Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple TV has a better GPU than the Macbook
- Thread starter Manic Mouse
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Eidorian... the MB is no more GPU crippled than the Apple TV is CPU and disk "crippled".
Get over it.
You can't compare an apple to a pc laptop, and why should you?
They are different machines with different purposes, and I think the majority of peope looking for a consumer level laptop are happy with the macbooks graphics (I am). For the most part, consumer level laptops are meant to be used with applications that don't need a dedicated GPU. When you start needing a laptop for more graphic intensive tasks, your needs shift to a professional level laptop.
I get the point, some of you would like to be able to do professional tasks at a consumer price, but that is really not my (or apple's) problem.
If you need professional capabilities, buy the pro machine, if you don't, then buy the consumer machine, but why would you ever think you are entitled to a pro machine at a consumer price?
Then why does it need a core 2 duo processor? For the tasks you mentioned an older core duo or even a G4 would be just fine.
Why doesn't the macbook still have a G4, if the functions you mentioned are all it is supposed to do?
You just have to get used to the fact the macbook is a cheap computer. The drawback is the video perormance isn't super-hot. Y'know what though it's a laptop and most people don't stretch that capability in their normal use. It has the advantage of being more battery efficient too.
If you want graphics go with the MBP. The build quality, keyboard and screen should tempt you.
And for those of you saying that the MBP doesn't have much over the macbook. Try owning both. The MBP feels much nicer, the MB is a bit cheap feeling. That said I love mine.
If you want graphics go with the MBP. The build quality, keyboard and screen should tempt you.
And for those of you saying that the MBP doesn't have much over the macbook. Try owning both. The MBP feels much nicer, the MB is a bit cheap feeling. That said I love mine.
Oh come one, the processor dictates the speed in which these processes are carried out. It directly effects these programs (especially when you are using something like imovie) while the GPU really has no impact on these processes, so your argument is invalid.
Funny that this wasnt the case until last year. iBooks had dedicated video, whether this detracted from PB sales was never an issue.
I don't buy this.
Because I can get such a machine from pretty much every other computer manufacturer?
Don't get me wrong, I love apples style and OS X, and I'm happy to pay 500 bucks premium for it, but when the premium moves closer to 1000 bucks I'm feeling a little bit ripped off.
Of course apple doesn't care, I'll buy a new mac every 2-3 years anyway.
Audio apps run very nicely on my macbook thank you. In fact, as well as an MBP.
First, Why cant you compare the two? IF they share the same hardware, you should be able to compare them.
Secondly, I am not saying that you should get a macbook pro at a macbook price. What I am saying is that why can't they allow for more shared memory.
Extra shared memory and dedicated memory are two different things, why do you think that extra shared memory is for professionals?
I'm using my 1,67 ghz Powerbook G4 for about 10-12 hours a day, it's running Adobe CS2, Cinema 4D and sometimes World of Warcraft in the evening. With 2gb ram it has no real problems with these tasks.
In many agencies they still have G4 Powermacs to do pro level graphic design.
And you are telling me you need a core 2 duo to watch internet videos?
(But I'll admit, there was a little bit of sarcasm in my first post, so don't take it to seriously.)
Because I can get such a machine from pretty much every other computer manufacturer?
Don't get me wrong, I love apples style and OS X, and I'm happy to pay 500 bucks premium for it, but when the premium moves closer to 1000 bucks I'm feeling a little bit ripped off.
Of course apple doesn't care, I'll buy a new mac every 2-3 years anyway.
You people are ridiculous.
If you are so fixated on what every other manufacturer does, then BUY FROM ONE OF THEM.
Obviously the operating system, and style of apple computers keeps you coming back, and so why shouldn't you pay more for that?
Because it is a different user experience...and a different product altogether.
Right...powerbooks, and powermacs.
Both of which come were designed to handle tasks like that.
However on my ibook, those processes didn't fare so well, while on my macbook they are flawless.
Because I can get such a machine from pretty much every other computer manufacturer?.
Exactly!
I think the missing thing is.... choice.
Back in the ppc days it was there, more or less. The 12" powerbook was sort of an "in between" thing in the middle of the 15"/17" powerbooks and the ibooks. The ibooks had 32 mb video cards, the 12" pb 64 and the 15"/17" pbs 128. Also processor wise it was a little faster than the ibooks but a little slower than bigger pbs. And it was priced this way.
Now you can either get a 1200 $ mb, or a 2000 $ mbp. And I don't count the blackbook, because you are paying for the colour and not for performance.
Of course a new 1600 $ in between machine would steal mbp sales, but I bet apple would sell more machines over all that way, increasing their market share.
