Current MacBook Graphics (Intel GMA 950)
Question: are the Intel GMA 950 graphics at least as fast as a GeForce MX 2? Is it a big deal it doesn't have hardware texture and lighting? Will it do Quartz Extreme and Quartz 2D Extreme (when it comes out) as well as it? I know it is technically "on the list" at Wikipedia's article on the Intel GMA 950. I was going to get a refurb MBP but now I'm thinking I'll save a few hundred and get the bottom-end MacBook instead. The only thing is the integrated graphics. Thanks for the input everyone.
Comments
I think the updated macbook(black) is PERFECT in everyway...but like the above poster, I do question the longevity of the integrated graphics. I know some will say, just get the MBP...but when travelling, I dont want a 15 or 17 inch laptop.
Other then this issue, I think apple nailed it. I am so close to pullin the trigger...I just wanted to get more feedback from those in the know about the graphics...and if or when you all think apple would include a dedicated graphics card in the MB? My feeling is that they will either offer it as an option in the MB at a later date, or release a small MBP in the future(possibly January?)
Anyway, thanks for shedding some light on the whole integrated or dedicated topic, i know its been covered...but I need some last minute advice.
Cheers
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/...age=page11.inc
It only affects performance not functionality and from the benchmarks not by much.
The CPU speed is a big factor. Although dedicated cards are better, a fast CPU + bad GPU can beat a fast GPU + bad CPU. My Mac Mini with GMA is faster than my G4 powerbook with dedicated Geforce 5200fx at playing games. Quake 4 was playable on low settings with the Mini but not with the powerbook. I also played Half-Life 2 at medium quality on the Mini.
For video editing, it's fine as that's pretty much entirely CPU based. I run Shake on a Mac Mini and it doesn't feel much different from running it on a quad G5 though final render times are obviously lower on the G5.
I thought I'd absolutely hate integrated graphics but I'm not a big gamer so to me the performance is acceptable. In 3D programs, it struggles at times but again it's ok for me because I use lower resolution scenes.
The GMAs aren't great and if you ever decided you wanted to play Oblivion or Half-Life 2 at full quality then it won't cut it but if you mainly do CPU activities like video editing and low end 3D then it's fine. I don't know how well it will handle Core Animation but I don't think Apple would cut out a huge portion of Mac users from one of Leopard's best features so I wouldn't worry about it.
Things I will say though is that I personally no longer like the glossy screen but some people are fine with it. I loved it before I used one so make sure you use it first. I also prefer the metallic coating of the MBP, it is much less susceptible to scratches just like the new ipod nano is compared to the old one.
The magnetic latch and keyboard on the Macbook are very nice though. I honestly don't know what I'd get because I would actually use the GPU on the MBP but I'm poor and I mainly use the CPU so I'd have a big problem deciding between them. I think in the end I'd settle for the Macbook but if I could afford it, I'd get the matte MBP.
I'm getting the bargain basement refurbished MacBook for $899, and adding RAM soon. More RAM instead of better graphics...that'll probably boost performance for a lot less money as compared to a graphics card.
I will never play Half Life 2
You still can btw, just not at highest quality. It still looks amazing on the GMA.
if the card is good enough to run Leopard/Vista with all the whizbang, and do Core Image stuff, I'm settling for the MacBook.
Yes, it does Core Image stuff just fine like the droplet effect in Dashboard.
It seems as if you buy a cheaper computer more often, it on average saves you money and on average your computer will actually be faster. Next year's MacBook will probably be as good as this year's MacBook Pro.
That's how I think too. I owned an ibook and bought a G4 Mini for about £150 upgrade on the money I got back. I then bought a Core Duo Mini outright for £450. If I get £250 for my old Mini, that's about the same upgrade price again. I'd be quite content to pay £150-200 a year for a new machine and with Intel this is justified.
I'm getting the bargain basement refurbished MacBook for $899, and adding RAM soon. More RAM instead of better graphics...that'll probably boost performance for a lot less money as compared to a graphics card.
Yes Ram helps but I've never bought more than 1GB. I do everything from virtualization to gaming to 3D rendering to Shake to Photoshop and I've never felt I needed more than 1GB. It's up to you but there's 4GB Ram in the quad G5 I use and I only ever use half of that at the very most. The majority of the time it's under 1GB. If you do video work and high res image editing then it'll help in the odd case but it's something to think about when considering price:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/...y/2gb-ram.html
...My Mac Mini with GMA is faster than my G4 powerbook with dedicated Geforce 5200fx at playing games. Quake 4 was playable on low settings with the Mini but not with the powerbook. I also played Half-Life 2 at medium quality on the Mini...
Marvin,
Thanks for that, very useful
Dave.
