New PB Graphics

richard · January 7, 2003 6:20PM

Anyone else wondering why the new PB's feature a supposingly slower graphics chip than the one in the 15 inch PB? Just looked up some benchmark (<a href="http://www17.tomshardware.com/mobile/20020829/radeon9000-03.html"; target="_blank">http://www17.tomshardware.com/mobile/20020829/radeon9000-03.html</a>

, the ATI 9000 seems to do better. (I know they're pc benchmarks, but I figure it still says something about their relative performance).

Could they have chosen the nvidia chip because of lower power consumption? Does it have lower power consumption?

Anyone any thoughts on this?

[ 01-07-2003: Message edited by: Richard ]

pb · January 8, 2003 9:13AM

It is strange, and even Apple do not report in

<a href="http://www.apple.com/powerbook/graphics.html"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/powerbook/graphics.html</a>;

the levels of graphics performance of the new powerbooks. Can anyone explain?

dvd_junkie · January 8, 2003 9:53AM

[quote]Originally posted by Richard:

Anyone else wondering why the new PB's feature a supposingly slower graphics chip than the one in the 15 inch PB? Just looked up some benchmark (<a href="http://www17.tomshardware.com/mobile/20020829/radeon9000-03.html"; target="_blank">http://www17.tomshardware.com/mobile/20020829/radeon9000-03.html</a>

, the ATI 9000 seems to do better. (I know they're pc benchmarks, but I figure it still says something about their relative performance).

Could they have chosen the nvidia chip because of lower power consumption? Does it have lower power consumption?

Anyone any thoughts on this?

[ 01-07-2003: Message edited by: Richard ]<hr></blockquote>

Absolutely NOT! The Radeon 9000 Mobility chip is much more efficient at power usage and power saving, and a higher 3D performer too, than the mobile nvidia GF4. I too cannot find a logical explanation for Apple using a lower performer and bigger power munger on the new 17 incher except for trying to save a few bucks! I'd go for the 15 PB just for that reason alone.

[ 01-08-2003: Message edited by: DVD_Junkie ]

luca · January 8, 2003 10:02AM

I heard someone suggest that it might be some move by Apple to gain more support from nVidia. Or maybe some sort of agreement with the two companies, like "If you put nVidia chips in at least half your lineup this year, we'll throw more development into the GeForce FX for the Mac."

[ 01-08-2003: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]

salidar34 · January 8, 2003 11:08AM

The chip in the new power book 17" is the 440, which, in this test, performs comprably to the old radeon 7500 that is now in the ibooks. The 12" has the 420, which would mean that the ibook has a better graphics chip than it does. This seems ridiculous!?

One possible explanation is the a problem with drivers, as the test does cite something about direct X support being better on the 9000...

I want to see some comparisions between the 17" and the 15"

g-news · January 8, 2003 11:34AM

make that comparison between the 12" and 867 15.2" and the 1GHz 15.2" and 17".

I can only assume that it was some market deal thing, certainly not a power or performance thing.

anyway, both chips still are plenty fast for anything that's not a 3D game. And even for that it should be enough for the current ones.

G-News

zo · January 8, 2003 11:53AM

too bad that we only want high performance GPUs to be able to game... duh

(yeah, so there are some odd exceptions

)

penheadd · January 8, 2003 1:02PM

I've tested PC notebooks with both the 420 and 440 chips in them, and all I can say is that they are really zipppy gpu's. I don't think people who buy the new powerbooks have anything to worry about in the graphics department, unless they are rendering the next LOTR film or something - in which case they should probably be using another machine alltogether ...

Seriously, the geForce4 to go series is perfectly allright for 3d games and basic rendering work. If speed is your issue, go buy a tower and insert your gpu of choice. If you really, really want 10 more fps in quake3 you can always get the 15". You guys always find something to complain about

/penhead

aquatic · January 8, 2003 1:46PM

The thing that caught me wasn't less performance, anything will seem amazing coming from my iBook 500, it's the higher power consumption. I bet with an ATI card which turns off when it's not needed the miniAluBook would get another half hour or so. Oh well I'm still buying it.

salidar34 · January 8, 2003 5:32PM

[quote]Originally posted by penheadd:

I've tested PC notebooks with both the 420 and 440 chips in them, and all I can say is that they are really zipppy gpu's. I don't think people who buy the new powerbooks have anything to worry about in the graphics department, unless they are rendering the next LOTR film or something - in which case they should probably be using another machine alltogether ...

