do you think that integrated graphics should be a choice ?

[oingoboingo]

Since you think it should be an option, maybe you should tell Apple how to find the space in the Mini and MacBook for the GPU -- and do it for $50.

Basically the Mini and PowerBook G4 were a 3 chip solution (CPU-Integrated Intrepid Chipset-GPU), the Intel version is a 3 chip solution (CPU-North-South) -- adding the GPU is the 4th chip.

Just as a point of interest, this photograph of a MacBook motherboard shows 4 chips already.

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/85/images_large/macbook_logic_top.jpg

EDIT: My mistake, this is actually a MacBook Pro motherboard.

While it's possible that a technical limitation is to blame, I'd argue that the decision to go with integrated graphics in the new Mac mini and MacBook probably has more to do with cost savings (as you hit upon with your $50 comment) and/or deliberate market segmentation. This is classic Apple behaviour. Cost saving and market segmentation aren't dirty words, but we seem as a community somewhat reluctant to admit that these factors drive almost as many design decisions as technical factors do. Every company does it, to differing degrees.

 

[Josias]

it's to differentiate between models. if you could get a dedicated gpu in the macbook, fewer people would buy a macbook pro. same with the imac and mac mini.

i dont buy this **** about consumer vs professional but i suppose that's just me.

and apologies if this sounds overly brusque or anything im really tired and i cant sleep...

edit: i agree with Josias, well sort of, that the black should have dedicated graphics in order to justify its higher price, but i'm not sure about the high-end white.

No! White MB's must have same possibilities as black! Don't be racist!

 

[blackout8]

Well I'm a proud owner of a MB 1.83 1GB, and I know this has been done to death but the GMA 950 does surprisingly well for an intergrated solution.

I can play Fable at native resolution with effects set on 2/4 and textures on 4/4 (higher better) and have little to no slow down from the same settings at even 800*600. THis is confusing really however as it isn't a perfectly smooth frame rate (but still good), yet changing the resolution has little to no effect on the FPS... I'm playing in XP btw...

I'm guessing the GMA 950 slots in just behind a 9600 when you throw in the extra CPU power we now have...

But to answer the poll, yes a choice would be nice but I am only say 50% sure I would choose a dedicated card as the intergrated seems to have two huge advantages: Price and Battery Life. Show me little to no change in both of those and i'll be there in a flash.

Heh aanyway [/rant]

So whats up with my Fable? Driver issue or CPU bottleneck perhaps? More RAM needed...?

 

[Satori]

I would prefer it if Apple didn't use integrated graphics at all.

Yup, me too... plus I'd like the moon on a stick!

 

[FleurDuMal]

So whats up with my Fable? Driver issue or CPU bottleneck perhaps? More RAM needed...?

If you only have stock RAM, then I'd go with that being the problem. Doesn't increasing your RAM somehow increase graphics performance as it guarantees the GMA 950 will get all the RAM it can?

 

[BlizzardBomb]

I'm not too sure myself. While it would be nice, people already complain about noisy Macs, so surely putting in a dedicated graphics chip would make it even more noisy?

Once Apple gets a GMA X3000 in the MacBook and Mini it'll stop this once and for all. On paper, the GMA X3000 beats a Radeon X1300.

 

[codo]

Once Apple gets a GMA X3000 in the MacBook and Mini it'll stop this once and for all. On paper, the GMA X3000 beats a Radeon X1300.

Don't panic - Apple will find a way to cripple it with firmware.

 

[Josias]

Don't panic - Apple will find a way to cripple it with firmware.

I'd still prefer the X1300... Dunno why. Perhaps because the GMA steals much RAM...

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Perhaps because the GMA steals much RAM...

Yeah, I know... I constantly worry over those 80 MBs of RAM on my MacBook... I only have 2 GB, you know...

 

[blackout8]

If you only have stock RAM, then I'd go with that being the problem. Doesn't increasing your RAM somehow increase graphics performance as it guarantees the GMA 950 will get all the RAM it can?

Nah I have 1GB... would that cause the changing resolutions to have no effect on the frame rate?... meh i'll just go ask in the propper forum

 

[kaboutertje]

The gma 950 is just too slow, if the x3000 is really going to be 4/5 times as fast I'm ok with it, otherwise I would like to see this, with the next revision, this way we would have a (limited) choice. I personally I like the size and the looks of the MB even if the MBP was worth the money I still would have picked a MB:

lowest macbook $1099
2.0 ghz merom
superdrive
60gig hd
gma 950

White top model $1299
2.13 ghz merom
superdrive
60gig hd
radeon x1300

Black top model $1399
2.13ghz merom
superdrive
80gig hd
radeon x1300

Right now you pay 200 more for a superdrive and a small speed bump, I would like to see a small speed bump and a x1300 for that amount of money. And make the superdrive standard, everyone needs one anyways.

 

[DavidC1]

Responding to the first post. Sims 2 should run no problem on the graphics that Mac Mini Intel version has. The game compatibility list on Intel site posts nothing wrong about Sims 2. At least the PC version anyway.

