+100000000000. That's the honest truth despite the garbage a lot pundits, and even posters here, are trying to spin in favour of intel.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel GMA HD - thoughts on use in MBA?
- Thread starter Thunder82
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Anandtech is on intel's payroll, allegedly. They are one of their biggest sponsors. I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of these jokes, especially where they have vested interests.
edit: The always astute Scottsfield summed it up excellently on the previous page.
I am sorry Eidorian, but first of all I will refer you to the analysis of Scottsdale to see why rating for cpus/gpus can be skewed and not representative.
Secondly I am not naive or young enough to believe that intel with all their billions don't have the spare peanuts, forget that, the month's old crubs of peanuts under some tight corner, to spare to finance a few tens of geeks spread around tec websites with early technology and a pay that will make up for all those years of lack of legitimate orgasms they haven't had. Intel continued its stonghold on the market with monopoly tactics and such sites when amd was making them look like complete and utter fools and putting intels offerings to shame, and they won't be able to pull it off now that despite their crappy gfx offerings they have taken a small but appreciable lead in the cpu industry (not in the ultra mobile segment of course where the arm dwarfs the atom)?
Like I said we are talking about billions and billions of dollars, trillions arguably, they can rent out senators and politicians as if they were call gals, heck the numero uno sponsors of Israel's military, industrial complex and they can't channel their fud in a few web of tec sites?
p.s. btw, what part is it that they dont confirm?
I take medication for that. I'd rather have the 790GX or 9400M G over the Intel GMA HD but you're only irking out a few more FPS at lowest settings.
I'm not going to argue about what benchmarks comes out with. Even with the original X3100 video card, even though its similar to an low end nVidia or ATi video card, the performance was extremely worse and sometimes won't even run even though the benchmarks are the same. I just feel Intel's GFX is really only good for battery life and business uses in which they don't require fast 3D graphics.
The Air, even though it's not a gaming machine, is still capable as a gaming machine. It's been proven by me and many other users who have used bootcamp to play an occasional game or two.
To be honest, I really liked my Rev. A macbook air. I found nothing wrong with the latest one I got (which apparently was a refurb). The only problem I did find is the video card. If that Air had a 9400M or something other than Intel, I really wouldn't have switched. I don't care about the SSD or the SATA2 connection or the 2.13GHz processor. I really just cared about the video card being able to play an occasional game without being less than 10 fps.
The Air, even though it's not a gaming machine, is still capable as a gaming machine. It's been proven by me and many other users who have used bootcamp to play an occasional game or two.
To be honest, I really liked my Rev. A macbook air. I found nothing wrong with the latest one I got (which apparently was a refurb). The only problem I did find is the video card. If that Air had a 9400M or something other than Intel, I really wouldn't have switched. I don't care about the SSD or the SATA2 connection or the 2.13GHz processor. I really just cared about the video card being able to play an occasional game without being less than 10 fps.
I will accept your first several points as your understanding of the facts. I will even say that maybe my reply wasn't "respectful," because I cannot fathom your views of Intel's IGP. Of course we all agree that a dedicated graphics solution is preferred. We will have to agree to disagree on the rest.
I most certainly disagree 1,000,000% that the MacBook Air was meant to be a "secondary" Mac from the beginning. From my own experience and from my interaction with colleagues, friends, and forum members, I believe that at least three of every four NEW MBA buyers is buying the MBA to be their primary Mac. I also believe that Apple's target market for the MBA was always as a primary Mac.
Now, the targeted market could have changed over time. Remember, the initial price of the MBA was $1799 to $3099. Do you think Apple would really expect the MBA to be a secondary Mac at that price? No, the MBA was meant for the "professional" that didn't need a professional grade computer to do their daily computing workload - businesspeople, grad students, writers, professors, consultants, and tech enthusiasts. These are the people who can afford an MBA.
Those who didn't need an MBP, would pay more money for a similar "experience" to that which they could from a MacBook. While not needing a professional computer, these people still want a premium device that gives them the "Mac experience" that they enjoy and that makes them feel cool. Not only that, these professionals are on the go. They can use the MBA in an airplane seat, and it's easy to carry around. While at their desk, they could plug it into an ACD and the MBA became an amazing "desktop."
