Apple TV has a better GPU than the Macbook

[soLoredd]

I don't know, maybe I'm the target consumer for Apple with the MacBook. I've had mine for about 5 weeks now and everything I've used it for has performed perfectly. Watching DVDs, watching xvid movies, web surfing, PowerPoint ceating and presenting, word processing, almost 24/7 music, video chat...I mean, what more are people wanting?

There is nothing, from my point of view and my needs, the MacBook cannot do.

 

[invigorated]

If you exclude playing games, what would one need a better GPU on a "consumer" laptop for?

We can exclude games because it's plainly obvious that this is not a market which apple targets.

 

[cube]

Why couldn't you use integrated graphics on the atv if it's not a stealth game console?

Or maybe it's because the video quality of the Intel chip is rubbish. Then why are they using it in the Macbook?

 

[eXan]

If you exclude playing games, what would one need a better GPU on a "consumer" laptop for?

We can exclude games because it's plainly obvious that this is not a market which apple targets.

Imagine that you're not a hard-core gamer, but what if you want to play an occasional game or two on your MacBook? Do you want a game or a slideshow?

 

[kolax]

Having a dedicated GPU won't take up much more space than an integrated one. Both are mounted onto the motherboard - it's not like a desktop computer where the GPU is massive.

There is 12" laptop's out there with dedicated GPU's.

 

[invigorated]

Imagine that you're not a hard-core gamer, but what if you want to play an occasional game or two on your MacBook? Do you want a game or a slideshow?

Like I said, we can safely assume that apple is not targeting the games market. At all.

Is there any other reason you would need a dedicated graphics card on a consumer notebook.

 

[kolax]

Bear in mind though that the lower end dedicated GPU's also rely on the CPU to do a lot of the work as does the Intel GMA 950.

 

[NintendoFan]

What a strawman.

Nobody is asking for their MBs to be MBPs. We're asking for a dedicated GPU, and last time I checked having a dedicated GPU doesn't make a laptop "professional". Not by a long shot.

If you want any form of dedicated GPU in an Apple laptop you need to buy the professional one. I think that's a pretty dire situation to be honest. A low-end GPU like the Go7300 isn't out of the question or unreasonable. If it can be put in the TV then there's no reason at all it can't be in the MB. Something that costs a small fraction of the MB shouldn't have ANY components that outperform it.

That's fair enough. But the things I'm talking about aren't exclusive to this thread. And I have no problem with a dedicated GPU, I think it would be rather nice, but from what I have observed in countless threads is that people complain that their MacBook's don't have the features of their counterpart.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Exactly. All this whining and moaning from everyone reminds me of every ibook release over the last 4-5 years, where the iBook, because it was almost always released after the Powerbooks by at least a few months, had better everything.

I'm not a fan of shared graphics, but really, before I bought my MBP back in October, I was using my PB 12" 1GHz, which had a dedicated 32mb something . The current MacBook's shared GPU probably still kicks the crap out of my PB's dedicated GPU.

Nope, in terms of 3D work your 12" PB from a few years ago jicjs the crap out of the MacBook. The weakest dedicated GPU from the PPC Mac lines (the 9200/32mb) out performs the 950 in gaming/3D rendering. The Intel Macs are good at media decoding, though, thanks to the 950 having some hardware features to do it, as well as being paired with CPUs that are light years ahead of the G4s in the old laptop line.

Everyone keeps mentioning how it's only a few dollars more to have Apple put a better GPU in the MacBook. What you are not realizing is the production costs to achieve this. It's not just a matter of Apple buying a new chip. Their entire production line would change, and the cost per benefit would be too high.

This is why you'll see a newer revision of MacBooks, which will have a better graphics processor. There are huge costs to revise a product line, and Apple will wait for a second generation MacBook to release these revisions. It's more than just the GPU swap, talk to any designer to find out how a small change can affect things on a large scale.

Back to the problem at hand, the Apple TV just shipped. MacBook production started over a year ago. Therefore, it's no suprise that a newer item has updated parts, than something that has a production line that's over 14 months old.

Apple had to build and design the MacBook at some point... would have only cost the additional parts to put a discreet GPU in there. No redesigning, no retooling, nothing. The added parts would have been a few bucks per unit, but made the machine a lot nicer for a lot of people. Plus, you keep saying that the ATV is new and the MB is old, so that's why it's got a vastly inferior video subsystem... like somehow in the last 14 months they've invented discreet graphics chips, and at the time they built the MB the 950 was just as great as can be and it's only problem now is it's out of date. Go read some of the threads from last year when they launched the mini and MB, and how disappointed people were with the choice to use the integrated graphics, despite apple spending a lot of time publicly bashing them.

