Macbook underpowered for (full) Leopard?

[Igantius]

And as others also pointed out, Steve Jobs made fun of integrated graphics-rightfully so-right up until the point he started using them. I'm still very disappointed they're doing that. For the prices, they could include a real low-end GPU in every one of their systems.

All the rumors prior to the Intel switch said we'd never see garbage Intel graphics on a Mac

Right...

Firstly, I think I've dealt with why SJ said what he did.

Some advantages of the GMA950 over a video card:

• It's cheaper (if you can supply evidence that the cost is the same, I'll happily concede that) - helps keep unit cost down
• Lower power consumption=battery life - particularly useful for users of smaller notebooks who want portability, compared to pro users to whom power is a major consideration.
• Space saving within the enclosure.
• It fulfils the needs (mostly) of the audience Apple is targetting. More than one publication, aimed at creative professionals (e.g. UK Macuser mag), in reviews stated in a pleasantly surprised way that the MB was rather powerful and worthy of consideration. If half-decent card was added, there's the risk of potential MBP buyers going for a (noticeably) cheaper option.
• Conversely, by not adding a video card, some people will buy a MBP for the better graphics, whether or not they need it. e.g. posters who say they are going to the MBP because the MB’s graphics suck, but use their machine for little more intensive as surfing – or at the most playing WOW.

Of course, until very recently, there was very little differential between MBs and MBPs – the graphics card in the latter was a major difference. Why close that gap even further?

 

[Wolfpup]

If you used a low end GPU, there would still be a big difference. Throw a Geforce 6200 or 7300 in there and people who want a solid GPU will still go for the MBP.

That, along with using a last gen CPU are what Apple did with the iBook versus PowerBook.

 

[Igantius]

If you used a low end GPU, there would still be a big difference. Throw a Geforce 6200 or 7300 in there and people who want a solid GPU will still go for the MBP.

That, along with using a last gen CPU are what Apple did with the iBook versus PowerBook.

re: your latter point - the difference between the various PBs and iBooks was rather larger than one between MB and MBPs, say a month ago.

re: your first point - I didn't say there wouldn't. I've simply pointed some people went with the MBP because it had a video card for the simple virture of having a graphics card rather than an integrated GPU.

All I've merely done is to list some advantages of why Apple possibly went with the GMA 950. I've haven't really read anything to convince me that it was foolish mistake and its decision has negatively impacted on sales.

 

[feinc]

Anyone else have a strong concern about Leopard and Macbook?
Many are guessing that there will be a huge leap forward on the GUI with leopard- requiring perhaps a much better graphics processor than what Macbook's have. This may be especially true with Core Animation.

While Leopard will absolutely run on the Macbooks, is there anyone else who fears that some eyecandy will not work well unless you have a better graphics chip?

i think a lot of the comments have been mislead by the title of the thread which asks if the current macbooks is underpowered for (full) leopard and go into discussions about the processor etc when in fact what he is really asking is leopard eyecandy. my position: it will run leopard with full eyecandy.

on another note, one has pointed out that his machine ran all 3 generations of OSX and with only some eyecandy disabled in tiger during a time of 4.5 years (and still counting). well not all are as fortunate in timing their purchases. the late 2004 version of the ibook, which was only a few months old when tiger was released already couldnt have the ripple effect since it had an ati 9200 which had no support for core image.

I wouldnt be suprised that even the mid 2005 generation of ibooks would have problems with eyecandy sooner rather than later despite it being faster than GMA 950 and only because it shipped with 32mb of memory - likely because the 12" powerbook then which was still sold on apple's website only had a GeForce FX Go5200. A Radeon 9550 with 64MB which couldnt have cost that much more (or probably the same since apple had it custom made) would have certainly outperformed an FX 5200 and SJ wouldnt like a lowly ibook outperforming a 12" powerbook.

 

[coffey7]

My macbook with 1 gb or ram can't even handle a transparency app without slowing to a crawl. Get at least 2gb or wait until you buy a faster computer.

