVs, not just a 30" ACD. DisplayPort,and to a lesser degree HDMI, seem like the most likely option.
Quote:
I don't know how power consumption compares, but they should both be in the same range. One advantage Nvidia's IGPs have is that they are a single chip. There is no southbridge chip, which means manufacturers can design a smaller, simpler motherboard. But that's only an advantage until late next year when Intel will debut an all-new mobile platform.
Apple is notorious for looking farther ahead rather other vendors. Butt they have no choice as the new machine they make now will be the standard for premium for PCs for the next 3 years. Sure, the internal components change, but switching from an Intel chipset that works well enough to NVIDIA jsut to switch a year or two down the road back to Intel doesn't sound like Apple. How much better would NVIDIA's integrated solutions be? Personally, with all the issues with NVIDIA I would not buy a new Mac next week if they are the ones supplying the chipset, until it gets thoroughly tested for several months.
Ah man.. if they only put a 9600M GT in the MacBook Pro.. I might actually switch to PC That card is already out of date
9650M GS at LEAST, I mean come on! Why would they put a 9600M GT in over a 9650M GT which is far far more powerful and yet has the same power draw? (((
Apple will probably underclock it anyway no matter what card they go with to keep the heat down.
Concerning Intel vs Nvidia, I don't think Intel chips really have any advantages worth considering. They have always been the worst graphics options on offer and they still are. People pay a premium for good graphics chips and if Apple bundle them for free, it's a very good deal and it immediately gives the brand better value.
The metallic enclosures should help with heat dissipation and they shouldn't be any worse than the current MBP, which I consider to be just fine. The GPU won't heat up significantly or drain lots of power when you aren't doing graphically intensive things so people who don't use the GPU much shouldn't notice any downside.
It will finally open up the Mac gaming market a bit though. Intel chips + good GPUs is very attractive for gaming even if it is just mild gaming. Intel chips struggle with even mild games like newer versions of The Sims and mild gamers will own the lower end machines.
One thing I'm wondering though, is what will they do with the Macbook Air? I imagine they'll leave it the way it is with the Intel chipsets but possibly drop the price a little.
Comments
But I'm not a GPU-guy. I don't do any major video editing or play any graphics intensive games so I am definitely out of my league here. So can anyone tell me how moving to NVIDIA will affect the power usage over Intel's X4500 which has an even lower TDP than X3100? What will this offer the average MacBook user? Does this mean that even the MacBook will get DL-DVI, HDMI or DisplayPort connector capable of running 30" ACDs?
It just seems like a huge gamble and price increase for Apple for something that most MacBook users doesn't care about or need.
You got a point, if the Nvidia Integrated GPU will consume more power then Intel Integrated then possibly the MB will have a shorter battery life unless Apple negates this with a more energy efficient system.
The reason why Apple would want to put a proper integrated GPU in it is because during the iBook time, it uses ATi which is a GPU manufacturer, Intel is not known for their GPU cards so people are complaining about MB GPU, besides, now Apple MB is selling like hot cakes, by changing to Nvidia GPU it will give old iBook owners a reason to upgrade.
I wonder what happen if the new MB will be listed as Amazon no.1 best selling laptop, beating those puny netbooks :amazed:
I the integrated graphics never seemed to be a real issue for me. It's better than the discrete offerings than Apple had in the old ATI Mobility Radeon 9550 in the late iBooks. X3100 can play HD my HD video just fine and the specs for X4500 are considerably better.
But I'm not a GPU-guy. I don't do any major video editing or play any graphics intensive games so I am definitely out of my league here. So can anyone tell me how moving to NVIDIA will affect the power usage over Intel's X4500 which has an even lower TDP than X3100? What will this offer the average MacBook user? Does this mean that even the MacBook will get DL-DVI, HDMI or DisplayPort connector capable of running 30" ACDs?
It just seems like a huge gamble and price increase for Apple for something that most MacBook users doesn't care about or need.
Did you watch a video on your MacBook? Did you use iPhoto to increase the brightness on a picture? Voila. You just became a "GPU-guy". I'm not being silly here, a discrete GPU of good performance, eg. 9300 or 9400, will have many overall benefits, which may not be immediately realised in the next few months. I'm not "feeling" the X4500 yet, but of course, it remains a possibility... smaller possibility, in my view.
Apple probably doesn't have to pay them anything (other than the actual cost of the product). Apple being the first to use Nvidia chip sets in this way would be invaluable to Nvidia. If anything Nvidia should be paying Apple.
Yup, the way Apple operates is to make you give Apple a nice discount, then still feel like Apple is doing *you* the favour. Standard Apple operating procedure.
Did you watch a video on your MacBook?
All the time. I even watch HD video encoded with x264 with 5.1 channel AAC encapsulated as MKV files. Until the latest Perian update I had to use VLC Player, but now QT works quite well. Excpet if there is built in subtitles, which requires turning off the subtitle video track from Command+J, since the Menu option doesn't show a subtitle option.
