You can. Engine type, horse power, type of brakes, seats, miles per gallon, weight etc etc.
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
You can. Engine type, horse power, type of brakes, seats, miles per gallon, weight etc etc.
I'm sick of this lame excuse...
Um yeah, you can compare them....
Maybe not before when they used IBM processors, but now with Intel processors and GPUs in both Macs and PCs, they are comparable.
oh by the way...Consumer reports compares Jaguar and Hyundi....Hyundi gets three cars recommended (second-tier recommendation--the highest), while jaguar has none!!
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 thetv is a real kick in the teeth of those who would love to see a go 7300 in their MacBook.
You are seeing conspiracy where there is none. Integrated graphics vs dedicates was probably a design decision probably based on cost, battery life, cooling, and space at the time the MB was designed *NOT* based on crippling one of the three Intel platforms that Apple was releasing.
Exactly...this is the same as the combo drive debate.
It would be nice if apple put a cmobo drive, and more ram, and dedicated graphics in the macbook, but they don't.
Why?
Because there is a group of people out there that don't need either one, and usually would prefer to NOT have them if it means raising prices in any way.
...and come one guys, since when are macs really aimed towards the gaming market anyways? THere are a handful of games available, but that isn't where apple is directing the develpopment of their machines.
The fact is, to use iLife, all the bundled software that comes with your macbook, and the other similar applications available, you don't NEED a separate graphics card.
Sure for the same price you probably can get those things in a PC, but I don't WANT a pc. I want OSX, I want iLife, and I want the seamless integration between the hardware features (isight/multitouch trackpad) and that environment. Those things increase the base price of the item.
If you don't think those details are worth the extra money, then BUY A PC.
You will get your DVD burner, and your dedicated card, and I will sit here laughing my ass off as your system crashes, and you search for drivers.
It would be nice if apple put a cmobo drive, and more ram, and dedicated graphics in the macbook, but they don't.
Why?
Because there is a group of people out there that don't need either one, and usually would prefer to NOT have them if it means raising prices in any way.
...and come one guys, since when are macs really aimed towards the gaming market anyways? THere are a handful of games available, but that isn't where apple is directing the develpopment of their machines.
The fact is, to use iLife, all the bundled software that comes with your macbook, and the other similar applications available, you don't NEED a separate graphics card.
Sure for the same price you probably can get those things in a PC, but I don't WANT a pc. I want OSX, I want iLife, and I want the seamless integration between the hardware features (isight/multitouch trackpad) and that environment. Those things increase the base price of the item.
If you don't think those details are worth the extra money, then BUY A PC.
You will get your DVD burner, and your dedicated card, and I will sit here laughing my ass off as your system crashes, and you search for drivers.
You can compare them. I don't think you understand what "compare" means.
They are both cars, they both serve the same purpose. Therefore they are comparable. Just as PCs and Macs are comparable. Apple compare them all the time, are Apple wrong too?
People who buy PC's buy them because they are tied to windows or because they don't know any better. They have no use for a Mac.
People who want OSX buy Apple.
They are two distinctive markets. I have yet to find a truly "independent" buyer who really doesn't care if they run OSX or Windows.
Argument from what I've taken in is: why should Apple not give you a dedicated GPU for $999 when you can get a PC laptop with a dedicated GPU for the same price? If people don't need a dedicated graphics card, drop the prices to a more competitive range. Stop this all "you buy a mac for a reason" stuff, people would be more prone to buying Mac's if you got better value for your money.
They dropped the iPod prices drastically and are dominating the mp3 market more than ever. If they hadn't dropped their iPod prices then they wouldn't be able to compete with other brands like Creative.
But if I use your words on the laptop debate: you can't compare an iPod to a Creative because they are different.
They dropped the iPod prices drastically and are dominating the mp3 market more than ever. If they hadn't dropped their iPod prices then they wouldn't be able to compete with other brands like Creative.
But if I use your words on the laptop debate: you can't compare an iPod to a Creative because they are different.
Okay, okay, don't complain, wait for this:
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma3000/gma3000.pdf
Amen.
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma3000/gma3000.pdf
Amen.
The only weak thing about the MacBook is the GPU. It is the one weak link in it's chain, and a weak link that is very easily addressed.
Rubbish. Utter garabge. THEY ARE BOTH COMPUTERS. We're not comparing a cow and the space shuttle here. They fill the same niche in the home, they serve the same purpose, they do the same things, they use the same components, you interact with them the same way, they accept the same media, they read the same files, they use the same programs (in many cases).
It's like saying that the Xbox360 and PS3 are two distinctive markets.
Seriously, look up "compare" in the dictionary. Look up "distinct", "markets" and "computer" while you're at it.
Apple has always done this. They disabled screen spanning on the iBook and iMac G5s, even though the hardware could do it after it was unlocked in the firmware, to make the higher priced models look better.
They dropped the BTO Superdrive in the low end Mac mini to force people into buying the $200 more expensive 1.83ghz model when the 1.6ghz unit would be more than adequate for most average users (if it had a Superdrive).
