Apple TV has a better GPU than the Macbook

[iW00t]

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.

Exactly. People who own Macs should just throw them away or sell them off on eBay and go back to PeeCees where they can get computers with puny processors but monster GPUs, much like some types of car. Macs are all about fun and games? Well definitely not games, that's for sure. You need a Mac Pro to get the equivalent of a PeeCee. For Apple gaming is just like a paper pusher Professional job.

Macs are for sophisticated people who uses the iLife suite of applications, Adobe CS, Microsoft Office, Safari, Mail, along with like 1% of the applications available on the market. For everything else there is PeeCee.

We don't need "everything else", we can barely handle the 1% available to us with our special and "different" brains! Think "different"!

If you want Macs to keep to what it has always been (ie: restricted, limited configurations, limited use and functionality) suit yourself, but don't deny that some people do believe that Macs can be used for more.

 

[2tallyAwesome]

Exactly. People who own Macs should just throw them away or sell them off on eBay and go back to PeeCees where they can get computers with puny processors but monster GPUs, much like some types of car. Macs are all about fun and games? Well definitely not games, that's for sure. You need a Mac Pro to get the equivalent of a PeeCee. For Apple gaming is just like a paper pusher Professional job.

Macs are for sophisticated people who uses the iLife suite of applications, Adobe CS, Microsoft Office, Safari, Mail, along with like 1% of the applications available on the market. For everything else there is PeeCee.

We don't need "everything else", we can barely handle the 1% available to us with our special and "different" brains! Think "different"!

If you want Macs to keep to what it has always been (ie: restricted, limited configurations, limited use and functionality) suit yourself, but don't deny that some people do believe that Macs can be used for more.

*slow applause*

Congratulations..you are officially ridiculous.

I don't deny that macs can and ARE used for more, however I primarily use it for a portal to the rest of the world, and as storage/player for my massive music/video collection, for editing photos, and for producing documents/presentations/movies.

For these tasks (and as someone said above, for the majority of games) it works flawlessly.

So please, elaborate...What, besides games and the usual consumer applications listed above (as well as other similar apps.) do you need the dedicated graphics for? Keeping in mind that I already know that all of the included consumer programs run PERFECTLY with the base configuration.

 

[VortexOfPain]

Exactly. People who own Macs should just throw them away or sell them off on eBay and go back to PeeCees where they can get computers with puny processors but monster GPUs, much like some types of car. Macs are all about fun and games? Well definitely not games, that's for sure. You need a Mac Pro to get the equivalent of a PeeCee. For Apple gaming is just like a paper pusher Professional job. We don't need "everything else", we can barely handle the 1% available to us with our special and "different" brains! Think "different"!

What. In. The. Crap... are you doing in Mac forums with this kind of thinking. I'm at a loss for words. This is the most retarded post I've read on these forums. Ever. Wow.

You can't even spell PC right. How hard is that?

 

[eXan]

Yes, MacBook is not targeted for gamers, but what if the guy wants to play an occasional game on it? And he doesnt want it to be a slideshow? Does he have to get a PC for occasional gaming?

If I remember correctly, Apple advertised MB as a "Do everything computer, right out of the box". So why it cant run any semi-new game with at least decent FPS?

Do-everything-computer, but cant run games. Hmm

 

[deadpixels]

you can keep arguing all day and forever, don't tell me bout space or heat or anything else, the only reason it's dedicated graphics is freakin'

$$$$$$$$$

Apple is here to make money, get over it

 

[invigorated]

Yes, MacBook is not targeted for gamers, but what if the guy wants to play an occasional game on it? And he doesnt want it to be a slideshow? Does he have to get a PC for occasional gaming?

If I remember correctly, Apple advertised MB as a "Do everything computer, right out of the box". So why it cant run any semi-new game with at least decent FPS?

Do-everything-computer, but cant run games. Hmm

Congratulations on answering your own question.

Because the macbook is not target at games. At all. Full stop. End of story.

 

[MacAnkka]

I guess what it boils down to is that Apple is willing to lose some customers (mostly casual gamers, I guess) in order to save a couple of bucks per MacBook and in hopes that some of the possible buyers might opt for the MacBook Pro to have a dedicated GPU. They feel they can make more money that way, which is their primary goal, just like almost ever other company in the world. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong, there's no easy way to know for sure, but they aren't going to change their minds just because some random guys at a Mac-forum disagree with them.

