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.
Intels Crestline Integrated graphics to run DirectX 10?
- Thread starter iW00t
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nah, the MBPs will continue to get graphics cards, while the MBs will get this.
Once the MBs get this, I'm selling my MB to get this new system. I'm always worried that if I buy an external monitor to hook up to my current MB, it'll start crying. Sure, it only has 64 MB of VRAM, but if it had more vRAM allocated to it*, I wouldn't have to worry about turning off my laptop's monitor before connecting an external 20" display to it. The OS X eye-candy may also run smoothly while doing all of this.
I'm assuming that the max amount of RAM that a MB would be increased once Santa Rosa was released.
Once the MBs get this, I'm selling my MB to get this new system. I'm always worried that if I buy an external monitor to hook up to my current MB, it'll start crying. Sure, it only has 64 MB of VRAM, but if it had more vRAM allocated to it*, I wouldn't have to worry about turning off my laptop's monitor before connecting an external 20" display to it. The OS X eye-candy may also run smoothly while doing all of this.
I'm assuming that the max amount of RAM that a MB would be increased once Santa Rosa was released.
It doesn't even seem reasonable for the MacBook Pro to get something so insignificant, especially if it's going to run Motion and Aperture, among others.
Wasn't there a another chipset, a GMA 3000, that was under speculation? I could see some divergence on MacBooks and Mac minis finally having some graphics options without going to ATI or nVidia.
Just because the GMA 965 chipset is compatible with DirectX 10 doesn't mean that it's going to run it well.
Wasn't there a another chipset, a GMA 3000, that was under speculation? I could see some divergence on MacBooks and Mac minis finally having some graphics options without going to ATI or nVidia.
Just because the GMA 965 chipset is compatible with DirectX 10 doesn't mean that it's going to run it well.
Well I always thought the GMA 3000 was the next integrated graphics to end up in laptops everywhere, but when the story said GMA 965, I thought it was the same thing and posted as though they were. 
Besides the DX10 stuff, there's bound to be a lot of technological improvements to it, meaning it'll run everything we're currently running better than it is now. That's great news, especially to those people who need to run things like Aperture, but don't want to get a MBP to run it smoothly. Certainly nobody is expected to game on this GMA 965, whether it's DX10 compatible, are they?
Besides the DX10 stuff, there's bound to be a lot of technological improvements to it, meaning it'll run everything we're currently running better than it is now. That's great news, especially to those people who need to run things like Aperture, but don't want to get a MBP to run it smoothly. Certainly nobody is expected to game on this GMA 965, whether it's DX10 compatible, are they?
The chipset is the G965 for desktop and GM965 for mobile. The IGP is called the GMA X3000. It's supposed to support hardware T&L and comes with 8 unified shaders in a 2 pipeline configuration with 2 TMUs. So it'll have more processing power than the GMA 950, but less texture power. Kind of like ATI's 3:1 PS:TMU ratio in the MR X1600 in the MBP. In theory, the GMA X3000 looks like a very impressive architecture and configuration for an IGP, but so far Intel's been very slow to introduce drivers to activate features for the desktop version. In fact, after 6 months, they still only have only hardware PS activated, no hardware VS or T&L so it's still running like a GMA 950, only a bit faster because it's clocked higher. Whether this indicates a hardware defect or whether it's just Intel being slow to learn the new architecture they created I'm not sure. But seeing that the GM965's GMA X3000 claims DX10 support, which the G965's GMA X3000 currently doesn't, if their are hardware defects they've probably been corrected for the mobile version.
In terms of performance, some Linux benchmarks (a UT2003 based benchmark I believe) have put the GMA X3000's performance in line with the X550. Granted the benchmark is only showing DX8 code operation, but that is a decent level of performance from an IGP. This is the desktop version which runs at 667MHz, while the mobile version will run at 400MHz. The desktop GMA 950 also ran at 400MHz while the mobile version ran at 250MHz.
Also, the GMA X3000 isn't to be confused with the GMA 3000. It's not really a big deal for laptops since the GMA 3000 is only available in the corporate desktop platforms, but the GMA 3000 has none of the new hardware features of the GMA X3000, and is basically an overclocked GMA 950 at 667MHz instead of 400MHz. Why Intel choose such a confusing naming system, I have no idea.
In terms of performance, some Linux benchmarks (a UT2003 based benchmark I believe) have put the GMA X3000's performance in line with the X550. Granted the benchmark is only showing DX8 code operation, but that is a decent level of performance from an IGP. This is the desktop version which runs at 667MHz, while the mobile version will run at 400MHz. The desktop GMA 950 also ran at 400MHz while the mobile version ran at 250MHz.
Also, the GMA X3000 isn't to be confused with the GMA 3000. It's not really a big deal for laptops since the GMA 3000 is only available in the corporate desktop platforms, but the GMA 3000 has none of the new hardware features of the GMA X3000, and is basically an overclocked GMA 950 at 667MHz instead of 400MHz. Why Intel choose such a confusing naming system, I have no idea.