MacBook IG underclocked. Anyway to get it back up to speed?
Thanks to Nico for the original link: http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-06-08/#5587
And thanks to sandau for this link: http://developer.apple.com/documenta...nkElementID_20
Now what I would like to know is there anyway to get it back to its original clock speed?
I'm really interested in knowing because I've heard people who've been able to play Civ. IV but not at full, so if you can get the clock speeds up it should help the game play better.
So any ideas?
Note: the people who have been playing Civ IV have done so using boot camp. And they have there MacBooks with 2.0GHz and 2GB of Ram.
Quote:
GMA 950 In MacBook: It's Underclocked ... - Lionel -
Source : XLR8yourMac
We've recently been discussing that the MB would have been a perfect notebook for the mass market if it came with with a real GPU. Unfortunately, Apple decided to use an integrated graphics chipset, the GMA950. Of course graphics performance are really low, but they are even worse than one could expect!! Indeed, Apple has underclocked the GMA950 in the MB ? instead of running at 400MHz, it is clocked at 250MHz, as confirmed by a Apple TechNote.
So just like the Radeon X1600 in the MB Pro 15", Apple has decided to underclock GPUs to preserve battery lifespan and to limit, as much as possible, heat generation. It can also explain why the MB was delivering such poor performance in 3D benchmarks.
GMA 950 In MacBook: It's Underclocked ... - Lionel -
Source : XLR8yourMac
We've recently been discussing that the MB would have been a perfect notebook for the mass market if it came with with a real GPU. Unfortunately, Apple decided to use an integrated graphics chipset, the GMA950. Of course graphics performance are really low, but they are even worse than one could expect!! Indeed, Apple has underclocked the GMA950 in the MB ? instead of running at 400MHz, it is clocked at 250MHz, as confirmed by a Apple TechNote.
So just like the Radeon X1600 in the MB Pro 15", Apple has decided to underclock GPUs to preserve battery lifespan and to limit, as much as possible, heat generation. It can also explain why the MB was delivering such poor performance in 3D benchmarks.
And thanks to sandau for this link: http://developer.apple.com/documenta...nkElementID_20
Quote:
Graphics Subsystem
Internal to the North Bridge IC is the graphics subsystem, which includes the Intel GMA950 graphics processor with 64 MB DDR2 SDRAM shared with the main memory. The internal graphics interface runs at 250 MHz.
Graphics Subsystem
Internal to the North Bridge IC is the graphics subsystem, which includes the Intel GMA950 graphics processor with 64 MB DDR2 SDRAM shared with the main memory. The internal graphics interface runs at 250 MHz.
Now what I would like to know is there anyway to get it back to its original clock speed?
I'm really interested in knowing because I've heard people who've been able to play Civ. IV but not at full, so if you can get the clock speeds up it should help the game play better.
So any ideas?
Note: the people who have been playing Civ IV have done so using boot camp. And they have there MacBooks with 2.0GHz and 2GB of Ram.
Comments
Yes I'd like to hear overclocking anecdotes too...will it fry!?
Plus a hack to let it use more RAM would be good too.
Anyone else know a way to overclock the IG back to 400MHz?? There has to be a way
anyways the next version of intels IG sounds very promising:
News from Computex Taipei 2006.
The next generation of Intel G965 graphic chipset has been officially named to Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3000, expected to be released between 14th Aug to 18th Sept. It is the first DirextX 9 and Shader Model 3.0 supported Intel IGP product. Differ from other chipsets, in which the 3D rendering unit and video processing unit are separated, Intel GMA X3000 merged them to a single programmable executions unit. The flexible design of the unit ensured every execution unit are kept in busy, thus enhancing the performance. It is easy to imagine that the workers who are capable to handle both 3D and video execution must be working in more efficient.
In addition, the DVMT memory management has been upgraded to 4.0, providing a faster way to data fetching, and can be shared up to 256M of the system memory. Actually, Intel GMA X3000 has a lot of change compared to the previous version, such as hardware T&L and Clipping, improved Early Z engine with new Occlusion Query, improved Anisotropic Filtering with Dynamic 16 sample, and upgraded 32bit Floating Point Precision. Its Clear Video Technology also supports VC-1(WMV9) and AVC(H.264) hardware acceleration，providing Advanced DeInterlacing、Proc Amp Color Control and High quality Video Scalar. Intel is now coming to be the strong competitor to nVidia and ATi!
Source: http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?ti...me=0&endtime=0
Originally posted by Aquatic
Xool why did you mention ATi?
Yes I'd like to hear overclocking anecdotes too...will it fry!?
Plus a hack to let it use more RAM would be good too.
He thinks we're talking about the Macbook Pro because he was too slow to read the first post.
Originally posted by Xool
Well, ATIccelerator works for other ATI cards but I don't think its working for the x1600s yet. It'll get worked out eventually.
On the BootCamp side, anyway, AtiTool has worked fine for me and made playing CivIV and Oblivion much more fun. The fans do come on more often, but the temperature does not seem to be any hotter--so if you don't mind the noise, I say go for it.
I'd love for something to come along and allow me to overclock the chip on OSX as well.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
I'd love for something to come along and allow me to overclock the chip on OSX as well.
I bet this is too obvious to be true, but has the ATIcellerator author made his app a universal binary yet?