I've even played 1080p connect while using Exposé and running other apps and I have never had an issue with playback stuttering, even when using using ScreenFlow.app to capture to demostate the power of CoreAnimation.
The only thing I haven't tried is using an external, power-sucking Blu-ray drive to play back video on a MacBook, but that is pointless until we get HDCP support with Montevina (or NVIDIA?)
All the time. I even watch HD video encoded with x264 with 5.1 channel AAC encapsulated as MKV files. Until the latest Perian update I had to use VLC Player, but now QT works quite well. Excpet if there is built in subtitles, which requires turning off the subtitle video track from Command+J, since the Menu option doesn't show a subtitle option.
I've even played 1080p connect while using Exposé and running other apps and I have never had an issue with playback stuttering, even when using using ScreenFlow.app to capture to demostate the power of CoreAnimation.
The only thing I haven't tried is using an external, power-sucking Blu-ray drive to play back video on a MacBook, but that is pointless until we get HDCP support with Montevina (or NVIDIA?)
Interesting. Do you think MKV with Perian and QT is using quite a bit of the GPU or is it still mostly CPU bound... I haven't actually kept myself informed on this. Sounds like CoreAnimation is using a lot of GPU there...?
As per my post, we need a bit more of the nitty gritty details on how much CoreAnimation/ ETC will try to get out of the GPU before it falls back to having the CPU render.
So NVDA at 6 bucks atm, which is pretty damn cheap, but then they have been blowing their own feet off very well of late, anyone feel game? I might try a quick trade but maxed out on AAPL. Ultimately wouldn't want to be long on NVDA.
Ooh... Very risky to fiddle with NVDA right now, IMHO.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13142
I dont know, we will see. Nvidias chipset are so so in performance and somewhat of powerhogs:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...I,1977-26.html
So unless the new set is some radical breakthrough, I am dubious that there are any significant performance advantages, especially for a notebook system. Intels next gen integrated graphics chip probably moves closer to Nvidia dedicated performance than Nvidia moves towards intels chipset power/performance.
In conjunction with the Nvidia 9100M G integrated graphics, the 9600M GT supports Hybrid-SLI (only HybridPower). HybridPower is a technique to choose between the integrated and dedicated graphics core, if performance or battery runtime is needed. This works only in Windows Vista. Up to now the user has to use a tool to switch between the GPUs. Later Nvidia wants to switch automatically in the drivers. GeForceBoost is not supported with this card, as there would be no performance gain.
Quoted from NotebookCheck.com
Sounds promising if future MBP uses these.
Overall, their pruchases may be minor, but their purchases for a specific model chip would seem to be excessive compared to other OEMs. Apple is forcasted to sell some 12M units this year or next and has only a handful of options for their HW. As well as the free advertising, for better or worse) that comes along with being Apple.
PS: I'm still saying that X4500 is most likely for MB and MBAs.
Plus, they are able to pay their bills without much worry for cash.
X3100 can play HD my HD video just fine and the specs for X4500 are considerably better.
Are you sure? Does that include 1080p Blurays? For instance, my old PC played H264 720p videos fine, but 1080p bluray where just slideshows...
And when playing these videos, what is actually doing the job? Your integrated GPU or your CPU? If the later, having the CPU at full throttle during the whole movie is not really helping the power usage...
But I'm not a GPU-guy. I don't do any major video editing or play any graphics intensive games so I am definitely out of my league here.
You don't play games, but you use Core Animation, desktop effects and the like... And these rely on the GPU - or the CPU emulation the missing functions.
It's even worse if you intend to use Boot Camp to use other OS on your notebook.
Anyway, the use of the GPU for stuff outside of the strictly 3D world is the next trend. It started with the GUI - both Vista and Core Animation do that. It also started with scientific calculations - nVidia now sales GPU without any graphic output, so you can fit half a dozen into a computer for scientific calculation. Photo and Video software can also use the power of the GPU - which is after all a matrix calculation unit - to speed up filters. What takes seconds to the CPU could be calculated in real time in the GPU. I would not be surprised to see this kind of use in softwares like Lightroom, Photoshop or their plugins...
The only thing I haven't tried is using an external, power-sucking Blu-ray drive to play back video on a MacBook, but that is pointless until we get HDCP support with Montevina (or NVIDIA?)
That's beyond pointless- even if you got that HDCP support. Why would anyone ever want to use or watch blu-ray on a MacBook? It's screen is so small and not only that-its screen is so far from being HD!!?!?!?!?!
And as far as power-sucking goes, you obviously don't own an Apple TV. My AppleTV right now is not powered up and is generating heat as I type. And when on - I swear could make a cheese melt on it.
I still don't get why you have such a grudge against blu-ray??