Make no mistake about it, the MBA is a "primary" Mac. Now, what happened was the original MBA was a failure. Apple didn't tell people that while the MBA might fit in an envelope, it wasn't capable of, what people would consider, a "normal" Mac experience. This lead to original MBA owners dumping their MBAs and migrating back to an MBP or even a PC ultraportable/notebook.
The MBA owners original experience damaged the brand "MacBook Air." Apple realized that it couldn't make software updates to completely repair the challenges of the overheated Merom CPU and completely worthless Intel 3100 graphics. Apple learned its lesson and introduced a new model with an updated Penryn CPU that was lower voltage at 17W and utilized Nvidia's new 9400m GPU/chipset to reduce heat and improve performance substantially. The resulting MBA was a success and the perfect companion, and primary Mac, for those who didn't need a professional grade computer but wanted a premium/luxury computer. These are the people that can afford $1799 to $2499 for a luxury MBA. The targeted market and right computer had finally been created. It was thin and lightweight, yet it had a capable CPU and GPU that could do everything that a primary Mac user would need if they didn't need a professional grade computer. The MBA was cool and provided a typical MB experience yet in its "Air" form.
The MBA had failed in its original version, and Apple couldn't completely make it a real Mac like experience usable by those who wanted to use it as their primary Mac. Apple then decided to "DUMP" its stockpile of original MBAs. This "dumping" of many MBAs, that were incapable to achieve a Primary Mac status, led to the MBA taking on a new role as a "secondary" Mac. Apple surely didn't intend for the MBA to fail. Its failure was on implementing the MBA before it had components capable of making the MBA a primary Mac. Basically, it relied on Intel in too tight of a space. Once it got Nvidia's GPU involved, along with a LV Penryn CPU, the MBA became a "primary" Mac once again. Since switching over to Nvidia, most MBA buyers have enjoyed their experience and fallen in love with the fun of owning an MBA that was capable of being their primary Mac.
With the June 2009 update, Apple's challenge was to take advantage of those of us who are willing to pay more money for an MBA that is primary Mac capable but still sell the MBA to those who wanted a secondary Mac that couldn't wait out the tablet or fill the role of a netbook. Apple decided to forego changes that might be wanted by some to reduce the pricing to capture sales from both markets. Really, Apple knew it didn't have a "netbook" available and didn't want to compete there. The MBA was still selling refurbished for $999 to $1299, so Apple was successfully selling some secondary MBAs for those who wanted the Mac "experience" and would pay more than they would have for a $400 netbook that was similarly as capable but that had smaller displays and keyboards... this led to Apple providing a better secondary Mac experience than a netbook could provide. For those who would pay even a little more (the infamous incremental upgrade Apple provides), a brand new MBA that was really "cool" and bypassed the 2 GHz barrier! The result was more and more people buying new MBAs from both markets and more people buying refurbished MBAs thus changing both markets further. Apple doesn't often fail with its products, but when it does, it usually learns well from those failures. In this case, Apple learned to expand the MBA's market by also taking advantage of those who wanted a secondary computing device... yet Apple got its way by not offering a "netbook" at a sub-$1000 price.
I expect tomorrow's MBA update to further solidify the MBA as a "primary" Mac. Apple will continue to find a way around Intel when it comes to graphics. This will ensure the MBA's capabilities remain in tact for those who want to use the MBA as their primary Mac; these people don't need a professional grade computer, but they want an incredible Mac experience. At the same time, Apple will introduce its tablet which will capitalize on the market which was previously buying MBAs to fulfill the role of secondary computing. The MBA will take a small hit on sales of tablets, but that was NEVER its primary target. Apple will gladly capitalize on those who don't want a tablet and will pay more for the MBA experience.
I can't really imagine the MacBook Air going to Arrandale right now. Another Core 2 low voltage revision and maybe even a slight price drop are more than likely.