Originally posted by Darth_Apple
Now what I would like to know is there anyway to get it back to its original clock speed?
This isn't how chips worked. It isn't "underclocked". Max frequencies, as quoted by chip suppliers, represent a scenario that maximizes performance at the expense of power consumption, stability, and heat disipation.
There is no "original" or "normal" speed.
You can however choose a different trade off between these if you like. Just understand that you won't be returning the chip to it's "normal" clock speed. Instead, you will infact be "overclocking". Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Arrrgh, i dislike this meme that harps on "underclocking" when engineers don't sacrifice everything for a tiny bit higher performance. I bet there is heavy overlap with the gamer's meme that refers to sidesteping as "strafing."
Originally posted by sandau
underclocked and i think in OS X minimized to 64/80mb ram. In bootcamp, 128mb minimum up to 244mb. I sure would love to see how this thing runs with 400mhz bus and 244mb ram.
I would love the option to change the graphics ram in OSX to 128 or 244; imagine, Motion running on a $1100 MacBook with a $150 RAM upgrade...1.75 GB system RAM and 244 MB graphic ram...that would be cool, watching a $1100 unit smoke a $2400 Powerbook from a mere 6 months ago!
Originally posted by a_greer
I would love the option to change the graphics ram in OSX to 128 or 244; imagine, Motion running on a $1100 MacBook with a $150 RAM upgrade...1.75 GB system RAM and 244 MB graphic ram...that would be cool, watching a $1100 unit smoke a $2400 Powerbook from a mere 6 months ago!
I'm not sure what gives you the impression that such a high amount of RAM would help the MacBook's integrated graphics out much. The problem isn't with the low amount of RAM, but with the low bandwidth and high latency.
Even 2 GBs of shared(!) VRAM wouldn't help.
Originally posted by dfiler
This isn't how chips worked. It isn't "underclocked". Max frequencies, as quoted by chip suppliers, represent a scenario that maximizes performance at the expense of power consumption, stability, and heat disipation.
There is no "original" or "normal" speed.
You can however choose a different trade off between these if you like. Just understand that you won't be returning the chip to it's "normal" clock speed. Instead, you will infact be "overclocking". Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Arrrgh, i dislike this meme that harps on "underclocking" when engineers don't sacrifice everything for a tiny bit higher performance. I bet there is heavy overlap with the gamer's meme that refers to sidesteping as "strafing."
In Dell and Lenovo laptops, the same graphics card has a higher clockspeed. Same with the Macbook Pro. We're not bitching about bad performance; we're bitching about bad performance by design.
To say they purposefully made it slow is for no reason? That simply makes one look foolish.
Originally posted by Placebo
In Dell and Lenovo laptops, the same graphics card has a higher clockspeed. Same with the Macbook Pro. We're not bitching about bad performance; we're bitching about bad performance by design.
And I would bet that those laptops are thicker, noisier, and have less battery life when corrected for the thickness.
"Performance" can mean ease of transport, noise, and battery life per weight also.
Originally posted by Chucker
I'm not sure what gives you the impression that such a high amount of RAM would help the MacBook's integrated graphics out much. The problem isn't with the low amount of RAM, but with the low bandwidth and high latency.
Even 2 GBs of shared(!) VRAM wouldn't help.
This is a VERY common misconception. I can't say how often I read people refer to their video card solely by the amount of memory it has. "Oh... I just got a new 256MB video card that'll blow anything away.". I'm surprised how often I hear that from people who I tend to think are actually pretty knowledgeable about computer hardware (meaning these are people that never interchange "memory" for hard drive space, don't refer to the monitor as the "computer", etc).
Originally posted by lundy
And I would bet that those laptops are thicker, noisier, and have less battery life when corrected for the thickness.
"Performance" can mean ease of transport, noise, and battery life per weight also.
You are correct, and for the most part I even like the trade off's that Apple made. That's why the only thing I want is a way to over-clock it on those few occasion (notably games) when I would rather sacrifice some battery time.
Originally posted by Placebo
I bet this is too obvious to be true, but has the ATIcellerator author made his app a universal binary yet?
That's what I hope for, but it doesn't support either Intel or the newer Graphic Cards in the MacBook pro.
This isn't how chips worked. It isn't "underclocked". Max frequencies, as quoted by chip suppliers, represent a scenario that maximizes performance at the expense of power consumption, stability, and heat disipation.
And I would bet that those laptops are thicker, noisier, and have less battery life when corrected for the thickness.
This makes sense. But I'm sure people will go on to bellyache about gaming.
Especially when the gaming question has been addressed and answered. Especially when in the PC world gaming laptops and desktops cost as much and more than Apple Pro machines.
Originally posted by Joey
This is a VERY common misconception. I can't say how often I read people refer to their video card solely by the amount of memory it has. "Oh... I just got a new 256MB video card that'll blow anything away.". I'm surprised how often I hear that from people who I tend to think are actually pretty knowledgeable about computer hardware (meaning these are people that never interchange "memory" for hard drive space, don't refer to the monitor as the "computer", etc).
Don't be too hard on them. There are many, many tasks greatly influenced by the amount of vram. Example that touches everyone? Exposé
With that said though... It'd be interesting to see the effects of tweaking the RAM allocation. The price of cache misses are completely different on these systems as compared to every other apple system.
(Eagerly awaiting some brave soul's benchmarks)