I currently have a 12" 1.5 GHz G4 PowerBook with the same gfx card as your Mini that I use for occasional World Of Warcraft duties, so it's good to know that I could get similar performance, and probably a bit better, on a MacBook. I'm not too worried if I'd need to have the options turned down as that's what I'm used to on my PB, and if I want all the graphical bells and whistles, I've got a PC that I use for WoW most of the time anyway
If they get multi-threaded OpenGL working with the Minis too then that should offer a decent performance boost. I tested a couple of universal games between the Intel and my older G4s and the Mini was always faster. Unreal Tournament 2004 for example runs faster too. Quake 4 on the powerbook I tested on low with everything off and it still lagged so much as to be unplayable. On the Intel, I could even turn on some special effects like shadows and it ran acceptably - probably around 20-25 fps. The outdoor scenes were a bit choppy but if you're used to that like me then it's fine.
Thanks, more excellent input. I was thinking of doing 2 gigs of RAM, I think I'll stick with one. I'll just go with the low-end MacBook with a gig of RAM. Oh boy, I can't wait to play with Photobooth.
Sorry to throw in a monkey wrench, but have you seen the prices on refurbed core duo MBPs? About the same as new C2D MBs (except the entry level model). I'm not sure you can wrong either way, but you've mentioned that you would like to play games so I'd give the refurbed MBPs a close look. Those prices are incredible.
Besides, the Apple guy when I called said refurbs. have new batteries. I'm skeptical. Does anyone else think they have new batteries? I haven't purchased yet. I almost did but aborted at the last second last night. I am strongly leaning on the MacBook...hey, convince me. I think the MacBook will be fast enough for the coming year, and I'll just buy another one in a year, instead of buying a MacBook Pro now that will have to last me an extra half a year to year to make up for the initial cost.
You're right though, the prices are incredible. It's why I'm even considering it.
Edit: let me posit what's REALLY on my mind: Will the GMA do Quartz Extreme/ Quartz Extreme 2D? I would assume so, right?
They're $350 more for 2" more screen and a graphics card. I personally would rather keep the money, as the graphics will be enough for what I need. I really don't do much games, just perhaps Command and Conquer Generals and SimCity 4, which should be fine. Perhaps some occasional UT2K4 and emulation (N64/NES/SNES). Nothing intense. I just wanted to know the Intel GMA would be able to offload a lot of Core Image and other acceleration, to enable the base speed of the system to be optimal no matter what I'm doing, from Aperture and iLife, the OS X GUI, and other random stuff, that will be faster since the CPU won't be rendering that stuff. I'm satisfied.
Besides, the Apple guy when I called said refurbs. have new batteries. I'm skeptical. Does anyone else think they have new batteries? I haven't purchased yet. I almost did but aborted at the last second last night. I am strongly leaning on the MacBook...hey, convince me. I think the MacBook will be fast enough for the coming year, and I'll just buy another one in a year, instead of buying a MacBook Pro now that will have to last me an extra half a year to year to make up for the initial cost.
You're right though, the prices are incredible. It's why I'm even considering it.
Like I said, I dont' think you can go wrong either way. Good luck!
That and more importantly someone else here had said it would be slower than the GeForce 2 MX which scared me. Upon more research I've found that's not the case, but what I was MOST looking for (thank you Marvin!) was what's it "like", as in, it's slightly better than a GeForce 5200 or ATi 9200. Which sounds great to me. Thanks again everyone.
Edit: let me posit what's REALLY on my mind: Will the GMA do Quartz Extreme/ Quartz Extreme 2D? I would assume so, right?
Is quartz extreme 2D even enabled?
Will the GMA do Quartz Extreme/ Quartz Extreme 2D? I would assume so, right?
Quartz Extreme: yes
Core Image: yes
Core Video: yes - this gives you real-time brightness, tint, color, contrast adjustments in Quicktime
Quartz 2D Extreme: I think very likely. The bigger question is whether it will be stable enough in time for Leopard.
Core Animation: probably the most resource intensive of all of them and this will definitely run on the GMA because it is part of Time Machine and Spaces and as Apple say:
"Core Animation runs on any Core Image-capable Mac (including most Macs shipped in the past two years)."
So you're good to go.
Thanks
Graphics: Chipset Model
Type
Bus
VRAM (Total)
I am wondering how the graphics will compare to the CD2 Blackbook?
I was walking through the PC game section at Best Buy last night just randomly picking up games and looking at their requirements just to see what I could play if I wanted. I was surprised to find that the minimum requirements for most games fall into the GMA950 range. Which means they are playable on the macbook, even if not at the recommended game settings. But if you're not a diehard gamer, like I'm not, then it's not a big deal.
I think it's the die hard gamers that blow the GMA950 out of proportion and make claims like "It's just unplayable" or "if you're only going to browse the web and word process it's fine". That's just ridiculous. What they should be saying is "It's great for most things and fine for game playing but if you are really into gaming at full settings buy a rig with dedicated graphics".