Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Critical Question about Macbook Performance

J

Jblack4083

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 4, 2007
193
0
I didn't really get any help in the other forum with this but...

Right now i have a Sony VAIO that has 512 MB of RAM, a 1.5GHz centrino, and a 64Mb ATi Mobility Radeon 9200. With this laptop i have trouble running Illustrator, Firefox, and AIM at the same time. Everything is really sluggish when i do so and also illustrator lags. Sometimes things are a little sluggish when i try to switch from one program to another.

If i get a Blackbook fully loaded, will i not have these problems. Is everythign still smooth if i were to run Illustrator, iChat, and Firefox at the same time? This is my biggest concern. If this will all be good then i don't even mind having GMA950.

Also, is there any way to allocate more RAM to the GMA950 than what it's already set to?
 
You won't be able to allocate more RAM (not in OSX, anyways) but you will be pleasantly surprised by the MacBook's performance. CPU wise, the MacBook will be at least three times faster than your Sony. GPU wise it should be about the same. You are not using anything that is particularly demanding of the GPU (depends what you are doing in Illustrator, I guess).
 
Max out the RAM in the Vaio even; a friend has one of the newer Core Duo Vaio's, but Vista on 512MB of RAM is hilarious(ly slow). Going to give her my spare 1GB stick when I upgrade this to 3GB in a month or so.
 
elithrar said:
Max out the RAM in the Vaio even
Click to expand...
I agree.

If you picked up a MacBook with 512MB, I wouldn't be surprised at all if you said it ran sluggish with a bigger app like Illustrator running with other stuff (FireFox + iChat + whatever widgets you have on your DashBoard).

1GB+ will make things a lot nicer, on either your Vaio or a MacBook.
 
With 2GB (Which i highly suggest).

I'm currently running Illustrator, Photoshop, Pages, iTunes, MSN, Firefox and Mail :)

No lag whatsoever
 
this makes me feel so much better about getting the MB instead of the low-end MBP for 500 dollars more. I want the smaller size too.
 
Update, i forgot all along that this laptop will carry with me into college and i'm going to be doing engineering. Will the MB be sufficient for some CAD work if i have to do any. If not then i might still get it and end up using school computers for CAD work. Any architecture or engineering majors out there want to pipe in?
 
Jblack4083 said:
If i get a Blackbook fully loaded, will i not have these problems. Is everythign still smooth if i were to run Illustrator, iChat, and Firefox at the same time?
Click to expand...

Highly recommend 2GB+ (minimum) to smoothly run any professional application (Photoshop, Illustrator, Aperture, Final Cut, etc). I maxed out 2GB very quickly. Adding 1GB (3GB total) significantly reduced page outs, which greatly increased performance.

According to OWC, all C2D models (this includes MacBooks and iMacs) allow up to 3GB addressable memory, with a maximum of 2GB per slot. See http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/MacBook/Testing/Memory_Benchmarks for details and test results.

If I were buying a Blackbook, I would get the base version with 1GB (2 x 512MB) for $1399 (education) / $1499 (regular). Then buy RAM from Crucial, OWC, or another trusted vendor. 2GB (2 x 1GB) is ~$90-$100; and 3GB (2GB + 1GB) is currently $160 at OWC, $230 at Crucial.
 
Unfortunately, I believe running 3GB of RAM will not allow you to utilize the dual-channel memory technology, which I see is a performance boost. I cannot back this with data, but from what I have read, it's useful.
 
keenkreations said:
Unfortunately, I believe running 3GB of RAM will not allow you to utilize the dual-channel memory technology, which I see is a performance boost. I cannot back this with data, but from what I have read, it's useful.
Click to expand...

It makes a 0-10% difference for most things; it may impact the integrated graphics more though. Having said that, if you're running enough to actually use the RAM, 3GB is will still faster than 2GB. Paging is really slow.
 
http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-mini-intel-integrated-graphics-inferior.html

However, MacWorld points out that "while the presence of 'integrated' Intel graphics may displease users expecting radically better graphics performance, it's worth noting that Intel cites moderately faster fill rate and more robust pixel shading capabilities for the GMA950 compared to the Radeon 9200."

Intel's website concurs that the GMA950 graphics processor is capable of a "1.6 GPixels/sec and 1.6 GTexels/sec fill rate". This compares to a "1.0 GPixels/sec fill rate" for the ATI Radeon 9200.

Cinemark 9.5 benchmarks released by MacInTouch shows the GMA950 in the Intel-based Mac mini "Core Solo" 1.5 to be faster than the ATI Radeon 9200 in last year's Mac mini G4 in three out of four tests.
Click to expand...

and

Overall, it likely seems that the "integrated graphics" provided by the Intel-based Mac mini "Core" systems are modestly faster, or at least no slower, than the dedicated graphics provided with last year's Mac mini G4.
Click to expand...

Why does MacRumors seem to be populated with graphics card snobs?
 
flopticalcube said:
Why does MacRumors seem to be populated with graphics card snobs?
Click to expand...

Apple apologist! GMA 950 doesn't support hardware T&L. That alone (I won't mention a myriad of other things) makes it impossible to play any game made in the last 4 -5 years unless it was specifically made to run on that POS. Hardware T&L appeared in graphics cards in 1999 if I remember correctly. There is no comparison between the Radeon 9200 and GMA 950. Macbook keeps up with some games solely because of the decent CPU.
 
It is true that it's suitable for usage other than games even as it is but it's a big step back, that GMA 950. Macbook would have rocked even with the lowliest of the video cards (like Radeon x200 or something).
 
dusanv said:
It is true that it's suitable for usage other than games even as it is but it's a big step back, that GMA 950. Macbook would have rocked even with the lowliest of the video cards (like Radeon x200 or something).
Click to expand...

There are other factors in play besides technical ones. Apples relationship with Intel for one. At any rate, things will improve once the X3100 comes out in the next MacBook.
 
Jblack4083 said:
Update, i forgot all along that this laptop will carry with me into college and i'm going to be doing engineering. Will the MB be sufficient for some CAD work if i have to do any. If not then i might still get it and end up using school computers for CAD work. Any architecture or engineering majors out there want to pipe in?
Click to expand...

What kind of engineering are you going to be doing? As far as CAD programs go, most of them (at least the popular/good ones) are so expensive to license that I'm fairly certain that you'll be using the school's computers for simulations. If you're using programs like Mathematica for modeling, that will run great on your MB.
 
Yeah games are irrelevant to me. I don't play computer games because i just pull out the PSP if i really need to play games. I want to know about that college thing. Will the MacBook suffice for college if i have to do some light CAD or will i have to use the school's machines. Do most kids use the school's machines anyway? Also the school's machines will probably have bigger screens anyway. a 15" screen wouldn't even be that great in that case.

I am going to major in Aerospace / Aeronautical Engineering with some flight probably
 
Great i think as of now all my concerns are gone. Over the past week I've been set on getting it but every time i eye an MBP i always think "dam I'm gonna regret getting the MB".

Thanks for your help :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back