The 9600M GT is probably what Apple will put in the Macbook Pro. It's not a great GPU, though. It's really just a die shrunk, overclocked 8600, and bears absolutely no relation to the much more powerful desktop 9600GT (Nvidia playing name games again).
Dude, you got issues, so what? At least they are willing to replace if for you. So what go to ATi now? Which is owned by AMD which is Intel competitor.
Dude....you didn't even get the JOKE! I was making fun of AppleInsider for posting two headlines back to back. One claiming the NVIDIA chips are defective, and the other for claiming NVIDIA chips are being used in the new line. Probably not the best way to advertise the new line of MacBooks. Your comment makes no sense because NVIDIA is also a competitor of Intel. Too bad you didn't get the joke in the first place.
The 9600M GT is probably what Apple will put in the Macbook Pro. It's not a great GPU, though. It's really just a die shrunk, overclocked 8600, and bears absolutely no relation to the much more powerful desktop 9600GT (Nvidia playing name games again).
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!!?!?!?!?!
The 9600M GT is probably what Apple will put in the Macbook Pro. It's not a great GPU, though. It's really just a die shrunk, overclocked 8600, and bears absolutely no relation to the much more powerful desktop 9600GT (Nvidia playing name games again).
I contacted the author of the article asking if it was specifically the 9600M GT he believed to be in the new MacBook Pros and if so why Apple would opt for such a low end card when more powerful ones are available at the same power draw, and he replied with the following:
"You are more likely right - some derivative refresh of the 9600 GT based on
a slightly updated G92-based part. Probably a 55nm GPU as well.
It makes sense, there is no reason to put a 9600M GT in the MBP when you could put a 9650M GT with no extra heat or batter drain, and a lot more power.
Maybe we'll even see a new card? Another refresh of some kind, 9675M GT lmao? Prob not..
And to the above claim that the 9600M GT is faster than the 9650M GT, ignore notebookcheck, it's a mess of inconsistency. Check the 3dmark 06 scores of the two cards, the 9650M GT scores over 400 points higher, das ist a lot.
That is certainly HD, but I am not a fan of how we define HD as referring to only the resoltuion. There really needs to be a consortium that defines HD both the resolution AND the kilobits per seconds and/or kilobits per frame. Without it, we get the technically correct resolution, but less than ideal HD video of the iTS HD video offerings.
Perhaps we need to start a new thread that is focused on a creating a consortium that will submit a recommendation to have the various HD types further categorized more accurately.
Did they not pay attention to the headlines? MacBook Pros failed by defective NVIDIA chips and now NVIDIA platform claimed to be used for new MacBook line. Duh!
Maybe Apple got a great deal on those defective NVIDIA chips for the new line!
The defective GPUs are effecting some of the 8600M GT.
That is certainly HD, but I am not a fan of how we define HD as referring to only the resoltuion. There really needs to be a consortium that defines HD both the resolution AND the kilobits per seconds and/or kilobits per frame. Without it, we get the technically correct resolution, but less than ideal HD video of the iTS HD video offerings.
Perhaps we need to start a new thread that is focused on a creating a consortium that will submit a recommendation to have the various HD types further categorized more accurately.
I hear what you are saying. This type of continuity was argued for a few years ago. But their is no consistency even with HD origination. Sony and others have evented all different types of HD camera formats that use various types of compression, data rates, and bit rates. As long as the resolution is 1080 or 720 its still considered HD. This has developed a situation where the highly compressed 1080 formats have less actual visual information than the less compressed 720 formats.
So- what does that have to do with hooking up a blu-ray drive to a MacBook?? The screen is far from optimized for HD. The Macbook Pro and iMac are a different story - for one thing, their size.
Would you hook up an external CD player to listed to music on a MacBook AIr's speakers?
It doesn't matter anyway because- keep your finger crossed:
So- what does that have to do with hooking up a blu-ray drive to a MacBook?? The screen is far from optimized for HD. The Macbook Pro and iMac are a different story - for one thing, their size.
Would you hook up an external CD player to listed to music on a MacBook AIr's speakers?
You said the MacBook screen is no where near HD. 1280x800 falls within the HD spec.
Since the MacBook screen is 1280x800. You need 1280x720 to fill the screen. This is HD.
Watching video on the MacBook screen is nothing like listening to audio through its speakers.
Watching a Blu-ray disc on an external Blu-ray drive hooked up to a 13" MacBook is a waste of time.
But if that works for you, then go ahead- ENJOY IT.
