Now tell me what part of these specs Apple is not delivering on?
And I won't even go into the fact that there is plenty of software out there, which will let you clock your graphics card whichever way floats your boat. You are getting a "real" X1600, not a X1400 or anything else.
And that page doesn´t even state anything about the speed.
Looks like graphics cards for laptops is an accepted custom fit and you cannot claim that someone cheated you from certain specs if the manufactor of the computer didn´t claim them.
yes you are right. they do not specify processor speeds.
And now proceed to http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html -- and spend a few minutes reviewing that. Where on that page does Apple claim they have clocked the X1600 at a particular speed? That's right, they make no claims of any kind! In fact, they show you benchmarks, which are done on the actual MacBook Pro. They don't show you benchmarks of what it could be like.
And if you want to find out more, and you read the specifications on ATI's page, they specifically do not list a clock rate, just saying that the card will be tuned depending on what laptop you get.
And again, I will not go into the fact that it is dead simple to clock the card any way you like, though with obvious trade-offs (battery life and fan noise come to mind). Apple, nor ATI, have not done anything to prevent you from tuning the card to your hearts content. If anything, the opposite: ATI has made it very easy to change the clock and memory speeds.
If tuning the clock speed required you to hack the firmware, maybe you'd have a point.
Here is a fact: As every laptop manufacturer does, Apple has had to strike a balance between size, heat, noise weight, battery life, and many other factors. If you are a hardcore gamer, you would purchase an Alienware or similar laptop. It'll be huge, heavy and noisy, but it will be tuned for the highest possible performance. Maybe even factory over-clocked (it seems that more and more "factory over-clocked" PC's are coming to market)! A computer is a tool, and you get the tool that is best suited to your needs.
And now proceed to http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html -- and spend a few minutes reviewing that. Where on that page does Apple claim they have clocked the X1600 at a particular speed? That's right, they make no claims of any kind! In fact, they show you benchmarks, which are done on the actual MacBook Pro. They don't show you benchmarks of what it could be like.
And if you want to find out more, and you read the specifications on ATI's page, they specifically do not list a clock rate, just saying that the card will be tuned depending on what laptop you get.
And again, I will not go into the fact that it is dead simple to clock the card any way you like, though with obvious trade-offs (battery life and fan noise come to mind). Apple, nor ATI, have not done anything to prevent you from tuning the card to your hearts content. If anything, the opposite: ATI has made it very easy to change the clock and memory speeds.
It's the unadulterated truth. Unfortunately, there are limits to what today's technology can and cannot do. Blame the universe if you will, but it certainly isn't Apple's fault. And you can always change the clock speed of your ATI graphics card, it's not like it involves patching the firmware, or making any dangerous modifications. It's just a setting that can easily be flipped on or off, literally. It's your decision, and Apple is not taking that decision away from you.
And now proceed to http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html -- and spend a few minutes reviewing that. Where on that page does Apple claim they have clocked the X1600 at a particular speed? And if you want to find out more, and you read the specifications on ATI's page, they specifically do not list a clock rate, just saying that the card will be tuned depending on what laptop you get.
While ati doesn't state it on that page... there is a STANDARD that is assumed. If you look at all the ATI x1600 mobility gpu's they are all clocked at 470mhz OR HIGHER. A lot of manufacters will overclock the gpu and ship it that way. This is one of the reasons ATI doesn't list clock speeds on their pages. ASUS would do their x1900 and clock it 100mhz higher as a marketing point.
Every single review site i have come across on the ATI x1600 mobility states it runs at 470mhz. So this should be assumed by the consumer. A lot of people aren't technically savy enough to overclock their gpus... i mean they could attempt it.. but they don't know the physical limits and could fry something.
