Integrated Graphic Cards (New Apple Trend?)

[Dont Hurt Me]

Sigh. Haven't we been though all of this before?

Sure we have but its allways fun Luv those Integrated Graphics.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Sure we have but its allways fun Luv those Integrated Graphics.

I don't care much one way or another. It's not a religious thing for me.

Gamers think the computer industry exists for them, and will automatically dis any computer that can't play the latest version of Unreal Tournament at 70 FPS. I've always thought this was amusing, in a sicking sort of way.

 

[milo]

Not really. There are some applications that rely on the GPU, such as iMaginator, Image Tricks, and others in the future, with help of Core Image. Even iMovie and iDVD use Core Image.

And is there a noticible difference running iMovie or iDVD on a mini?

You can certainly run those apps on a machine with integrated graphics (not that people who intended to do tons of movie or dvd work would likely get a laptop with a screen that small).

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

I don't care much one way or another. It's not a religious thing for me.

Gamers think the computer industry exists for them, and will automatically dis any computer that can't play the latest version of Unreal Tournament at 70 FPS. I've always thought this was amusing, in a sicking sort of way.

You should use a Modern Game like F.E.A.R. or Quake4 but not some oldie like UT.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

You wont find Alienware using this stuff, in fact they are using dual SLi graphics in Notebooks, not silly single integrated stuff that dont even make Toms Hardware benches

As has been pointed out, some low-end Alienwares use integrated graphics; while only the highest-of-the-high end ones use SLI.

The 17" SLI model costs $36 less than a 17" MacBook pro, when configured similarly, and over $300 more than a 17" MBP when configured with SLI. The 19" model comes in at a whopping $1700 more! (At the same resolution as the 17" MBP.)

The 17" model is also using a video chip with less memory in the one-chip model, and both the 17" and 19" models only get 1 to 1.5 hours of battery life! (Not on the website, you have to call or chat with sales staff to find that out.)

 

[Anonymous Freak]

And is there a noticible difference running iMovie or iDVD on a mini?

You can certainly run those apps on a machine with integrated graphics (not that people who intended to do tons of movie or dvd work would likely get a laptop with a screen that small).

Neither iMovie nor iDVD use the video chip for anything more than displaying the results. Neither uses the video chip as an integral part of the rendering process. (i.e. using iMovie or iDVD on a Power Mac G4 with an original ATI Radeon card, or on a Radeon 9800 would be exactly the same.)

Motion and Apeture use the graphics chip to render, and while Motion won't run on the integrated graphics, Apeture 'works but is unsupported'. Remeber, though, the mini and MacBook aren't meant to be 'pro' computers, people who use Motion or Apeture aren't the target market. (Just like with PCs, low end computers aren't targeted at serious high-end users.)

As for using iMovie or iDVD on a screen that small? I used them both on a regular basis on my 12" PowerBook, which had 255,568 fewer pixels in 9% less physical area, than the MacBook. The MacBook's resolution is 113 pixels per inch, compared to the 12" iBook/PowerBook's 105, the 14" iBook's 91, and the 15" MacBook Pro's 110, and the 17" MBP's 116. So the new MBP has more pixels than the old iBook (and 12" PowerBook,) with a dots-per-inch halfway in between the 15" and the 17" MacBook Pros. Apple seems to be standardizing on about 110 dpi.

 

[Willy S]

I´m pretty tired of this pro vs non-pro computer thing, as you shouldn´t be able to do pro stuff in the 2006 on a non-pro computer.

I´m not satisfied with having to cash out over 1800 laptop just to get dedicated graphics. Integrated graphics is fine for 5-800$ laptops.

For 1300$/euros, you can get an Asus dual core laptop with a just slightly underclocked x1600 (less underclocked than MBP), 2 year standard warranty etc and there are more OS you can use on a PC than Windows. Perhaps Asus laps are poor quality?

Well, I´m not complaining about Apple, they just do what maximizes their profits and I just buy the stuff that gives me best value for money (Today: Asus, Fujitsu, IBM etc) You can even get a Dell for 1000 euros with a dedicated graphics card and a Fujitsu with x1400 for 1100 euros from Germany. Maybe the lower prices are because of less excessive use of poor quality thermal paste like that in MBPs?

Apple likes to overprice its computers that share the same components as Peecees (a peecee manufacturer produces your intel inside laptop) and if you want a performance, like a dedicated graphics card, you must spend over 1800 euros for only 1 year warranty inclusive.

 

[Raid]

honestly though if you dont want integrated graphics then get a mbp. its just like complaining that the honda civic doesnt come with leather seats and a v6 and if you want that you have to but an accord. you get what you pay for period. Its all a way to get you to keep upgrading. If the macbook had everything the macbook pro has then no one would buy the macbook pro.