Sure, I wouldn't mind playing some other games than CS/WC3 at a Lan-party with my MacBook and I'd really like if the integrated graphics wouldn't eat up almost 8% of my RAM (80mb/1024mb), but your average MacBook user won't care about those two facts. It sucks for people like us, but that's the way it is.

 

[iW00t]

Congratulations on answering your own question.

Because the macbook is not target at games. At all. Full stop. End of story.

Aperture is a game too.

"Score points by editing photos and increase the length of your ePeen!"

 

[Nicolasdec]

The products obviously do two different things. Apple TV's job is TV meaning videos pretty much 24/7 makes sense for it to have a decent GPU.

MacBook is a consumer computer (internet, production suite light photo and video editing) the need for a real GPU is not as essential as the Apple TV.

Besides a new GPU is coming....X3000 which 'pisses all over" the current GMA 950

I Agree with you...

 

[chaosbunny]

There are 2 crowds in this thread, and it resembles the endless discussion about a midrange headless imac.

The ones that do not or do very rarely play games or use aperture or something like that, and are therefore perfectly happy with their macbook.

And the ones who would like a little more gfx power in their apple computer but are not willing to pay 1000 $ premium for it. I guess they would be very happy if apple released a midrange laptop system at about 1600 $ with a 64 or 128 mb gfx card.

The problem is that apple computers offer very good value for their price, but only if a specific model suits your needs perfectly. If you want/need something in between the macbook and the macbook pro or the imac/mac mini and the mac pro you only have the choice to 1.) pay less money than you would spend on a midrange system and suffer from the lack of power for specific tasks or 2.) pay more money than you would spend on a midrange system and pay for additional features you do not need. And that's what pisses people of, I think that's understandable.

 

[Manic Mouse]

The problem is that apple computers offer very good value for their price, but only if a specific model suits your needs perfectly. If you want/need something in between the macbook and the macbook pro or the imac/mac mini and the mac pro you only have the choice to 1.) pay less money than you would spend on a midrange system and suffer from the lack of power for specific tasks or 2.) pay more money than you would spend on a midrange system and pay for additional features you do not need. And that's what pisses people of, I think that's understandable.

Indeed. Were a 7300 a BTO on the MacBook I would be willing to pay for it. Probably about three times what Apple pay for the chip, in fact. I neither want nor need a MBP, all I want is a MB that can play WoW acceptably. Which it can't at the moment, which is strange for a "do everything" computer.

All of you people are whining that the integrated graphics are fine for what you use: good for you. But what about the people it isn't fine for? Would you really object to a BTO graphics card?

 

[Whiteapple]

ugh...one more time...

the macbook is a CONSUMER laptop. It is for a market of people who do limited tasks, including surfing the net, watching youtube videos, emailing, chatting, and doing limited ilife and other tasks. It is NOT intended to be a professional level machine! For this, the integrated graphics are FINE.

If you need a professional level macbook, then buy a macbook pro. That is what is DESIGNED for.

It reallys just sounds like the people who want a professional level laptop, are just irked because it's too expensive, so they think they should get all the pro perks for a consumer price.

Sorry it doesn't work that way, butmy macbook is PERFECTION for what I use it for, integrated graphics or not.

I second you on that point.

Nevertheless, I happen to find that my MacMini (1.66ghz, 2GB RAM, and 7200rpm HDD) is more than adequate for even more demanding tasks than just creating photo albums in iLife. In fact, Aperture on my machine in quite snappy, more than I would think the GMA950 would handle my 8MB RAW files.

I believe the gap between dedicated and integrated graphics isn't enormous as regarding photography and 2D design. Aperture would be just as fast in a GMA950 MacPro (fiction) as in a X1900XT MacPro (with the same Xeons).

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[skinnylegs]

Aperture is a game too.

"Score points by editing photos and increase the length of your ePeen!"

LOL That is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

Might it be possible to offer a more advanced GPU as an upgrade?

 

[eXan]

Aperture is a game too.

"Score points by editing photos and increase the length of your ePeen!"

Aperture is a Pro app.

There are however photography Pros that want a smaller laptop than a MBP, but that is able to run pro apps like Aperture, buts thats another story

 

[eXan]

Congratulations on answering your own question.

Because the macbook is not target at games. At all. Full stop. End of story.