First off, thanks snow moon you hit the nail right on the head. Manic Mouse, I don't mean to get in a pissing match with you but please check your facts before you berate others. Here is documentation that OS X does in fact allocate more to the GPU: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303407

I'm only trying to help education those who do not understand the bigger picture. Yes, the MacBooks would be AWESOME with a better graphics card. YES, they will eventually have a better graphics card. But when you operate a business, it is important to listen to consumers (and Yes, Apple does this), but sometimes the cost can outweight the benefits. For Apple, if the MacBook was introduced over a year ago, and has only undergone minor hardware changes, they will wait for a larger overhaul in order to change their production lines.

Actually, the 950 only uses 64mb of that for actual GPU stuff like texture storage, the other 16mb are for storing it's "overhead". Even if you count the whole 80mb, though, it's still another case of Apple intentionally limiting hardware's functionality. Windows will take advantage of all 224mb the 950 can access, if you have enough RAM.

Of course the mini with it's wimpy 512mb stock is probably best limited to around 64/80mb, but if you upgrade it to 2gb there's no good reason not to let the GPU have more if it needs it. You can see some mention of this from Apple at http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html, where it explicitly says that the GPU has access 64mb of shared memory, but uses up 80mb of RAM.

That's fair enough. But the things I'm talking about aren't exclusive to this thread. And I have no problem with a dedicated GPU, I think it would be rather nice, but from what I have observed in countless threads is that people complain that their MacBook's don't have the features of their counterpart.

The trouble is that the features people want in their MBs that the MBP, and other "nicer" laptops, are the cheap ones. Apple intentionally omits these cheap, useful little features in their low end lines to get you to buy the higher end, more expensive ones, which also include a lot of expensive features that you probably don't want or need.

 

[NintendoFan]

The trouble is that the features people want in their MBs that the MBP, and other "nicer" laptops, are the cheap ones. Apple intentionally omits these cheap, useful little features in their low end lines to get you to buy the higher end, more expensive ones, which also include a lot of expensive features that you probably don't want or need.

Noted. But Apple has always done that, hasn't it?

 

[kolax]

Noted. But Apple has always done that, hasn't it?

Hence the rant?

 

[mrgreen4242]

Noted. But Apple has always done that, hasn't it?

Yes, and no. They've always made the lower end systems lower than they need be so you'll upgrade, but they used to offer more BTO options. For example, you used to be able to get a SuperDrive in the low end mini for $50-75 or so, but they've stopped offering that now and the only way to get a DVD burner in your mini is to buy the high end model, which has a slightly faster CPU that you (probably) didn't want or need, but that adds another $50 to the price. That's just an example, but just pointing out there used to be more BTO order options...

They've also included several things into all machines as standard. I can kind of see WiFi as a standard now, especially with laptops, but they build it into all the desktops, EXCEPT the Mac Pro (explain that omission in a $2500 computer), which just adds price for the end user who may or may not want it. Now, like I said, I can see the WiFi, it's a pretty commonly desired option... BUT having BT as standard? WTF is that about? Why are they forcing everyone (except MacPro buyers, oddly enough) to get what Apple says is a $30 upgrade (that's what they charge if you want it on the MP)?

The answer is wireless mice and keyboards. They must have determined that the sales of their wireless keyboard and mice go up slightly when they include BT in the computer, since every other wireless keyboard and mouse set include a receiver for your computer. Instead, Apple builds the receiver into the computer and passes the cost on to the end user. I would have rather they omitted the BT, and even the WiFi, as standards and have put in a better GPU with that money.

 

[VortexOfPain]

Am I the only one that does use a Macbook for games? Yep, that's right. I use it all the time. I'm kind of suprised that most people think it cannot play games at all. It in fact, plays them very well (better than I expected for a integrated chip.)

Now, before you all start flaming me about "Well, you can't run bla bla bla on it" - yes, you are correct. There are games that won't run, but only a handful of them. You also may not get super high FPS on them all. There are hundreds, if not thousands that run exceptionally well. The fact that you can run Windows XP and PC games impresses the hell out of me. I bought two computers in one.

Think of games like movies, do you only go out and see the newest ones shown in theaters? If so, the MacBook is not for you. If you're a hardcore gamer, you'll want more (and expect to pay more.) If you have ever enjoyed a movie from a few years back, and pop it in to watch it - then you'll love the MacBook and gaming. Throw in just about ANY but the most recent titles and they play GREAT. If it's semi recent and runs but not fast enough, learn to turn the eye candy down. It's a compromise. You didn't pay a premium price, so you shouldn't expect premium performance.

As I've said before, I'm also anxious for the MacBook's to be updated. That's the whole point with this thread. They will be. But until they are updated with the GMA3000 (or better?), I just feel like educating people who haven't seen the current MacBook GPU in action. As much as I can't wait for new MacBooks, I LOVE MINE! It's the best Mac I've had, and the cheapest one I've ever bought.