The fact remains that if something is underclocked from a standard speed, it isn't the pure graphics card. This is where cards like the x800XL or the 6800SE come into play. These are cards that have been underclocked. Usually they are underclocked to get HEAT TEMPS down and to strive for pure silent operation. They can't be sold as a x800 or a 6800... but need some sort of extension to show they aren't their full self. Is it the same gpu? In most cases yes. Some cases vertex shaders and pixel pipelines are disabled, but in a lot of cases they aren't and are just underclocked. So tell me why these manufacters don't just sell them as a 6800? A PC enthusiast would be PISSED to no END if they bought an underclocked card. Why should we accept anything less?
I very much suspect that anybody who reads up on GPU clock speeds would be technically savvy enough to install and use an over-clocking application. Heck, I don't, and even I'm technically savvy enough to do it! Now if the GPU that Apple built in was a lesser version of the X1600, which wasn't even capable of running at the "assumed" speed, you would have a very reasonable point.
As it stands, you're not making a whole lot of sense.
While ati doesn't state it on that page... there is a STANDARD that is assumed. If you look at all the ATI x1600 mobility gpu's they are all clocked at 470mhz OR HIGHER. A lot of manufacters will overclock the gpu and ship it that way. This is one of the reasons ATI doesn't list clock speeds on their pages.
Do you have any evidence that proves the bold part?
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
Every single review site i have come across on the ATI x1600 mobility states it runs at 470mhz. So this should be assumed by the consumer.
According to www.liesaboutcoke.org your penis will grow five inches if you dring two cans of coke every day. Should we hold Coca-Cola responsible for those claim if they turns out to be false?
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
The fact remains that if something is underclocked from a standard speed, it isn't the pure graphics card.
If they are underclocked give a link that proves that they are slower than OFFICAL ATI specs. It should be easy, no?
The fact remains that if something is underclocked from a standard speed, it isn't the pure graphics card.
The folks at ATI disagree with you, and in fact specifically make customers who read the official specifications of the X1600 mobility aware that the card will be tuned, depending on the laptop you are getting.
But, but, melgross , I want my 30" MacBook Pro with SLI graphics and quad core. It must weigh no more than 3 pounds, and have at least 8 hours of battery life. It must also be completely silent, and not generate any heat of any kind.
Don't forget to say that you want to be able to OMG UPGRADE TEH VIDEO CARD and OMG UPGRADE TEH PROCESSOR and OMG UPGRADE TEH HARD DRIVE and OMG I WANT MORE PIXELS and OMG WTF NO PCI SLOT.
What I find to be amazing is that all the people who crab about how they want a thinner, lighter laptop here, will also crab because said laptop can't cool enough, and that a bigger heavier battery can't be cramped in, so that these power hungry, and HOT chips can run at full speeds.
If the MBP were a half inch thicker, and a half pound heavier, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Life is a compromise. Get over it.
I have a MacBook Pro I am disappointed because it isn't a laptop computer.
I don't need a thinner computer, I didn't ask for a thinner computer than the previous revision. I wish there was a way to force the fans on, it could be cooling the unit better. I'm not sure what to do with the thing now, the damn thing has two fans with lower air flow than that of my reasonably quiet Windows laptop with one fan.
The MBP isn't set to cool itself properly when placed on a lap, the manual simply cautions against this use on page 107, saying that the product won't be able to cool itself when placed on any soft surface. Relying on the bottom panel of something like this for cooling isn't good thermal design.
I also see no way to enable or control SpeedStep or any other means of setting or verifying clock reduction for when the speed isn't needed.
Sure you are right melgross, life is a compromise. But a consumer should be the one who chooses to make the compromise. Apple should be clear that you are not getting what is 'in the box' so to speak. It should be very clear what you are compromising to get your thin, long-life-ed sleek MacBook. I love Apple computers but I am not a hacker and must rely on trusting apple's published specs as true.
So, you would choose not to buy the computer because they clocked the graphics subsystem down? Pretty much all laptop companies do the same thing. Those specs reported are maximum. ATI even says that the speeds will vary.
I have a MacBook Pro I am disappointed because it isn't a laptop computer.