 

[Moe]

Integrated video is here to stay in the Mini and MacBook. Get over it. It's only going to get better.

 

[steelfist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpSAf56v1S4&search=macbook game

it's a fine graphics card, to be able to play HL2, nothing my radeon 9550 mobility can do. an option would be nice to make things EVEN better though

 

[miniConvert]

I voted yes, but I have a feeling that our satisfaction will most likely come through the development and improvement of Intel integrated graphics over the months and years ahead.

It's not that integrated graphics are always going to be a disaster, it's just that currently they're, well, lackluster.

 

[ictiosapiens]

Why did the mini used to have a radeon 9200 inside it as standard

Because IBM didn't build graphics chips or give them away for peanuts... It wouldn't suprise me if intel had made some kind of deal with Apple in which if apple use intel's crappy GPUs they get a better price on the cpus or something along those lines...

 

[jaduffy108]

I love how anything people don't like is "apologist zealotry". The sense of entitlement some people have is just astonishing.

### oh..you mean entitlement...like YOU going out of your way to write a response that has nothing substantive to contribute to the discussion....but rather is just a focused personal attack...? In that case, i agree with you 100%. In other words, you exemplify EXACTLY what I was referring to. Thank you for making my point all the more clear.

 

[gnasher729]

If you think it is the poor MB(and the Mac Mini) owners who have it bad; you see the clock speed Apple gave us MBP owners have on our ATI card compared to the imac. Then if you start comparing those specs(MBP and iMac) to the clock speeds on the same ati chip on a PC you maybe suprised.

I thought people would know by now what is going on with the graphics card clock speed on MacBook Pro: The clockspeed is reduced when the graphics card doesn't do much, to save power. When you start actually using it, the clockspeed is increased. (That was found by taking the clockspeed before and after running a benchmark program - after the benchmark it had magically increased by more than 30 percent).

 

[Core Trio]

I thought people would know by now what is going on with the graphics card clock speed on MacBook Pro: The clockspeed is reduced when the graphics card doesn't do much, to save power. When you start actually using it, the clockspeed is increased. (That was found by taking the clockspeed before and after running a benchmark program - after the benchmark it had magically increased by more than 30 percent).

I have not read a single thing about this anywhere until..well..just now. If this is true I think someone should get it out to stop the whole "apple is underclocking my GPU " craze.

 

[holland]

Re:

Why have the opitions when you already have the opition of choosing a different computer with a dedicated card.

It's not Burger King you cant have it your way!

 

[QCassidy352]

No.

The Macbook is a consumer lever laptop. It's not designed for gamers. I would be dead against the lowest priced Macbook rising in price in order to compensate the lower volumes sales of that model so a higher model can do something that the Macbook isn't really supposed to do.

Although it would be nice to play Civ IV...

You just showed the silliness of your own argument. No one has ever suggested that the macbook is "designed for gamers." It's clearly not. I'm not a gamer, but I would love to be able to play Civ IV on my macbook. I want my macbook to be an all-purpose machine, including some light gaming.

 

[jdechko]

I voted no for a few reasons. First of all, Apple have designed the insides to meet certain power/heat requirements. The 950 fits within those requirements but a dedicated card might not. The same with the guy who wanted the 7900 GTX or whatever in his MBP. It doesn't work at this time due to heat and power consumption. You might be able to get it in a dell, but I'd guarantee that it won't be an inch thick and 5 pounds.

Also theres a lot to do with the different SKU's which causes confusion. Also, as was stated before, Apple can do what they want. You do have a choice between integrated and dedicated graphics, just not in the same machine. It's a choice that you alone have to make.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Integrated graphics were pure garbage until Apple started using the cheap crap, then all of a sudden the fan club start screaming how great they were because Apple had them. Sure they will be better the next generation but the current generation is only a handicap on todays faster cpu's. I voted Yes because as a consumer its about ME not about some god darn commitee of brown nosing marketeers saving a few $$$ and trying to force the cheap crap on Mac users. So Apple cripples the hell out of its Consumers machines that use this piss poor GPU so they can push normal Models or ahem...Pro models Integrated graphics suck.

 

[andiwm2003]

Integrated graphics were pure garbage until Apple started using the cheap crap, then all of a sudden the fan club start screaming how great they were because Apple had them. Sure they will be better the next generation but the current generation is only a handicap on todays faster cpu's. I voted Yes because as a consumer its about ME not about some god darn commitee of brown nosing marketeers saving a few $$$ and trying to force the cheap crap on Mac users. So Apple cripples the hell out of its Consumers machines that use this piss poor GPU so they can push normal Models or ahem...Pro models Integrated graphics suck.

as soon as the intel integrated graphics 965 is available in quantities i can see apple moving it's entire consumer line (macbook, imac, mini, maybe even macbook pro) to integrated graphics. it saves them a lot of money. many consumer won't care. the gamers will be left behind again.

 

[codo]

Integrated graphics were pure garbage until Apple started using the cheap crap, then all of a sudden the fan club start screaming how great they were because Apple had them.

I'm with you, it’s crazy.