I don't quite think that's an appropriate metaphor, it's more like if you buy the civic and the company tells you that the stock radio is welded to the chassis.

Many of the posts seem to revolve around the "you get what you pay for" mentality... maybe I'm pessimistic but I feel with integrated graphics cards I'm getting less for what I'm paying for. (Please before you post cost comparisons, I'm talking about perceived value for my dollar here!) Not only that, it looks like Apple is creating a void in the market, where users don't want to shell out the extra $550 (CAD values going from the most expensive MacBook to cheapest MacBook Pro) just to slip in to the Pro line!

Now I've been known to wave the Apple flag high and proud, but to me it looks like they've been treating the 'non-Pro' line like a second-class citizen. I honestly thought Apple thought better of it's customers, sure we paid a premium for it (and some would argue we still do) but at least then we'd get a machine that didn't cut corners.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Then by all means, don't pay for it.

The MacBook is a "second class citizen." They are hundreds less expensive than the pro models, so they come with less power and fewer features. This surprises anyone?

I've asked before, and I'll ask again: Which PC manufacturer sells a Core Duo laptop for $1,099?

 

[The Mad Kiwi]

Keeps manufacturing costs down, profits up, us shareholders love that.

The black one looks dead sexy in the photos, anybody seen one in the wild?

 

[Voidness]

Then by all means, don't pay for it.

The MacBook is a "second class citizen." They are hundreds less expensive than the pro models, so they come with less power and fewer features. This surprises anyone?

I've asked before, and I'll ask again: Which PC manufacturer sells a Core Duo laptop for $1,099?

Well, I was able to customize a 14" Dell with a 1.83GHz Core Duo for $999 (without rebates), but that's still without a dedicated graphics chip.

But this isn't the point here. The point is, Apple has downgraded the Macbook's graphical capabilities in comparison to its predecessor. Apple in the recent years has never used an integrated graphics solution in Macs. My concern is that Apple will keep this trend for its consumer line of laptops, and not offer users the option to upgrade to a dedicated graphics card.

Many posts here say: "If you want to do pro stuff and play games, get a MPB". You really can't classify things people do into pro/non-pro. There are people who do, lets say, semi-pro work on their computers, and some others are fine if games play at 30fps. The 12" Powerbook was well suited for semi-pro work, and Apple doesn't have a replacement for it (yet).

 

[shadowmoses]

Keeps manufacturing costs down, profits up, us shareholders love that.

The black one looks dead sexy in the photos, anybody seen one in the wild?

Here's a pic of a Black one and here's a white one in the flesh

As for the intergrated graphics it doesn't bother me much as I'm not a gamer and I don't use Pro Apps......The only thing that annoys me about it is how it steals from the system RAM they should have just soldered a 64mb chip for the Graphics card in there!

ShadoW

 

[HiRez]

1) Yes, it's highly likely that Intel said "Use Integrated Graphics and we'll give you a big discount" and Apple couldn't resist.
2) Integrated takes up less internal space, produces less heat and uses less power. Good for tight enclosures e.g. Mac Mini, MacBook

Good points, the good news is that Teh Steve is aware when something sucks, and he doesn't like it (although he'll do it if he has to for a while for business reasons). I suspect he can and will be pushing Intel to make their integrated graphics more respectable, especially for Apple-y things like HD playback, that's good news for most of the computer industry. The MacBooks are never going to be great gamers' machines, period. Apple is rumored to be working on special laptop versions specifically for gamers though, hopefully they will allow you to do some serious gaming on the go without shelling out $2,500+ for a MacBook Pro.

Raid, I have no idea where you got the notion that integrated graphics shorten a computer's life, I've never heard of that. Do you have some evidence for that claim? As long as you have enough RAM to not push the machine into disk swapping, the only thing that should be getting more of a workout is your main RAM, pieces with no moving parts. In over 25 years of computing, I've never had a RAM stick go bad (obviously it does happen on occasion). Now, one thing that may reduce the life of a computer is HEAT, and integrated graphics should produce a lot less of it than a dedicated GPU.

 

[Voidness]

Neither iMovie nor iDVD use the video chip for anything more than displaying the results. Neither uses the video chip as an integral part of the rendering process. (i.e. using iMovie or iDVD on a Power Mac G4 with an original ATI Radeon card, or on a Radeon 9800 would be exactly the same.)