I don't need a thinner computer, I didn't ask for a thinner computer than the previous revision. I wish there was a way to force the fans on, it could be cooling the unit better. I'm not sure what to do with the thing now, the damn thing has two fans with lower air flow than that of my reasonably quiet Windows laptop with one fan. The MBP isn't set to cool itself properly when placed on a lap, the manual simply cautions against this use on page 107. I also see no way to enable or control SpeedStep or any other means of setting or verifying clock reduction for when the speed isn't needed.
If you go through the PC sites, you will find more than a few "laptops" that are too hot for a lap. Apple's customers want thin. Apple is giving it to them.
If it is performing the way it's spec'd, then it's fine. You're not supposed to be able to control Speedstep. The cpu does that itself.
The fans cool the internal components to the temps THEY need. It's not there for your pleasure. These laptops are not much hotter than the G4's they replaced. But the performance is much better.
Take it or leave it. There's not much else to be said.
If you go through the PC sites, you will find more than a few "laptops" that are too hot for a lap.
I don't care. Ten wrong products don't make a right, and neither does the status quo. If Apple wants to claim its products are better, then I see nothing wrong with holding them to an acceptable standard. It is a significant mode of use for the product that is a basic expectation for the people that use the product and shouldn't be disclaimed near the back of the book with weasel words.
Quote:
You're not supposed to be able to control Speedstep.
Says who? OS X gave more control over the G5's energy management than it does over the Core Duo. There is no way to set "reduced" on the MBP for maximized energy savings, the energy savings control only seems to control the display backlight. The chips shouldn't be running so hot when they are idle, that leads me to believe that it is running at full speed.
Quote:
Take it or leave it. There's not much else to be said.
I may end up having to leave it because the product is effectively a luggable in its current form.
I must say though, using the bottom plate as a significant heat transfer method is bad thermal design, I learned that in first semester of thermal engineering.
But, but, melgross , I want my 30" MacBook Pro with SLI graphics and quad core. It must weigh no more than 3 pounds, and have at least 8 hours of battery life. It must also be completely silent, and not generate any heat of any kind.
...and cure cancer. It must cure cancer, even if it is only a BTO option.
[B]I don't care. Ten wrong products don't make a right. If Apple wants to claim its products are better, then I see nothing wrong with holding them to an acceptable standard. It is a significant mode of use for the product that is a basic expectation for the people that use the product and shouldn't be disclaimed near the back of the book.
Jeff, laptops have been getting hotter for years. That's the way it is. Until technology allows a cpu to use even less power than now, with the same performance, you will have to suffer with it. Nobody is happy about it, but it can't be helped. People are not willing to accept the alternative, which is; heavier machines, and larger machines. Not for the same performance.
You might be, but few others are.
Quote:
Says who? OS X gave more control over the G5's energy management than it does over the MBP's chip. There is no way to set "reduced" on the MBP for maximized energy savings, the energy savings control only seems to control the display backlight. The chips shouldn't be running so hot when they are idle, that leads me to believe that it is running at full speed.
Sez Intel. This has been discussed already. Not just here, but on other tech sites as well.
Quote:
I may end up having to leave it because the product is effectively a luggable in its current form.
That would be sad, but it's your choice. Let us know if you do.
Quote:
I must say though, using the bottom plate as a significant heat transfer method is bad thermal design, I learned that in first semester of thermal engineering.
It's good for the components, bad for your naked knees. Aluminum is a very good heat conductor. Of the common materials, only copper is better. There is no other heat sink area that Apple could use on a laptop. PC manufacturers that use plastic, have a lower external temp, but a higher internal one, or are larger, and weigh more. Most people want thin and light.
It's good for the components, bad for your naked knees. Aluminum is a very good heat conductor.
My point was that the bottom surface of a hot object has the worst thermal transfer coefficient, in non-circulated air. Actually moving air would be better, but this product really doesn't seem to try very hard at that either.
Comments
Originally posted by Flounder
Did you even read Lundy's post?
yes. And I would happy for you to show me where Apple (the notebook vendor) gives us a complete list of supported features.
Did you read my post?