Back in the ppc days it was there, more or less. The 12" powerbook was sort of an "in between" thing in the middle of the 15"/17" powerbooks and the ibooks. The ibooks had 32 mb video cards, the 12" pb 64 and the 15"/17" pbs 128. Also processor wise it was a little faster than the ibooks but a little slower than bigger pbs. And it was priced this way.
Now you can either get a 1200 $ mb, or a 2000 $ mbp. And I don't count the blackbook, because you are paying for the colour and not for performance.
Of course a new 1600 $ in between machine would steal mbp sales, but I bet apple would sell more machines over all that way, increasing their market share.
I have to hand it to Apple, they certainly have their fans eating out of the palm of their hands. They put a better GPU in a £200 set-top box than their £800 computers and the fans say that's brilliant.
The only sensible answer has been that it would lower sales of the MBP. But I, as a consumer, don't particularly care for Apple purposely crippling one computer line to increase sales of a more expensive one. Do you guys think that's brilliant too?
Is a £30 GPU too much to ask in a Macbook, when I'm paying £800? Is there any reason why it can't be a BTO?
Yes integrated graphics are "fine" for what the Macbook does. But it would be better with a real GPU. Don't you guys remember what Apple said about integrated graphics before they suddenly u-turned and put them in their products?
The MacBooks are brilliant computers. But Apple has purposely built an achillies heel into them in the form of the integrated graphics. The fact that discrete graphics are cheap enough to put in the
tv is a real kick in the teeth of those who would love to see a go 7300 in their MacBook.
It would make playing games, which certainly isn't a "pro" feature, possible on the Macbook. All you guys who say "If you need graphics buy a MBP" need to ask yourselves "Is playing a game a professional task?" and "Does having the lowest possible GPU in a laptop make it professional". The answer to both is "no", by the way.
Nobody's asking for the best GPU in the world in the MacBook, but one that's so cheap it can be put in thetv.
Not only would it mean games could be played but it would increase the quality of videos and improve performance all round since the GPU isn't sucking RAM from the OS.
The only sensible answer has been that it would lower sales of the MBP. But I, as a consumer, don't particularly care for Apple purposely crippling one computer line to increase sales of a more expensive one. Do you guys think that's brilliant too?
Is a £30 GPU too much to ask in a Macbook, when I'm paying £800? Is there any reason why it can't be a BTO?
Yes integrated graphics are "fine" for what the Macbook does. But it would be better with a real GPU. Don't you guys remember what Apple said about integrated graphics before they suddenly u-turned and put them in their products?
The MacBooks are brilliant computers. But Apple has purposely built an achillies heel into them in the form of the integrated graphics. The fact that discrete graphics are cheap enough to put in the
tv is a real kick in the teeth of those who would love to see a go 7300 in their MacBook.It would make playing games, which certainly isn't a "pro" feature, possible on the Macbook. All you guys who say "If you need graphics buy a MBP" need to ask yourselves "Is playing a game a professional task?" and "Does having the lowest possible GPU in a laptop make it professional". The answer to both is "no", by the way.
Nobody's asking for the best GPU in the world in the MacBook, but one that's so cheap it can be put in the
tv.Not only would it mean games could be played but it would increase the quality of videos and improve performance all round since the GPU isn't sucking RAM from the OS.
I feel that the MacBook's should atleast have a dedicated graphics card, even if the average user won't take advantage of it, it is a selling point aswell as helping system functionality.
I work in an Audio and TV department and selling laptop's is part of the job. I often try to get people who are looking to buy a laptop to buy an Apple. But the reason why most users don't, is because they look at the graphics card on the MacBook and think "nah, I need something better than that" or they look at the price of the MacBook Pro. Fair enough, most of these people probably won't NEED a better graphics card, but it is a selling point. And if Apple wish to try and get more marketshare, then they need to have a look at what specifications they offer against other manufactures.
I would have bough a MacBook had it contained a better graphics card - I don't do extreme video editting or anything like that, but games are amoung my hobbies when I've nothing better to do. So, as a result I had to upgrade to the MacBook Pro to get a decent graphics card.
You can say you can't compare Apple's and PC's, but of course you can. They are in the same sector of the market, people often have to decide between the two. If we couldn't compare them, then they'd be in different market sectors wouldn't they? It's like comparing a car to a fridge - you can't do that. But you can compare two computers. Internal components against performance and most of all - value for money.
I work in an Audio and TV department and selling laptop's is part of the job. I often try to get people who are looking to buy a laptop to buy an Apple. But the reason why most users don't, is because they look at the graphics card on the MacBook and think "nah, I need something better than that" or they look at the price of the MacBook Pro. Fair enough, most of these people probably won't NEED a better graphics card, but it is a selling point. And if Apple wish to try and get more marketshare, then they need to have a look at what specifications they offer against other manufactures.