I've watched downloaded 720p content, and legal iTunes HD 720p TV shows, and overall, it was enjoyable on my MacBook. I'd love to watch BluRays instead of DVDs on my MacBook if possible. The only thing is the screen is a bit dark. But if the new MacBooks have LED backlighting, then a nice USB2.0 BluRay player would actually be a nice complement to MacBooks and MacBook Air. For "enthusiasts" or even more into the mainstream, if you had a BluRay you liked, you may want to take it to watch on the plane or at home, etc. if the BluRay portable player was quite light and compact. It's an emerging market, I'm sure we'll see these kinds of products by the middle of next year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machead99
I contacted the author of the article asking if it was specifically the 9600M GT he believed to be in the new MacBook Pros and if so why Apple would opt for such a low end card when more powerful ones are available at the same power draw, and he replied with the following:
"You are more likely right - some derivative refresh of the 9600 GT based on
a slightly updated G92-based part. Probably a 55nm GPU as well.
It makes sense, there is no reason to put a 9600M GT in the MBP when you could put a 9650M GT with no extra heat or batter drain, and a lot more power.
Maybe we'll even see a new card? Another refresh of some kind, 9675M GT lmao? Prob not..
And to the above claim that the 9600M GT is faster than the 9650M GT, ignore notebookcheck, it's a mess of inconsistency. Check the 3dmark 06 scores of the two cards, the 9650M GT scores over 400 points higher, das ist a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
The 9600M GT is probably what Apple will put in the Macbook Pro. It's not a great GPU, though. It's really just a die shrunk, overclocked 8600, and bears absolutely no relation to the much more powerful desktop 9600GT (Nvidia playing name games again).
Yeah, the desktop and mobile naming schemes are actually referring to quite different GPUs sometimes.
That said, 9650 or 9600, we'll have to see which, and again, at least it will be a 65nm or less, which will be a good step forward from the older 80nm 8600M GT.
I hear what you are saying. This type of continuity was argued for a few years ago. But their is no consistency even with HD origination. Sony and others have evented all different types of HD camera formats that use various types of compression, data rates, and bit rates. As long as the resolution is 1080 or 720 its still considered HD. This has developed a situation where the highly compressed 1080 formats have less actual visual information than the less compressed 720 formats.
If it is 1080"i" I usually just give it the middle finger and move on.
For 1080p and 720p, if it is iTunes or movie trailers from Apple, then that's pretty good quality.
Those 1080p and 720p available on torrents is questionable, since those are recompressed off BluRays/ etc. So it is considered lower-visual-quality HD content, though better than XVID DVD rips.
For broadcast, 720p and 1080p content, wow... that's the tricky part. There's no broadcast HD in my country so I'm not sure what the deal is there.
For broadcast though, the problem is both accessing high quality 720p or better content, at affordable prices, and getting popular and wide range of content *on demand* not waiting to *have to freakin' be in front of the TV by 9pm* or whatever. I already have a TV and a computer and iPhone, sometimes I just don't bloody want another set top box which is more power, wires, cable, etc.
Dude....you didn't even get the JOKE! I was making fun of AppleInsider for posting two headlines back to back. One claiming the NVIDIA chips are defective, and the other for claiming NVIDIA chips are being used in the new line. Probably not the best way to advertise the new line of MacBooks. Your comment makes no sense because NVIDIA is also a competitor of Intel. Too bad you didn't get the joke in the first place.
Thats exactly what I was thinking, on hand the MacBook Pros have faulty Nvidia chips and now Apple wants to introduce Nvidia chips in their MacBook line to. I don't really care if I have to use an ATI Graphics Card as long as it does the job.
The rumor is that the MB, MBA and MBP will have an integrated single chip core logic ("chipset") solution from Nvidia. The MB and MBA will use the integrated graphics chip (GeForce 9300/9400) inside this integrated chip, while the MBP will have a discrete Nvidia mobile GPU (GeForce 9600).
So the answer is no. But it will have Nvidia graphics which should be more powerful than the Intel integrated graphics solution.
Comments
Dude, you got issues, so what? At least they are willing to replace if for you. So what go to ATi now? Which is owned by AMD which is Intel competitor.
Dude....you didn't even get the JOKE! I was making fun of AppleInsider for posting two headlines back to back. One claiming the NVIDIA chips are defective, and the other for claiming NVIDIA chips are being used in the new line. Probably not the best way to advertise the new line of MacBooks. Your comment makes no sense because NVIDIA is also a competitor of Intel. Too bad you didn't get the joke in the first place.