Seriously, the geForce4 to go series is perfectly allright for 3d games and basic rendering work. If speed is your issue, go buy a tower and insert your gpu of choice. If you really, really want 10 more fps in quake3 you can always get the 15". You guys always find something to complain about

/penhead<hr></blockquote>

I don't think its unreasonable to expect that the highest end powerbook in apple's lineup should have a top of the line graphics card... I don't care about 10fps in quake 3, but what about future games that would require a faster processor? The 17", as the highest end powerbook, should be designed for high end graphics professionals or games who need portability.

trowa · January 8, 2003 5:47PM

Those are Windows DX8 benchmarks. That doesn't effect Mac OS 9/OS X. Maybe the GeForce Go440 has better OpenGL benchmarks than the ATI Radeon 9000 Mobility? Thus a better chip for OpenGL gaming/quartz acceleration? Maybe Nvidia has better drivers?

I don't think there is that much of a difference between the two chips in terms of gaming. Power Consumption I heard was the major factor in using the ATI chips. This may be just a courteous move by Apple to win some points with Nvidia, as someone earlier noted. I wonder why they didn't use the GeForce Go460? I wonder if Apple will offer BTO options (Nvidia or ATI) for the graphics chip in the future? That would be nice. It will be interesting to see some benchmarks with current games with the 15" TiBook and the 17" AluBook.

splinemodel · January 8, 2003 7:27PM

[quote]Originally posted by penheadd:

I don't think people who buy the new powerbooks have anything to worry about in the graphics department, unless they are rendering the next LOTR film or something - in which case they should probably be using another machine alltogether ...

<hr></blockquote>

I use my 15" 1Ghz for what I consider to be fairly high-end 3D modeling. As far as rendering goes, Raytracing never really touches the GPU. However, rendering in Phong or OpenGL is GPU intense. A lot of EI users model on macs and then have a couple'a cheap PC's to network render on.

Of course, I don't do a lot of animation, and EI has a plenty fast renderer. If you have ever rendered anything in something that's not EI, you'll think rendering is a painfully slow process. I'm not used to it taking more than a few seconds.

airsluf · January 8, 2003 8:41PM

dvd_junkie · January 8, 2003 10:14PM

Putting an ATI or nvidia GPU in the newly announced PB's is somewhat of a moot point except for the real fact that ATI has better power management than nvidia in the mobile space. Visual display quality is another level for comparison but I would need to see them side by side to make any fair conclusions.

So, it would almost appear to me like the most likely explanation is to keep both companies happy by having them share space across most of Apple's product lines. Still, as much as I'd like to believe these points, I still can't understand what Apple is really up by not having announced the Radeon 9500Pro and today's performance GPU the Radeon 9700Pro! Is Apple waiting for the revision to the PowerMacs to add AGP8 before announcing these new cards? Or are they just too stupid to see their customers want a choice?

With 3 days into MWSF, this show is starting to shape up as a mediocre show on the hardware front. Software news sounds great so far, but overall the hardware story is virtually nothing to talk about. If many Apple users are like me, they must be getting pretty tired of being left out in the cold when it comes to having some pretty niffty new technology to incorporate into your Mac. FW800 may be great but big deal. I won't be buying a new PB just for the FW800. Why has so much effort been spent on the PB to the detriment of the PM? Can Apple really keep selling the current crop of PM for another 3-6 months and at current prices?

ashman · January 8, 2003 10:49PM

Ok dvd junkie, this has been the biggest expo in years. Two new products which are both industry leading hardly equals no hardware. Everyone knows that the 970 chip isnt ready for at least another 5 months, so why would apple build a new machine now when they are expected to come out with a new desktop machine complimenting the 970?. Personally i would like to have seen the 15 inch Ti book take on all the advantages of the 17, but I'm gonna buy the 17 since this didnt happen. Lets review new hardware announcements.

Smallest fullfeatured notebook-read the forums and you'll see that this is already a hit.

Largest (screen) notebook.-still under 7 lbs and 1" thick.

Airport extreme. This will have more importance in the future, when everyone else supports it.(kinda like the `revolutionary` rendevous)

First integrated bluetooth.

First DDR portable.(also 166 main bus)

Backlit keyboard, with light auto-sensing and adjusting

Firewire 800-also something you'll be glad to have next year or the year after.

new battery technology. Lithium ion prismatic battery.

Its actually a lot of stuff, And the fact that there was more new software is a good thing.

New PB Graphics

Comments