Originally posted by makkystyle
yes. And I would happy for you to show me where Apple (the notebook vendor) gives us a complete list of supported features.
Did you read my post?
Do us a favour, will ye? Spend 10 minutes reading the official specs of the Mobility? Radeon® X1600. You can find them here: http://www.ati.com/products/mobility...600/specs.html
Now tell me what part of these specs Apple is not delivering on?
And I won't even go into the fact that there is plenty of software out there, which will let you clock your graphics card whichever way floats your boat. You are getting a "real" X1600, not a X1400 or anything else.
Originally posted by Anders
And that page doesn´t even state anything about the speed.
Looks like graphics cards for laptops is an accepted custom fit and you cannot claim that someone cheated you from certain specs if the manufactor of the computer didn´t claim them.
yes you are right. they do not specify processor speeds.
And if you want to find out more, and you read the specifications on ATI's page, they specifically do not list a clock rate, just saying that the card will be tuned depending on what laptop you get.
And again, I will not go into the fact that it is dead simple to clock the card any way you like, though with obvious trade-offs (battery life and fan noise come to mind). Apple, nor ATI, have not done anything to prevent you from tuning the card to your hearts content. If anything, the opposite: ATI has made it very easy to change the clock and memory speeds.
Here is a fact: As every laptop manufacturer does, Apple has had to strike a balance between size, heat, noise weight, battery life, and many other factors. If you are a hardcore gamer, you would purchase an Alienware or similar laptop. It'll be huge, heavy and noisy, but it will be tuned for the highest possible performance. Maybe even factory over-clocked (it seems that more and more "factory over-clocked" PC's are coming to market)! A computer is a tool, and you get the tool that is best suited to your needs.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
And now proceed to http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html -- and spend a few minutes reviewing that. Where on that page does Apple claim they have clocked the X1600 at a particular speed? That's right, they make no claims of any kind! In fact, they show you benchmarks, which are done on the actual MacBook Pro. They don't show you benchmarks of what it could be like.
And if you want to find out more, and you read the specifications on ATI's page, they specifically do not list a clock rate, just saying that the card will be tuned depending on what laptop you get.
And again, I will not go into the fact that it is dead simple to clock the card any way you like, though with obvious trade-offs (battery life and fan noise come to mind). Apple, nor ATI, have not done anything to prevent you from tuning the card to your hearts content. If anything, the opposite: ATI has made it very easy to change the clock and memory speeds.
yes you made your point the first time.
Originally posted by makkystyle
yes you made your point the first time.
It's the unadulterated truth. Unfortunately, there are limits to what today's technology can and cannot do. Blame the universe if you will, but it certainly isn't Apple's fault. And you can always change the clock speed of your ATI graphics card, it's not like it involves patching the firmware, or making any dangerous modifications. It's just a setting that can easily be flipped on or off, literally. It's your decision, and Apple is not taking that decision away from you.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
And now proceed to http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html -- and spend a few minutes reviewing that. Where on that page does Apple claim they have clocked the X1600 at a particular speed? And if you want to find out more, and you read the specifications on ATI's page, they specifically do not list a clock rate, just saying that the card will be tuned depending on what laptop you get.
While ati doesn't state it on that page... there is a STANDARD that is assumed. If you look at all the ATI x1600 mobility gpu's they are all clocked at 470mhz OR HIGHER. A lot of manufacters will overclock the gpu and ship it that way. This is one of the reasons ATI doesn't list clock speeds on their pages. ASUS would do their x1900 and clock it 100mhz higher as a marketing point.
Every single review site i have come across on the ATI x1600 mobility states it runs at 470mhz. So this should be assumed by the consumer. A lot of people aren't technically savy enough to overclock their gpus... i mean they could attempt it.. but they don't know the physical limits and could fry something.