The 9600M GT is probably what Apple will put in the Macbook Pro. It's not a great GPU, though. It's really just a die shrunk, overclocked 8600, and bears absolutely no relation to the much more powerful desktop 9600GT (Nvidia playing name games again).
Exactly
_________________
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!!?!?!?!?!
You can watch 1280x720 on a MacBook. That is HD.
The 9600M GT is probably what Apple will put in the Macbook Pro. It's not a great GPU, though. It's really just a die shrunk, overclocked 8600, and bears absolutely no relation to the much more powerful desktop 9600GT (Nvidia playing name games again).
I contacted the author of the article asking if it was specifically the 9600M GT he believed to be in the new MacBook Pros and if so why Apple would opt for such a low end card when more powerful ones are available at the same power draw, and he replied with the following:
"You are more likely right - some derivative refresh of the 9600 GT based on
a slightly updated G92-based part. Probably a 55nm GPU as well.
It makes sense, there is no reason to put a 9600M GT in the MBP when you could put a 9650M GT with no extra heat or batter drain, and a lot more power.
Maybe we'll even see a new card? Another refresh of some kind, 9675M GT lmao? Prob not..
And to the above claim that the 9600M GT is faster than the 9650M GT, ignore notebookcheck, it's a mess of inconsistency. Check the 3dmark 06 scores of the two cards, the 9650M GT scores over 400 points higher, das ist a lot.
You can watch 1280x720 on a MacBook. That is HD.
That is certainly HD, but I am not a fan of how we define HD as referring to only the resoltuion. There really needs to be a consortium that defines HD both the resolution AND the kilobits per seconds and/or kilobits per frame. Without it, we get the technically correct resolution, but less than ideal HD video of the iTS HD video offerings.
Perhaps we need to start a new thread that is focused on a creating a consortium that will submit a recommendation to have the various HD types further categorized more accurately.
Did they not pay attention to the headlines? MacBook Pros failed by defective NVIDIA chips and now NVIDIA platform claimed to be used for new MacBook line. Duh!
Maybe Apple got a great deal on those defective NVIDIA chips for the new line!
The defective GPUs are effecting some of the 8600M GT.
That is certainly HD, but I am not a fan of how we define HD as referring to only the resoltuion. There really needs to be a consortium that defines HD both the resolution AND the kilobits per seconds and/or kilobits per frame. Without it, we get the technically correct resolution, but less than ideal HD video of the iTS HD video offerings.
Perhaps we need to start a new thread that is focused on a creating a consortium that will submit a recommendation to have the various HD types further categorized more accurately.
I hear what you are saying. This type of continuity was argued for a few years ago. But their is no consistency even with HD origination. Sony and others have evented all different types of HD camera formats that use various types of compression, data rates, and bit rates. As long as the resolution is 1080 or 720 its still considered HD. This has developed a situation where the highly compressed 1080 formats have less actual visual information than the less compressed 720 formats.
You can watch 1280x720 on a MacBook. That is HD.
So- what does that have to do with hooking up a blu-ray drive to a MacBook?? The screen is far from optimized for HD. The Macbook Pro and iMac are a different story - for one thing, their size.
Would you hook up an external CD player to listed to music on a MacBook AIr's speakers?
It doesn't matter anyway because- keep your finger crossed:
http://www.dvdtown.com/news/rumor-pu...-macbooks/6012
So- what does that have to do with hooking up a blu-ray drive to a MacBook?? The screen is far from optimized for HD. The Macbook Pro and iMac are a different story - for one thing, their size.
Would you hook up an external CD player to listed to music on a MacBook AIr's speakers?
You said the MacBook screen is no where near HD. 1280x800 falls within the HD spec.
Since the MacBook screen is 1280x800. You need 1280x720 to fill the screen. This is HD.
Watching video on the MacBook screen is nothing like listening to audio through its speakers.
You said the MacBook screen is no where near HD. 1280x800 falls within the HD spec.
Since the MacBook screen is 1280x800. You need 1280x720 to fill the screen. This is HD.
Watching video on the MacBook screen is nothing like listening to audio through its speakers.
Watching a Blu-ray disc on an external Blu-ray drive hooked up to a 13" MacBook is a waste of time.
But if that works for you, then go ahead- ENJOY IT.
Watching a blu-ray disc on an external blu-ray drive hooked up to a 13" MacBook is a waste of time.
But if that works for you, then go ahead- ENJOY IT.
I never once said anything about hooking a Blu-ray to a Macbook.
There are othe delimas to watching Blu-ray on a Mac besides the screen resolution.