 

[Wolfpup]

My macbook with 1 gb or ram can't even handle a transparency app without slowing to a crawl. Get at least 2gb or wait until you buy a faster computer.

Are you talking about displaying one app behind another? Are you sure that has anything to do with RAM? I wouldn't think that would matter all that much, as all of that is in video RAM anyway, regardless of whether it's transparent. I don't know for sure, but I'd guess it would be more a function of the GPU's abilities to blend stuff-and maybe a function of not having any video RAM

 

[joehack]

IMHO, dropping or limiting the support for 950 users would be a stupid step by Apple. Thanks to these cheap entry level systems, Apple made a lot of people switch from PC to Mac. Droping the support after one OS release cycle would upset the new users.

Jochen

 

[Igantius]

Droping the support after one OS release cycle would upset the new users.

Quite.

Here's an excerpt from a Macuser (UK) review from March 2006, which I think is relevant because it examines Apple's volte-face on integrated graphics.

We asked Tom Boger, Apple's vice-president of desktop product marketing, why the company had changed its position. His answer was that the GMA950 was a huge improvement on previous integrated graphics chips and enabled the mini to run Core Image, which lets it do clever things, such as perform the ripple effect in Tiger's Dashboard and display the Front Row interface in all its glory... The very fact that the mini now supports Core Image is a signal of the improvement in its graphics performance and that the move to integrated graphics isn't a retrograde step.

 

[66217]

My macbook with 1 gb or ram can't even handle a transparency app without slowing to a crawl. Get at least 2gb or wait until you buy a faster computer.

You must be having another problem. Because this certainly never happens to me.

 

[i-unit123]

hey, so, you can get 3gb ram in a macbook???? have i been living under a rock?

can u just do it by buying the ram seperately or can you do it with apple?

 

[flopticalcube]

Third party. 1 X 1GB and 1 X 2GB.

 

[Wolfpup]

The problem is you're giving up dual channel mode. Not worth it for most people, as even WITHOUT integrated graphics that's a significant drop in performance. (You're throwing away half your bandwith.) When you have to use main RAM as video RAM, it's even worse.

 

[72930]

hey, so, you can get 3gb ram in a macbook???? have i been living under a rock?

can u just do it by buying the ram seperately or can you do it with apple?

Answer to question one: Yes
Answer to question two: Seperately (thanks siurpeeman)

The problem is you're giving up dual channel mode. Not worth it for most people, as even WITHOUT integrated graphics that's a significant drop in performance. (You're throwing away half your bandwith.) When you have to use main RAM as video RAM, it's even worse.

Nonsense, that's not true in practice...

 

[siurpeeman]

hey, so, you can get 3gb ram in a macbook???? have i been living under a rock?

can u just do it by buying the ram seperately or can you do it with apple?

Answer to question one: Yes
Answer to question two: Both

apple won't upgrade the macbook memory to 3 gb, just 2 gb.

 

[Wolfpup]

Answer to question one: Yes
Answer to question two: Both



Nonsense, that's not true in practice...

Yeah it is. Every benchmark I've ever seen on Intel hardware has always seen a large drop off in performance. Usually 10% or more. I mean if it didn't need the bandwidth, then they wouldn't have introduced dual channel to begin with, and they wouldn't keep jacking up speeds.

And then when you're dealing with two CPUs, AND all video access is going against main RAM too, you really need that extra speed.

Granted, you might not notice it in basic usage-but then why does someone just doing basic stuff need 3GB to begin with?

What I wonder about is if using 4GB will let you stay in dual channel mode. I'm not sure about that-I think so, but not sure. If so, that's the only reasonable way to hit around 3GB.

Otherwise...buy a MBP.

 

[Squonk]

Yeah it is. Every benchmark I've ever seen on Intel hardware has always seen a large drop off in performance. Usually 10% or more. I mean if it didn't need the bandwidth, then they wouldn't have introduced dual channel to begin with, and they wouldn't keep jacking up speeds.

And then when you're dealing with two CPUs, AND all video access is going against main RAM too, you really need that extra speed.