I would have bough a MacBook had it contained a better graphics card - I don't do extreme video editting or anything like that, but games are amoung my hobbies when I've nothing better to do. So, as a result I had to upgrade to the MacBook Pro to get a decent graphics card.
You can say you can't compare Apple's and PC's, but of course you can. They are in the same sector of the market, people often have to decide between the two. If we couldn't compare them, then they'd be in different market sectors wouldn't they? It's like comparing a car to a fridge - you can't do that. But you can compare two computers. Internal components against performance and most of all - value for money.
Remember, According to 2tallyAwesome even more shared memory on the macbook is too much to ask for!
You guys are friggin LOONEY! Whine Bitch Moan... if you think apple hardware is a rip-off BUY DELL.
The AppleTV was released *THIS WEEK* the design for the MB was *LAST YEAR*
They have different target audiences and different price points. They are designed for two different purposes.
Drop it already, the newer Intel GMA will probably be better still when they are released in the next few months.
The AppleTV was released *THIS WEEK* the design for the MB was *LAST YEAR*
They have different target audiences and different price points. They are designed for two different purposes.
Drop it already, the newer Intel GMA will probably be better still when they are released in the next few months.
I really think people are getting overworked about the dedicated GPU in the macbook, I mean does it really effect your day to day use? Or do you just wanna play doom on a $999 machine?
That's like saying you can compare Hyundi's and Jaguars because they look the same and are both cars.
Well, firstly, having a dedicated GPU would free up the 80Mb of RAM that is currently used by the integrated graphics. This means better overall system performance, especially on machines with less than 1Gb of RAM.
Secondly, having a dedicated GPU would allow the Macbook to play games. As a WoW player it would be leaps and bounds ahead of what is currently offered. An no, WoW is not a pro app and therefore should not require a MBP to play acceptably.
I would also imagine that a dedicated GPU such as a 7300 would also improve video performance especially the h.264 stuff.
Apple themselves have said that integrated GPUs are terrible and sap resources away from the rest of the system.
Nobody's asking for a high-end GPU that can play Doom on full settings. A 7300 with 64Mb of RAM would be way better than what's currently offered.
1) I think a lot of you don't understand what it means when someone says Apple cripples their machines. It doesn't (always) refer to intentionally removing features a system should be able to do (although they have done that). It means they intentionally design systems to be lacking in one key area in order to convince people to buy a more expensive system, which other than the one key upgrade, is a waste of money. The GMA950 is a good example of this... adding a $25-50 mobile GPU to a $1100 machine isn't going to be a huge deal, other than it means you might not buy a $2000+ higher profit machine.
2) Apple isn't infallible. Deal with it. I love my Mac and would never go back to Windows, but Apple isn't perfect.
3) There were PLENTY of low cost options better than the GMA950 available when the MB was released. The new x3000 will hopefully be nice, and hopefully we'll see some systems with it soon, but that doesn't excuse the poor choice Apple made a year ago.
4) I don't know how this "decent GPUs are for pros" idea got started. There's exactly one pro app that NEEDS a decent GPU (Motion). Other apps will use the GPU, but don't need it. Further, these apps will do what they need with relatively middling GPUs. The people who want/need HIGH END GPUs are gamers. The people who need decent GPUs are average consumers and some pros. The typical family used computer will likely be expected to play a couple games here and there, whereas a designers system isn't. The whole "buy a pro machine if you want a decent GPU" argument makes no sense at all.
5) Apple spent a lot of time bashing Intel Integrated graphics back in the G4 mini and iBook days. I'm sure the same people were parroting Apple then, saying how great it was that Macs had discreet graphics in their low end systems. Now that Apple did a 180, so do all the people stuck in the RDF.
2) Apple isn't infallible. Deal with it. I love my Mac and would never go back to Windows, but Apple isn't perfect.
3) There were PLENTY of low cost options better than the GMA950 available when the MB was released. The new x3000 will hopefully be nice, and hopefully we'll see some systems with it soon, but that doesn't excuse the poor choice Apple made a year ago.
4) I don't know how this "decent GPUs are for pros" idea got started. There's exactly one pro app that NEEDS a decent GPU (Motion). Other apps will use the GPU, but don't need it. Further, these apps will do what they need with relatively middling GPUs. The people who want/need HIGH END GPUs are gamers. The people who need decent GPUs are average consumers and some pros. The typical family used computer will likely be expected to play a couple games here and there, whereas a designers system isn't. The whole "buy a pro machine if you want a decent GPU" argument makes no sense at all.
5) Apple spent a lot of time bashing Intel Integrated graphics back in the G4 mini and iBook days. I'm sure the same people were parroting Apple then, saying how great it was that Macs had discreet graphics in their low end systems. Now that Apple did a 180, so do all the people stuck in the RDF.