The fact remains that if something is underclocked from a standard speed, it isn't the pure graphics card. This is where cards like the x800XL or the 6800SE come into play. These are cards that have been underclocked. Usually they are underclocked to get HEAT TEMPS down and to strive for pure silent operation. They can't be sold as a x800 or a 6800... but need some sort of extension to show they aren't their full self. Is it the same gpu? In most cases yes. Some cases vertex shaders and pixel pipelines are disabled, but in a lot of cases they aren't and are just underclocked. So tell me why these manufacters don't just sell them as a 6800? A PC enthusiast would be PISSED to no END if they bought an underclocked card. Why should we accept anything less?
Originally posted by makkystyle
yes you made your point the first time.
I blame the review pages. They lists the maximum clock speed as was it applicable on all hardware
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2632
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=188&type=expert
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=2220
They should relay the real picture instead.
As it stands, you're not making a whole lot of sense.
Originally posted by emig647
While ati doesn't state it on that page... there is a STANDARD that is assumed. If you look at all the ATI x1600 mobility gpu's they are all clocked at 470mhz OR HIGHER. A lot of manufacters will overclock the gpu and ship it that way. This is one of the reasons ATI doesn't list clock speeds on their pages.
Do you have any evidence that proves the bold part?
Originally posted by emig647
Every single review site i have come across on the ATI x1600 mobility states it runs at 470mhz. So this should be assumed by the consumer.
According to www.liesaboutcoke.org your penis will grow five inches if you dring two cans of coke every day. Should we hold Coca-Cola responsible for those claim if they turns out to be false?
Originally posted by emig647
The fact remains that if something is underclocked from a standard speed, it isn't the pure graphics card.
If they are underclocked give a link that proves that they are slower than OFFICAL ATI specs. It should be easy, no?
Originally posted by emig647
The fact remains that if something is underclocked from a standard speed, it isn't the pure graphics card.
The folks at ATI disagree with you, and in fact specifically make customers who read the official specifications of the X1600 mobility aware that the card will be tuned, depending on the laptop you are getting.
But hey, what do the folks at ATI know, right?
But, but, melgross , I want my 30" MacBook Pro with SLI graphics and quad core. It must weigh no more than 3 pounds, and have at least 8 hours of battery life. It must also be completely silent, and not generate any heat of any kind.
Don't forget to say that you want to be able to OMG UPGRADE TEH VIDEO CARD and OMG UPGRADE TEH PROCESSOR and OMG UPGRADE TEH HARD DRIVE and OMG I WANT MORE PIXELS and OMG WTF NO PCI SLOT.
Originally posted by melgross
What I find to be amazing is that all the people who crab about how they want a thinner, lighter laptop here, will also crab because said laptop can't cool enough, and that a bigger heavier battery can't be cramped in, so that these power hungry, and HOT chips can run at full speeds.
If the MBP were a half inch thicker, and a half pound heavier, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Life is a compromise. Get over it.
I have a MacBook Pro I am disappointed because it isn't a laptop computer.
I don't need a thinner computer, I didn't ask for a thinner computer than the previous revision. I wish there was a way to force the fans on, it could be cooling the unit better. I'm not sure what to do with the thing now, the damn thing has two fans with lower air flow than that of my reasonably quiet Windows laptop with one fan.
The MBP isn't set to cool itself properly when placed on a lap, the manual simply cautions against this use on page 107, saying that the product won't be able to cool itself when placed on any soft surface. Relying on the bottom panel of something like this for cooling isn't good thermal design.
I also see no way to enable or control SpeedStep or any other means of setting or verifying clock reduction for when the speed isn't needed.
Originally posted by makkystyle
Sure you are right melgross, life is a compromise. But a consumer should be the one who chooses to make the compromise. Apple should be clear that you are not getting what is 'in the box' so to speak. It should be very clear what you are compromising to get your thin, long-life-ed sleek MacBook. I love Apple computers but I am not a hacker and must rely on trusting apple's published specs as true.
So, you would choose not to buy the computer because they clocked the graphics subsystem down? Pretty much all laptop companies do the same thing. Those specs reported are maximum. ATI even says that the speeds will vary.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I have a MacBook Pro I am disappointed because it isn't a laptop computer.