Granted, you might not notice it in basic usage-but then why does someone just doing basic stuff need 3GB to begin with?

What I wonder about is if using 4GB will let you stay in dual channel mode. I'm not sure about that-I think so, but not sure. If so, that's the only reasonable way to hit around 3GB.

Otherwise...buy a MBP.

So are you suggesting installed 4GB in a MB in the hopes to retain the benefits of dual channel while the OS will just access the 3.2GB of RAM? I forget what the max memory space that the Napa platform will address.

 

[flopticalcube]

The problem is you're giving up dual channel mode. Not worth it for most people, as even WITHOUT integrated graphics that's a significant drop in performance. (You're throwing away half your bandwith.) When you have to use main RAM as video RAM, it's even worse.

BS.

http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/MacBook/Testing/Memory_Benchmarks

4GB is usually faster than 3GB is faster than 2.5GB is faster than 2GB...

Matched pair helps a lot but not as much as more memory.

What I wonder about is if using 4GB will let you stay in dual channel mode. I'm not sure about that-I think so, but not sure. If so, that's the only reasonable way to hit around 3GB.

Yes it does. See above link.

 

[Wolfpup]

BS.

http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/MacBook/Testing/Memory_Benchmarks

4GB is usually faster than 3GB is faster than 2.5GB is faster than 2GB...

Matched pair helps a lot but not as much as more memory.

Every legit hardware site says otherwise, and most people don't need more than 2GB anyway (in fact that's overkill for most people).

People who actually do need that much RAM also need every bit of performance they can get. Throwing away 10%+ isn't a good option.

 

[flopticalcube]

Every legit hardware site says otherwise, and most people don't need more than 2GB anyway (in fact that's overkill for most people).

People who actually do need that much RAM also need every bit of performance they can get. Throwing away 10%+ isn't a good option.

Lets see some links then.

 

[Wolfpup]

Lets see some links then.

Anandtech, Tom's, etc.

 

[flopticalcube]

I see nothing on Tom's or AnandTech that says dual channel in Napa is better than single channel with more memory. I will stick to OWC findings.

 

[Wolfpup]

Who are trying to sell you RAM...

'Cause Intel just randomly started using dual channel for fun.

 

[Igantius]

Who are trying to sell you RAM...

'Cause Intel just randomly started using dual channel for fun.

Do you have any links to back your claims a few posts ago re: drop in performance? If so, I would be very interested in having a look - if not, I've no desire to get into an argument about it!

 

[yetanotherdave]

Going back on topic for a minute, my macbook C2D with 1 gig Ram and the much lamented 950 does visual effects like the ripple on dashboard, where my g4 mini with a dedicated 32Mb ATI something or other does not. I also never noticed the little things like semi transparent menu's on the mini, where I see them on the macbook.
Which would lead me to summise dedicated != better than intgrated.
Also, the macbook is (afaik) the best selling Apple computer. Laptop sales are higher than their desktop sales. Laptops still ship today with the 950, leopard was originally due June latest, and hardware revisions are not affected by software revisions, as in, the leopard delay would not make apple delay a hardware revision. Therefore apple was originally intending to ship leopard on a 1.66 CD with 512Mb RAM and a GMA950 (the current low end mini). Therefore leopard MUST run on that.
Also I'm sure I've seen somewhere that leopard runs on a G4.

At the end of the day, the macbook is an incredible machine. it's very very fast. From any other manufacturer it would be a high end machine. With apple it's a low end machine purely because they start higher up that others in terms of quality of processor etc they use. If it'll run vista, it'll run leopard easy.

 

[Igantius]

Going back on topic for a minute, my macbook C2D with 1 gig Ram and the much lamented 950 does visual effects like the ripple on dashboard...

Keeping a thread on-topic, but this is forum?!?

Interesting that you mentioned about the mini – the MU review I quoted above was from a mini review when Apple refreshed the machines – and why you can see stuff like the ripple effect with the MB that you didn’t with your mini.

I particularly agree with what you say re: orginal shipping date of Leopard.