 

[snowmoon]

Nope, in terms of 3D work your 12" PB from a few years ago jicjs the crap out of the MacBook. The weakest dedicated GPU from the PPC Mac lines (the 9200/32mb) out performs the 950 in gaming/3D rendering. The Intel Macs are good at media decoding, though, thanks to the 950 having some hardware features to do it, as well as being paired with CPUs that are light years ahead of the G4s in the old laptop line.

That's strange since the ATI 9200 32MB supports neither quartz extreme* or core image, but the 950 supports both.

*can be enabled with a hack

Apple had to build and design the MacBook at some point... would have only cost the additional parts to put a discreet GPU in there. No redesigning, no retooling, nothing.

Wow, maybe you should offer your amazing engineering services to Apple since a 0 cost discrete GPU would be a neat trick. I assume it draws no current and will have 0 impact on battery life too!

Of course the mini with it's wimpy 512mb stock is probably best limited to around 64/80mb, but if you upgrade it to 2gb there's no good reason not to let the GPU have more if it needs it.

OSX does give it more texture RAM. The docs have been posted in this thread.... twice. There is no reason to dedicate large amounts of memory to a GPU when it shares the same memory since the GPU can read just as fast from main memory as it can from dedicated memory the only difference is that the GPU managed the memory in it's space and OSX manages the rest.


You are presuming that at the time the MB was designed there was a discrete component that would have performed as well or better than the intel gma 950 and had 0 negative impact on battery life, size, noise, development lead time, support, cost, or usability of the MB.

Am I the only one that does use a Macbook for games? Yep, that's right. I use it all the time. I'm kind of suprised that most people think it cannot play games at all. It in fact, plays them very well (better than I expected for a integrated chip.)

Now, before you all start flaming me about "Well, you can't run bla bla bla on it" - yes, you are correct. There are games that won't run, but only a handful of them. You also may not get super high FPS on them all. There are hundreds, if not thousands that run exceptionally well. The fact that you can run Windows XP and PC games impresses the hell out of me. I bought two computers in one.

You are correct, the MB is a well designed and inexpensive Mac system. Naysayers love to bash what they don't understand.

 

[NintendoFan]

Yes, and no. They've always made the lower end systems lower than they need be so you'll upgrade, but they used to offer more BTO options. For example, you used to be able to get a SuperDrive in the low end mini for $50-75 or so, but they've stopped offering that now and the only way to get a DVD burner in your mini is to buy the high end model, which has a slightly faster CPU that you (probably) didn't want or need, but that adds another $50 to the price. That's just an example, but just pointing out there used to be more BTO order options...

They've also included several things into all machines as standard. I can kind of see WiFi as a standard now, especially with laptops, but they build it into all the desktops, EXCEPT the Mac Pro (explain that omission in a $2500 computer), which just adds price for the end user who may or may not want it. Now, like I said, I can see the WiFi, it's a pretty commonly desired option... BUT having BT as standard? WTF is that about? Why are they forcing everyone (except MacPro buyers, oddly enough) to get what Apple says is a $30 upgrade (that's what they charge if you want it on the MP)?

The answer is wireless mice and keyboards. They must have determined that the sales of their wireless keyboard and mice go up slightly when they include BT in the computer, since every other wireless keyboard and mouse set include a receiver for your computer. Instead, Apple builds the receiver into the computer and passes the cost on to the end user. I would have rather they omitted the BT, and even the WiFi, as standards and have put in a better GPU with that money.

I see, thanks much the explanation. And I do agree there are a lot of oddities that seem to plague Apple's product lines.

 

[snowmoon]

I would have rather they omitted the BT, and even the WiFi, as standards and have put in a better GPU with that money.

LOL... you would rather have dedicated discrete GPU than WiFi. I think this alone should show how outside the mainstream your thinking is.

Get over the fact that you are not the target audience for the MacBook.

 

[Manic Mouse]

LOL... you would rather have dedicated discrete GPU than WiFi. I think this alone should show how outside the mainstream your thinking is.

Get over the fact that you are not the target audience for the MacBook.

Well things like WiFi and BlueTooth can easily be added via usb peripherals, can a GPU? Not so much. I do agree that WiFi is more important than a GPU in the MB though.

But what Appple Mac is he the target audience for?

Personally I think it would be very easy for Apple to put a go7300 (128Mb VRAM) in the next MB revision, along with new GPUs in the MBPs. Will they?

 

[eXan]

That's strange since the ATI 9200 32MB supports neither quartz extreme* or core image, but the 950 supports both.

*can be enabled with a hack

Are you saying that 9200 didnt support Quartz Extreme?! Even my old GeForce 2 MX in a 700 MHz eMac supported it!

Its true, however, that 9200 doesnt support Core Image, but 950 is pretty slow in it anyway.

Yet 9200 is way faster in 3D than 950 is.