No I didnt. I said that MB isnt targeted for gamers, those who mosty play games on their computers. And I'm talking about people that just occasionally want to play a game or two.

 

[mrgreen4242]

I guess what it boils down to is that Apple is willing to lose some customers (mostly casual gamers, I guess) in order to save a couple of bucks per MacBook and in hopes that some of the possible buyers might opt for the MacBook Pro to have a dedicated GPU. They feel they can make more money that way, which is their primary goal, just like almost ever other company in the world. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong, there's no easy way to know for sure, but they aren't going to change their minds just because some random guys at a Mac-forum disagree with them.

Sure, I wouldn't mind playing some other games than CS/WC3 at a Lan-party with my MacBook and I'd really like if the integrated graphics wouldn't eat up almost 8% of my RAM (80mb/1024mb), but your average MacBook user won't care about those two facts. It sucks for people like us, but that's the way it is.

Personally, I'm a fan of consoles for games so I'm not overly concerned about the GPU for those purposes (there are some exceptions, of course, like Flight Sims, MMOs, and RTS's that are clearly better on the PC, but I'm willing to suffer without those things - I don't/can't fly, not willing to pay $15/month for a game, and RTS's don't REQUIRE killer framerates to enjot). Anyways, back on point, I'm interested in a middling GPU, like the 7300 or x3000, for accelerated 2D tasks, like iMovie and iDVD, which already use the GPU for some work and will only start to use more as the programs get updated.

Just like people who use Aperture have been saying: Apple has given us something other to do with a GPU than play games (but have now taken away our GPUs)...

I second you on that point.

Nevertheless, I happen to find that my MacMini (1.66ghz, 2GB RAM, and 7200rpm HDD) is more than adequate for even more demanding tasks than just creating photo albums in iLife. In fact, Aperture on my machine in quite snappy, more than I would think the GMA950 would handle my 8MB RAW files.

I believe the gap between dedicated and integrated graphics isn't enormous as regarding photography and 2D design. Aperture would be just as fast in a GMA950 MacPro (fiction) as in a X1900XT MacPro (with the same Xeons).

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you are right to a degree. There are probably very specific tasks in apps like Aperture that are simply much faster on a MacPro or iMac than on a mini because of the GMA950. But, for the majority of functions, once you get a high speed HDD and adequate RAM in there it's probably 90%+ as fast.

 

[Manic Mouse]

the macbook is a CONSUMER laptop. It is for a market of people who do limited tasks, including surfing the net, watching youtube videos, emailing, chatting, and doing limited ilife and other tasks. It is NOT intended to be a professional level machine! For this, the integrated graphics are FINE.

If you need a professional level macbook, then buy a macbook pro. That is what is DESIGNED for.

I never knew that playing WoW was a professional task. Guess you learn something new every day!

 

[gnasher729]

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?

I explained that, didn't I? Cheap 1GHz Pentium M + Integrated graphics is not enough for H.264. Cheap 1GHz Pentium M + cheap graphics card is enough. Super Duper Core2 Duo + Integrated graphics is also enough. Cheap Pentium M + cheap graphics card is a lot cheaper than Super Duper Core2 Duo + Integrated graphics.

And for everything other than H.264 playback, the Core2 Duo beats the **** out of the Pentium M.

 

[guitarmaster18]

ugh...one more time...

the macbook is a CONSUMER laptop. It is for a market of people who do limited tasks, including surfing the net, watching youtube videos, emailing, chatting, and doing limited ilife and other tasks. It is NOT intended to be a professional level machine! For this, the integrated graphics are FINE.

If you need a professional level macbook, then buy a macbook pro. That is what is DESIGNED for.

It reallys just sounds like the people who want a professional level laptop, are just irked because it's too expensive, so they think they should get all the pro perks for a consumer price.

I agree with most of the things said in there, but I disagree about you saying that macbook owners only do light tasks... I own a macbook and I run photoshop intensivly, actually play Halo decently, and I do alot of photo and video editing (to the point where I was straining my macbook to the max). As for the performance and graphics, my macbook is blazing fast (Core 2 duo 2.0 GHz BlackBook) for all of my editing in photoshop and Logic Express. For the Graphics, I have been able to play 3D games decently, but maybe that's because I have an enormus emount of ram (3 gb).

Sorry it doesn't work that way, butmy macbook is PERFECTION for what I use it for, integrated graphics or not.

I agree