I never once said anything about hooking a Blu-ray to a Macbook.
No but your buddy sloppyism did and you've been defending him all day after I stated that was a waste of time.
There are othe delimas to watching Blu-ray on a Mac besides the screen resolution.
The word is dilemma, and nothing coud beat the dilemma of responding to your ambiguous posts of trickery. Good night.
Watching a Blu-ray disc on an external Blu-ray drive hooked up to a 13" MacBook is a waste of time.
But if that works for you, then go ahead- ENJOY IT.
I've watched downloaded 720p content, and legal iTunes HD 720p TV shows, and overall, it was enjoyable on my MacBook. I'd love to watch BluRays instead of DVDs on my MacBook if possible. The only thing is the screen is a bit dark. But if the new MacBooks have LED backlighting, then a nice USB2.0 BluRay player would actually be a nice complement to MacBooks and MacBook Air. For "enthusiasts" or even more into the mainstream, if you had a BluRay you liked, you may want to take it to watch on the plane or at home, etc. if the BluRay portable player was quite light and compact. It's an emerging market, I'm sure we'll see these kinds of products by the middle of next year.
I contacted the author of the article asking if it was specifically the 9600M GT he believed to be in the new MacBook Pros and if so why Apple would opt for such a low end card when more powerful ones are available at the same power draw, and he replied with the following:
"You are more likely right - some derivative refresh of the 9600 GT based on
a slightly updated G92-based part. Probably a 55nm GPU as well.
It makes sense, there is no reason to put a 9600M GT in the MBP when you could put a 9650M GT with no extra heat or batter drain, and a lot more power.
Maybe we'll even see a new card? Another refresh of some kind, 9675M GT lmao? Prob not..
And to the above claim that the 9600M GT is faster than the 9650M GT, ignore notebookcheck, it's a mess of inconsistency. Check the 3dmark 06 scores of the two cards, the 9650M GT scores over 400 points higher, das ist a lot.
The 9600M GT is probably what Apple will put in the Macbook Pro. It's not a great GPU, though. It's really just a die shrunk, overclocked 8600, and bears absolutely no relation to the much more powerful desktop 9600GT (Nvidia playing name games again).
Yeah, the desktop and mobile naming schemes are actually referring to quite different GPUs sometimes.
That said, 9650 or 9600, we'll have to see which, and again, at least it will be a 65nm or less, which will be a good step forward from the older 80nm 8600M GT.
I hear what you are saying. This type of continuity was argued for a few years ago. But their is no consistency even with HD origination. Sony and others have evented all different types of HD camera formats that use various types of compression, data rates, and bit rates. As long as the resolution is 1080 or 720 its still considered HD. This has developed a situation where the highly compressed 1080 formats have less actual visual information than the less compressed 720 formats.
If it is 1080"i" I usually just give it the middle finger and move on.
For 1080p and 720p, if it is iTunes or movie trailers from Apple, then that's pretty good quality.
Those 1080p and 720p available on torrents is questionable, since those are recompressed off BluRays/ etc. So it is considered lower-visual-quality HD content, though better than XVID DVD rips.
For broadcast, 720p and 1080p content, wow... that's the tricky part. There's no broadcast HD in my country so I'm not sure what the deal is there.
For broadcast though, the problem is both accessing high quality 720p or better content, at affordable prices, and getting popular and wide range of content *on demand* not waiting to *have to freakin' be in front of the TV by 9pm* or whatever. I already have a TV and a computer and iPhone, sometimes I just don't bloody want another set top box which is more power, wires, cable, etc.
Dude....you didn't even get the JOKE! I was making fun of AppleInsider for posting two headlines back to back. One claiming the NVIDIA chips are defective, and the other for claiming NVIDIA chips are being used in the new line. Probably not the best way to advertise the new line of MacBooks. Your comment makes no sense because NVIDIA is also a competitor of Intel. Too bad you didn't get the joke in the first place.
Thats exactly what I was thinking, on hand the MacBook Pros have faulty Nvidia chips and now Apple wants to introduce Nvidia chips in their MacBook line to. I don't really care if I have to use an ATI Graphics Card as long as it does the job.
so will new macbooks have nvidia cards in it?
The rumor is that the MB, MBA and MBP will have an integrated single chip core logic ("chipset") solution from Nvidia. The MB and MBA will use the integrated graphics chip (GeForce 9300/9400) inside this integrated chip, while the MBP will have a discrete Nvidia mobile GPU (GeForce 9600).
So the answer is no.