I don't need a thinner computer, I didn't ask for a thinner computer than the previous revision. I wish there was a way to force the fans on, it could be cooling the unit better. I'm not sure what to do with the thing now, the damn thing has two fans with lower air flow than that of my reasonably quiet Windows laptop with one fan. The MBP isn't set to cool itself properly when placed on a lap, the manual simply cautions against this use on page 107. I also see no way to enable or control SpeedStep or any other means of setting or verifying clock reduction for when the speed isn't needed.
If you go through the PC sites, you will find more than a few "laptops" that are too hot for a lap. Apple's customers want thin. Apple is giving it to them.
If it is performing the way it's spec'd, then it's fine. You're not supposed to be able to control Speedstep. The cpu does that itself.
The fans cool the internal components to the temps THEY need. It's not there for your pleasure. These laptops are not much hotter than the G4's they replaced. But the performance is much better.
Take it or leave it. There's not much else to be said.
Originally posted by melgross
If you go through the PC sites, you will find more than a few "laptops" that are too hot for a lap.
I don't care. Ten wrong products don't make a right, and neither does the status quo. If Apple wants to claim its products are better, then I see nothing wrong with holding them to an acceptable standard. It is a significant mode of use for the product that is a basic expectation for the people that use the product and shouldn't be disclaimed near the back of the book with weasel words.
Quote:
You're not supposed to be able to control Speedstep.
Says who? OS X gave more control over the G5's energy management than it does over the Core Duo. There is no way to set "reduced" on the MBP for maximized energy savings, the energy savings control only seems to control the display backlight. The chips shouldn't be running so hot when they are idle, that leads me to believe that it is running at full speed.
Quote:
Take it or leave it. There's not much else to be said.
I may end up having to leave it because the product is effectively a luggable in its current form.
I must say though, using the bottom plate as a significant heat transfer method is bad thermal design, I learned that in first semester of thermal engineering.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
But, but, melgross , I want my 30" MacBook Pro with SLI graphics and quad core. It must weigh no more than 3 pounds, and have at least 8 hours of battery life. It must also be completely silent, and not generate any heat of any kind.
...and cure cancer. It must cure cancer, even if it is only a BTO option.
Originally posted by JeffDM
[B]I don't care. Ten wrong products don't make a right. If Apple wants to claim its products are better, then I see nothing wrong with holding them to an acceptable standard. It is a significant mode of use for the product that is a basic expectation for the people that use the product and shouldn't be disclaimed near the back of the book.
Jeff, laptops have been getting hotter for years. That's the way it is. Until technology allows a cpu to use even less power than now, with the same performance, you will have to suffer with it. Nobody is happy about it, but it can't be helped. People are not willing to accept the alternative, which is; heavier machines, and larger machines. Not for the same performance.
You might be, but few others are.
Says who? OS X gave more control over the G5's energy management than it does over the MBP's chip. There is no way to set "reduced" on the MBP for maximized energy savings, the energy savings control only seems to control the display backlight. The chips shouldn't be running so hot when they are idle, that leads me to believe that it is running at full speed.
Sez Intel. This has been discussed already. Not just here, but on other tech sites as well.
I may end up having to leave it because the product is effectively a luggable in its current form.
That would be sad, but it's your choice. Let us know if you do.
I must say though, using the bottom plate as a significant heat transfer method is bad thermal design, I learned that in first semester of thermal engineering.
It's good for the components, bad for your naked knees. Aluminum is a very good heat conductor. Of the common materials, only copper is better. There is no other heat sink area that Apple could use on a laptop. PC manufacturers that use plastic, have a lower external temp, but a higher internal one, or are larger, and weigh more. Most people want thin and light.
Originally posted by melgross
It's good for the components, bad for your naked knees. Aluminum is a very good heat conductor.
My point was that the bottom surface of a hot object has the worst thermal transfer coefficient, in non-circulated air. Actually moving air would be better, but this product really doesn't seem to try very hard at that either.