 

[invigorated]

Why is it so hard to understand that apple does NOT target the games market. Because of this 3D performance is only necessary for using professional applications.

If your using professional applications Apple wants to sell you a Macbook Pro because that's what they are designed for.

The Macbook is a consumer laptop target at non-professionals. There is no necessity for a dedicated graphics card if you are not gaming or using professional applications so Apple does not include one!

Yes they could but it would add to development costs. They would need to acquire and pay for another component from another manufacturer. This costs Apple money which they have no reason to spend and it would also blur the line between their professional product and their consumer product.

If you need dedicated 3D graphics performance, you need a Macbook Pro.

 

[VortexOfPain]

But what Appple Mac is he the target audience for?

I think you're trying to spell the question of what is the Apple MacBook target audience? The answer: For those who want a great laptop at a great price that does EVERYTHING but play the most demanding games.

My MacBook does just that, and does EVERYTHING else extremely well.

 

[eXan]

I think you're trying to spell the question of what is the Apple MacBook target audience? The answer: For those who want a great laptop at a great price that does EVERYTHING but play the most demanding games.

My MacBook does just that, and does EVERYTHING else extremely well.

Well, everything consumer, except running games, that were demanding 3 years ago.

 

[Eidorian]

Well, everything consumer, except running games, that were demanding 3 years ago.

Ouch I had my 9600 back then and it was blazing compared to the GMA950.

 

[soLoredd]

Am I the only one that does use a Macbook for games? Yep, that's right. I use it all the time. I'm kind of suprised that most people think it cannot play games at all. It in fact, plays them very well (better than I expected for a integrated chip.)

Now, before you all start flaming me about "Well, you can't run bla bla bla on it" - yes, you are correct. There are games that won't run, but only a handful of them. You also may not get super high FPS on them all. There are hundreds, if not thousands that run exceptionally well. The fact that you can run Windows XP and PC games impresses the hell out of me. I bought two computers in one.

Think of games like movies, do you only go out and see the newest ones shown in theaters? If so, the MacBook is not for you. If you're a hardcore gamer, you'll want more (and expect to pay more.) If you have ever enjoyed a movie from a few years back, and pop it in to watch it - then you'll love the MacBook and gaming. Throw in just about ANY but the most recent titles and they play GREAT. If it's semi recent and runs but not fast enough, learn to turn the eye candy down. It's a compromise. You didn't pay a premium price, so you shouldn't expect premium performance.

As I've said before, I'm also anxious for the MacBook's to be updated. That's the whole point with this thread. They will be. But until they are updated with the GMA3000 (or better?), I just feel like educating people who haven't seen the current MacBook GPU in action. As much as I can't wait for new MacBooks, I LOVE MINE! It's the best Mac I've had, and the cheapest one I've ever bought.

This is a great post. I finally got down to mucking with BootCamp this weekend and trying to see how one of my all-time favorite games would work, Rise of Nations. On all high settings, the game ran perfectly as if it were in my old XP tower with a 6800GT. Same goes for WarCraft III, Age of Mythology, and GTA III. I had no problems at all. Since I bought the MacBook for portability and the basic uses of internet, e-mail, music, photos, and movies [sarcasm]I am not at all bothered that I can't take this to a LAN party for an 8 hour session of Battlefield 2[/sarcasm].

 

[eXan]

Ouch I had my 9600 back then and it was blazing compared to the GMA950.

I still have Radeon 9600 and its light years ahead of GMA950.

Only C2D, which is faster than my G5, helps intel video a bit, making my MacBook just 2-3 times slower in games than my iMac G5.

 

[2tallyAwesome]

Well things like WiFi and BlueTooth can easily be added via usb peripherals, can a GPU? Not so much. I do agree that WiFi is more important than a GPU in the MB though.

But what Appple Mac is he the target audience for?

Personally I think it would be very easy for Apple to put a go7300 (128Mb VRAM) in the next MB revision, along with new GPUs in the MBPs. Will they?

I for one don't want to have something hanging out of the usb port to use wifi.

I frankly think it's hilarious how some of you are claiming the macbook is 'CRIPPLED'. The macbook does EVERYTHING I have ever expected it to do, including using many applications/windows at the same time, watching DVDs and High quality videos, and using an external moniter. ALl of the things you are claiming it can't/shouldn't be able to do because of the GPU.

Can it play games? I actually have no idea, since I don't play computer games, and none of the people I know who have macs play computer games. Either way, it doesn't matter, because apple never claimed to be targeted towards gamers anyways.

My macbook is sleek, quick, smooth, and has never shown me that it was having problems processing any tasks I give it.

So if you want to play high quality games, or use professional apps, then the macbook is obviously not for you. But don't get crazy and start claiming that apple 'crippled' it, because it is PERFECT for my needs, and the needs of the majority of macbook users.