The iBook G4 was in a smaller case (12" model), used a discreet GPU, despite the fact that the G4 had roughly the same power consumption and heat dispersion as the C2D does. In fact, I think the C2D uses less power than the faster G4s did. It seems unlikely that they couldn't get a better GPU into the MB without compromising battery life if they did it with the iBook.
The MB starts at $1100. Expecting a slightly premium graphics unit isn't all that absurd. Every other computer maker seems to pull it off alright.
It's not the combo debate
buy spending an extra $100 or two you get the dvdburner, RAM and processor boost. This is a choice...You don't have to spend $1999 for a dvd burner, RAM and Processor
Where is the choice for a MODEST GPU either shared or low dedicated (less than 128)???
I think Apple is worth more money, but we need a choice like the combo drive choice...
So why did you buy a computer from a company who you believe deliberately cripples many of it's own systems and over prices their hardware?
I will say it again PC's and Mac's do not compete for the same buyers.
topgunn said:
Or maybe not. The iBook had dedicated video, but it did not scalp BP sales... why would this scenario been different?
lol. I bought from Apple because you get a very good quality product and the world's most advanced operating system.
PC's and Mac's don't compete for the same buyers? Ahaha. Haven't you watched the Apple advert's? It look's like they are pretty much competing in the PC market as much as any other.
And you seriously believe this? That the Mac (a computer) and the PC (a computer) are not targeted at the same market (people who want/need a computer).
You better tell Apple that their entire add campaign is aimed at the wrong people then, since it's aimed at PC users.
Er, as mentioned already, "PCs" and Macs (which are really just a subset of PCs) most certainly do target the same groups. I mean, Apple makes a HUGE deal out of trying to sell Macs to PC users. It's on the top center of their online store for crying out loud. Do you think that the 4 million new Mac users in the last 2 years were all people who never had a computer before or something?
The iBook definitely took Powerbook sales. Apple tried hard not to let it by keeping the GPU relatively wimpy, offering faster HDDs as BTO options in PowerBooks only (until near the end at least), using only low resolution screens on the 14" iBook, intentionally disabling screen spanning on iBooks, and a few other "tricks". When I was looking for a laptop a while back I only briefly considered a PowerBook, and then only the 12" model, before I settled on an iBook. Wasn't near enough difference to justify the price for me.
Ok, so if nobody except gamers needs a decent GPU why all this belly aching about the GPU in the macbook?
Look at my post above, at what Apple themselves have so say about the issue. They think integrated GPUs are rubbish and take system resources away from the entire computer. And they're right.
Why do so many people who purchased the CONSUMER model think they can buy for cheap and have the luxuries of something else. I mean, in the history of any Apple laptop - show me any single laptop for $1000 that has the value the MacBook gives. I mean come on, this is cheap!
That being said, if I buy a Geo Metro I don't expect to have a Porsche engine in it. Come on, be realistic. You bought cheap, you got cheap. I love my MacBook, because I had expectations before I bought it, and new it was not the fastest at gaming. I bought it because of the VALUE. It's a great consumer model, and was not meant for providing luxuries that not everyone needs. That's why the price is what it is.
Yes, future ones will have better graphics, but I promise this situation will always be around. Apple will have a professional model with high end features, and the price to reflect it. They will also have a lower end model, with better features than products now but it will offer less because IT IS LESS.
That being said, if I buy a Geo Metro I don't expect to have a Porsche engine in it. Come on, be realistic. You bought cheap, you got cheap. I love my MacBook, because I had expectations before I bought it, and new it was not the fastest at gaming. I bought it because of the VALUE. It's a great consumer model, and was not meant for providing luxuries that not everyone needs. That's why the price is what it is.
Yes, future ones will have better graphics, but I promise this situation will always be around. Apple will have a professional model with high end features, and the price to reflect it. They will also have a lower end model, with better features than products now but it will offer less because IT IS LESS.
A go7300 is too expensive to put in the MacBook, yet it's in the
tv?We're talking about a chip that costs a couple of bucks here buddy. Nobody's asking for MBP performance in the MB. Asking for a low-end GPU isn't unreasonable.
i think if anything, the black macbook should have a dedicated graphics chip. something that would actually justify the $150 price difference asides from paint...
doesnt have to be anything special... just something.
and i wouldnt be surprised if when the santa rosa platform comes out, there will be more of a differentiation between the normal and pro line... pro line will probably encorporate more advanced features like flash booting, while the regular line will have to wait for those features and stick with just the bus increase and GMA3000 graphics (which supposedly are much improved over 950)
doesnt have to be anything special... just something.
and i wouldnt be surprised if when the santa rosa platform comes out, there will be more of a differentiation between the normal and pro line... pro line will probably encorporate more advanced features like flash booting, while the regular line will have to wait for those features and stick with just the bus increase and GMA3000 graphics (which supposedly are much improved over 950)