Yes, you're right. iMovie '06 uses the graphics card's capabilities to preview the results in real time in the main window, unlike the '05 version, which doesn't take advantage of Core Video. It's also true that the graphics chip plays no role in the final rendering process. But using iMovie '06 on a Powermac G4 with Radeon 9800 would be much better than using it with the original Radeon card, simply because you can see things happening in real time.

 

[Pistol Pete]

They actually do:

http://www.alienware.com/product_pages/notebook_all_default.aspx



... and that's Alienware

lol well technicly....thats dell haha

 

[Azurael]

Sigh. Haven't we been though all of this before?

If you want to play games, don't buy a MacBook. Seems simple enough.

No, you're missing the point. If I wanted to play games on the iBook G4, which I now don't even have the option of buying, I could have done. A new machine should not present a downgrade from an old one. Not everybody can or wants to afford a MBP just to be able to play the occasional game between doing work.

I recall when the Intel mini came out, the consensus expectation was that the MacBook would use the Core Solo processor. Now that they're out and use the Core Duo, still so much disappointment and griping.

So, which PC manufacturer offers a 13 inch Core Duo laptop for under $1,099?

I'd rather have a Core Solo CPU and a dedicated GPU, tbh. Nobody who isn't doing heavy work in things like Motion needs or will really see the benefit of a dual core CPU anyway, though future games will probably take advantage of multiple CPUs effectively (especially ports from 'Next-Gen' consoles). Couldn't Apple have kept all the gripers quiet by at least having an optional GPU, like all the dull Wintel manufacturers?

 

[kugino]

I'd rather have a Core Solo CPU and a dedicated GPU, tbh. Nobody who isn't doing heavy work in things like Motion needs or will really see the benefit of a dual core CPU anyway, though future games will probably take advantage of multiple CPUs effectively (especially ports from 'Next-Gen' consoles). Couldn't Apple have kept all the gripers quiet by at least having an optional GPU, like all the dull Wintel manufacturers?

yeah, if the MB came out in core solo everyone would be griping about how it should be core duo. and you argue that not everyone needs a core duo? well, i'm arguing that not everyone needs a dedicated graphics chip to play 3D games...you can complain all you want about how it doesn't have what you want, but just live with it. either save more money and get a MB pro or get a PC for gaming.

 

[Voidness]

yeah, if the MB came out in core solo everyone would be griping about how it should be core duo. and you argue that not everyone needs a core duo? well, i'm arguing that not everyone needs a dedicated graphics chip to play 3D games...you can complain all you want about how it doesn't have what you want, but just live with it. either save more money and get a MB pro or get a PC for gaming.

You're missing the point here. A dedicated graphics card isn't just for gaming anymore, as mentioned in some posts here. I've mentioned this several times, but some people are just ignoring the fact: The Macbook's Integrated Graphics Chip is a downgrade in comparison to its iBook predecessor… and we’re not talking consumer vs. pro, we’re comparing the old outdated consumer offering to its brand new replacement.

 

[afornander]

Here's a pic of a Black one and here's a white one in the flesh

As for the intergrated graphics it doesn't bother me much as I'm not a gamer and I don't use Pro Apps......The only thing that annoys me about it is how it steals from the system RAM they should have just soldered a 64mb chip for the Graphics card in there!

ShadoW

wow the macbook looks about 10x better in thoughs pics than the ones at apple.com.

 

[IJ Reilly]

No, you're missing the point. If I wanted to play games on the iBook G4, which I now don't even have the option of buying, I could have done. A new machine should not present a downgrade from an old one. Not everybody can or wants to afford a MBP just to be able to play the occasional game between doing work.

Nope, I'm not missing the point at all. We've been through all of this before. The integrated graphics processor in the Mini (and presumably, in the MacBook) performs at least as well as the graphics subsystems used in the models they replaced in most areas, according to the published bench tests. Not in all, but most. Is it a great leap forward in terms of graphics processing power? Obviously not. But for entry-level consumer machines, this these models will perform very respectably, and to use only one metric (gaming) to judge their value, is ludicrous. Gamers really do need to understand that the entire computer industry does not exist to make them happy. Other people have needs too, you know.

 

[IJ Reilly]

You're missing the point here. A dedicated graphics card isn't just for gaming anymore, as mentioned in some posts here. I've mentioned this several times, but some people are just ignoring the fact: The Macbook's Integrated Graphics Chip is a downgrade in comparison to its iBook predecessor… and we’re not talking consumer vs. pro, we’re comparing the old outdated consumer offering to its brand new replacement.