Apple backed itself into a corner with nVidia. nVidia mentioned the MCP89 and MCP99 (Nehalem/Westmere) back in August of 2009. A few months later nVidia completely backs down from trying to pursue a DMI/QPI license. ION2 turns into a hackneyed mobile G210 on an overclocked PCIe x1 lane for Atom (Pineview).
It's still entirely possible that MCP89 managed to survive for a Core 2 LV/ULV/CULV environment. Bring on the 32 shader IGP, DDR3, and I/O on a 55/40nm die.
And it made no sense to go to integrated GPUs with the first Intel Macs oh wait.
And if those ratings were negative would you still be claiming skew and bias?
I'd say a large part of that depends on when the LV Arrandales are coming out and if Apple can squeeze in another Core 2 update.
My point is obvious; Apple has learned from past experiences with Intel that its integrated graphics are not just inferior, in every way, they're also JUNK!
You usually put a little more effort into your replies...
i bought my air as my main machine, with the runcore drive it has made it much more possible.
i have a mac mini desktop at home that will become a new media center.
the air is my favorite machine.
its drawbacks will be solved shortly (i hope)
once the 4gb ram comes out...thats all i need.
ill be ordering a new cinema display for it and using it as my main machine once again.
i have a mac mini desktop at home that will become a new media center.
the air is my favorite machine.
its drawbacks will be solved shortly (i hope)
once the 4gb ram comes out...thats all i need.
ill be ordering a new cinema display for it and using it as my main machine once again.
You still haven't answered my question.
How about I make it easier for you… if a different source gave highly negative ratings to the GMA HD, would you still be critically analyzing it?
Previous releases have shown that Apple is perfectly capable of downgrading certain components or feature sets while upgrading others in an update.
So do you.
4 GB is basically a given for the next update.once the 4gb ram comes out...thats all i need.
I don't like your condescending tone. Let me make it easier for you too. Hypothetical scenarios are something I don't dignify with replies. You want to answer to my actual points, be my guest.
I already put forth a substantial post on what I think about the topic. Your reply to that didn't consider the entire post but merely one small part of it. If you're going to reply to it, make a considerable effort and base your opinions with a little more conviction. Otherwise, forget it.
Apple can take its 4 GB of RAM and shove it if it is paired with Intel's IGP as its sole graphics solution. I don't think 8 GB of system RAM will make up for Intel's IGP inclusion - not even close. I am looking for more like 4 GB shared with Nvidia GPU or 4 GB system RAM + 256MB video RAM for an ATI solution.
You keep missing my point, don't you? Which is: Would you critically analyze performance figures (or other types of reports) no matter what their conclusions were?
Don't bother replying as you'll miss the point of this post too.
Do I have to reply to every point in your whole post? No. Your whole point is the loss of graphics power. My whole point is that Apple has downgraded components in the past.
But then again, nothing in your last post refutes my point.
And no, my 4 GB of RAM comment has nothing to do with your quote, if you even read my post.
What is your point exactly? Points are not usually phrased as leading questions. You are trying to insinuate that I would ebrace any critical review of intel graphics, and I would dismiss any positive one on the grounds of bias. So? That is very expected, people don't just write negative review about intel on a grudge, but they almost always write positive ones when they are on a nice little earner, which most of them are. I didn't see you taking up what I said that intel has huge marketing force and billions and they have most tec site on the web pocketed, you missed that point. As you missed the point that they even had their clout working for them back when they were by all accounts inferior to the competition.
That is exactly what you did above.
So they're paying everyone. Any solid evidence for that would be of interest.
I'm pretty sure the Pentium 4 reviews were bad. I don't think the Pentium G6950 review was that good either.
Common sense, the least commonest of all senses, that is my "solid evidence". Do you perhaps want bank account no.s, phone call taps, or maybe I can summon an investigative committee to belabour the obvious.
I agree. I don't understand what's going on here. Normally iMacmatician is a little more dignified and substantial. Must be having a bad day, or he just owns a bunch of Intel stock... and is bitter about negative revelations.
Neither. Maybe you guys are just bitter that you can't refute my arguments and instead make other comments that have no relation to my points (or yours).
wow...you guys got your mac's in a twist....and right before a huge media event....
im very disappointed.
im very disappointed.