9650M GS at LEAST, I mean come on!
9600 is the successor of 8600 btw.
That's beyond pointless- even if you got that HDCP support. Why would anyone ever want to use or watch blu-ray on a MacBook? It's screen is so small and not only that-its screen is so far from being HD!!?!?!?!?!
Some people only want to have to buy one copy of a movie, pointless having to get it on blu-ray and DVD just so you can watch it while travelling
Some people only want to have to buy one copy of a movie, pointless having to get it on blu-ray and DVD just so you can watch it while travelling
Yeah... I don't mind having an external FW400 Blu-Ray player/reader to connect to my MacBook.
720p, or even just 1080p downscaled to 720p is still nice on the MacBook compared to the crappy resolution of DVDs.
DVDs were great, but once you start watching even "just" 720p TV and movies and trailers on your PC/Mac... It's really hard to go back.
I the integrated graphics never seemed to be a real issue for me. It's better than the discrete offerings than Apple had in the old ATI Mobility Radeon 9550 in the late iBooks. X3100 can play HD my HD video just fine and the specs for X4500 are considerably better.
But I'm not a GPU-guy. I don't do any major video editing or play any graphics intensive games so I am definitely out of my league here. So can anyone tell me how moving to NVIDIA will affect the power usage over Intel's X4500 which has an even lower TDP than X3100? What will this offer the average MacBook user? Does this mean that even the MacBook will get DL-DVI, HDMI or DisplayPort connector capable of running 30" ACDs?
It just seems like a huge gamble and price increase for Apple for something that most MacBook users doesn't care about or need.
Oh, you're right that the Intel graphics are perfectly fine for the Macbook, but I get the feeling that they were a sticking point for a lot of people (then again, internet forums are full of complaints about everything). According to Intel, the X4500HD is able to decode 1080p Blu-Ray in hardware, by the way. Not that you'd be able to play it on a Macbook's screen. X4500 can also handle a dual-link DVI port.
I don't know how power consumption compares, but they should both be in the same range. One advantage Nvidia's IGPs have is that they are a single chip. There is no southbridge chip, which means manufacturers can design a smaller, simpler motherboard. But that's only an advantage until late next year when Intel will debut an all-new mobile platform.
9650m is better then 9600? Isn't that suppose to be the other way round?
9600 is the successor of 8600 btw.
9650m gt >> 9650m gs >>>>>>>> 9600m gt
According to Intel, the X4500HD is able to decode 1080p Blu-Ray in hardware, by the way. Not that you'd be able to play it on a Macbook's screen. X4500 can also handle a dual-link DVI port.
Assuming that Apple will offer BRD in some way (which I don't think they will), I can't help but wonder if Apple would still go the micro- or mini-DVI route when people may occasionally want to connect to their HDTVs, not just a 30" ACD. DisplayPort,and to a lesser degree HDMI, seem like the most likely option.
I don't know how power consumption compares, but they should both be in the same range. One advantage Nvidia's IGPs have is that they are a single chip. There is no southbridge chip, which means manufacturers can design a smaller, simpler motherboard. But that's only an advantage until late next year when Intel will debut an all-new mobile platform.
Apple is notorious for looking farther ahead rather other vendors. Butt they have no choice as the new machine they make now will be the standard for premium for PCs for the next 3 years. Sure, the internal components change, but switching from an Intel chipset that works well enough to NVIDIA jsut to switch a year or two down the road back to Intel doesn't sound like Apple. How much better would NVIDIA's integrated solutions be? Personally, with all the issues with NVIDIA I would not buy a new Mac next week if they are the ones supplying the chipset, until it gets thoroughly tested for several months.
Ah man.. if they only put a 9600M GT in the MacBook Pro.. I might actually switch to PC
9650M GS at LEAST, I mean come on!
The 9600M GT is faster by a long way:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...GT.9449.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...T.10764.0.html
Apple will probably underclock it anyway no matter what card they go with to keep the heat down.
Concerning Intel vs Nvidia, I don't think Intel chips really have any advantages worth considering. They have always been the worst graphics options on offer and they still are. People pay a premium for good graphics chips and if Apple bundle them for free, it's a very good deal and it immediately gives the brand better value.
The metallic enclosures should help with heat dissipation and they shouldn't be any worse than the current MBP, which I consider to be just fine. The GPU won't heat up significantly or drain lots of power when you aren't doing graphically intensive things so people who don't use the GPU much shouldn't notice any downside.
It will finally open up the Mac gaming market a bit though. Intel chips + good GPUs is very attractive for gaming even if it is just mild gaming. Intel chips struggle with even mild games like newer versions of The Sims and mild gamers will own the lower end machines.
One thing I'm wondering though, is what will they do with the Macbook Air? I imagine they'll leave it the way it is with the Intel chipsets but possibly drop the price a little.