Your opinion really isn't backed up by the facts. I thought this raging debate was settled with the Mini bench tests, which showed that the integrated graphics processors performed overall about equally to the dedicated graphics subsystems they replaced. And of course these Macs also offer far more horsepower overall. I'm afraid calling them a "downgrade" is really just a geek argument against dedicated graphics processors, and one that makes little sense and no real difference to most computer buyers.

 

[bbrosemer]

Your opinion really isn't backed up by the facts. I thought this raging debate was settled with the Mini bench tests, which showed that the integrated graphics processors performed overall about equally to the dedicated graphics subsystems they replaced. And of course these Macs also offer far more horsepower overall. I'm afraid calling them a "downgrade" is really just a geek argument against dedicated graphics processors, and one that makes little sense and no real difference to most computer buyers.

I agree entirley ... get some facts straight... Yes stick a 7200 in there it would be so much better then the Intel, but it doesnt work like that its a laptop there was limited room so they put the next best in there that would acuually fit in the computer, the Intel intergrated. Live with it and for everyone that thinks that the Intergrated isnt good enough for them go either buy a MBP or a 20lb eye hurting dell.

 

[Raid]

Raid, I have no idea where you got the notion that integrated graphics shorten a computer's life, I've never heard of that. Do you have some evidence for that claim? As long as you have enough RAM to not push the machine into disk swapping, the only thing that should be getting more of a workout is your main RAM, pieces with no moving parts. In over 25 years of computing, I've never had a RAM stick go bad (obviously it does happen on occasion). Now, one thing that may reduce the life of a computer is HEAT, and integrated graphics should produce a lot less of it than a dedicated GPU.

Sorry, I didn't mean that the computer would fry; I meat the 'useful life' of such computers is shorter. I think about it this way; when people make the decision to purchase another computer it's because either the machine is busted, or their current machine isn't performing fast enough/can't handle current demands. A video card replacement can extend that 'useful life' for a few years by keeping the video processing demands on the RAM and harddrive (if it gets that bad ) to a minimum, which can feel like a performance enhancement. By preventing such an upgrade those machines are completely unattractive to me as a consumer. It's too bad for Apple really because one day I'd like to get a mini when a good Mac "TiVo"/PVR like program comes out... I guess I'll just keep my good old G4 humming since I can upgrade it. I wonder if I can install a video card that has a GPU that's faster than my CPU?

<edit> I wonder... if I had a dollar for every person that has posted 'don't like integrated graphics buy a MBP' would I have enough to bridge the $550 gap to actually get a MBP? </edit>

 

[bbrosemer]

Sorry, I didn't mean that the computer would fry; I meat the 'useful life' of such computers is shorter. I think about it this way; when people make the decision to purchase another computer it's because either the machine is busted, or their current machine isn't performing fast enough/can't handle current demands. A video card replacement can extend that 'useful life' for a few years by keeping the video processing demands on the RAM and harddrive (if it gets that bad ) to a minimum, which can feel like a performance enhancement. By preventing such an upgrade those machines are completely unattractive to me as a consumer. It's too bad for Apple really because one day I'd like to get a mini when a good Mac "TiVo"/PVR like program comes out... I guess I'll just keep my good old G4 humming since I can upgrade it. I wonder if I can install a video card that has a GPU that's faster than my CPU?

The last time I checked its a laptop or the Mac Mini which have the intergrated chip and before they both had chips that were soldered to the Motherboard anyway so... I dont see where your going with this the whole board previously had to be reaplaced anyway.

 

[Azurael]

Your opinion really isn't backed up by the facts. I thought this raging debate was settled with the Mini bench tests, which showed that the integrated graphics processors performed overall about equally to the dedicated graphics subsystems they replaced. And of course these Macs also offer far more horsepower overall. I'm afraid calling them a "downgrade" is really just a geek argument against dedicated graphics processors, and one that makes little sense and no real difference to most computer buyers.

Well actually, you're wrong. Just look at any benchmark which isn't processor limited on the old Mac mini comparing the old with the new and you'll see that even the outdated, non core image compatible 9200 wipes the floor with the GMA950 (does anybody want to play UT2004 at 7FPS? No, well buy an old mini then). The Doom 3 benchmarks were neck and neck between the old mini and the new one, but that doesn't seem so impressive when you consider how muc faster the Duo mini they were testing's CPU is.

When you take a much faster dedicated GPU like the FX5200 in the old 12" PowerBook or the even faster 9550 in the old iBook (both of which are at least twice as fast as the 9200 and core image complaint), you see that we have an even more embarassing situation for the new machine, so actually, it's your argument which isn't backed up by facts.

To some extent, it was excusable with the mini, because at least that gained core image support during the Intel transition, though it is really all about widgets splashing since it's not fast enough to use the pro video apps which require core image.