Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Underclocked GMA 950 Graphics In MacBook

EricNau said:
No, they are not. You could claim they are being sly in their advertising, but it is not false advertising.
Click to expand...

Listen, I am a huge Apple apologist/fanboy but come on. :rolleyes:

If you read Intel GMA950 and then Google "Intel GMA950" and read directly from Intel's site that the GMA950 runs at 400MHz you would think that the GMA950 in the MacBook is running at 400MHz, no?

All I am saying is that Apple should differentiate its advertising of the MacBook and mini if the GMA950 in them performs differently.

longofest said:
But if you read this, you get another picture.
Click to expand...

Hell, they should have went with 133MHz and squeezed out a few more minutes of battery life. ;)
 
longofest said:
Guess it depends on what material you read. Reading that page from Intel would definitely make you believe that the chipset would be clocked at 400 Mhz and no less. But if you read this, you get another picture.
Click to expand...

Good call. It clearly states the different voltages and possible clock speeds of the processor. Personally, I don't care if the GMA is clocked at 250 mhz on the macbook. I'd much rather have a thinner computer thats cooler and looks way better and has a longer battery life, than some ugly fat computer that gets 10 more fps when gaming hardcore on a non-gaming laptop!
 
treblah said:
Listen, I am a huge Apple apologist/fanboy but come on. :rolleyes:

If you read Intel GMA950 and then Google "Intel GMA950" and read directly from Intel's site that the GMA950 runs at 400MHz you would think that the GMA950 in the MacBook is running at 400MHz, no?

All I am saying is that Apple should differentiate its advertising of the MacBook and mini if the GMA950 in them performs differently.
Click to expand...

Apple says in their specs: "Intel GMA 950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory." If it contains that graphics processor (which it does) and shares 64 MB of memory (which is does), it does not matter how fast it's running.

I admitted that Apple was being very sly and misleading in their advertising, but it isn't "false."
 
EricNau said:
I admitted that Apple was being very sly and misleading in their advertising, but it isn't "false."
Click to expand...

You only said sly earlier. ;) And maybe it isn't "false" but it isn't the whole truth and Apple should not be given a free pass because we like them. And I don't even have a MacBook :p
 
treblah said:
You only said sly earlier. ;) And maybe it isn't "false" but it isn't the whole truth and Apple should not be given a free pass because we like them. And I don't even have a MacBook :p
Click to expand...
I agree, Apple should not be given a free pass, and quite frankly, I'm getting sick of Apple pulling stunts like this. I just wanted to set the record straight about it being "false." :)
 
treblah said:
If you read Intel GMA950 and then Google "Intel GMA950" and read directly from Intel's site that the GMA950 runs at 400MHz you would think that the GMA950 in the MacBook is running at 400MHz, no?
Click to expand...
Well, in that case the blame for "false advertising" would actually be Intel's. If Intel's site only were to say it runs at 400mhz and not that it is actually specced to run at different speeds at different voltages, then that's their fault. I could care less either way, but nowhere does Apple say that the GMA950 is or isn't running at full capacity in the Macbook. A TRULY informed consumer would know that the chip is meant to be clocked by voltage use and that voltage supplied to the chip may vary in different laptops...
 
mopppish said:
A TRULY informed consumer would know that the chip is meant to be clocked by voltage use and that voltage supplied to the chip may vary in different laptops...
Click to expand...

We need a 'My-Eyes-Rolled-So-Hard-I-Think-I-Cracked-My-Skull' smilie stat. :(
 
treblah said:
We need a 'My-Eyes-Rolled-So-Hard-I-Think-I-Cracked-My-Skull' smilie stat. :(
Click to expand...
C'mon, man. :)
You can't place the blame on Apple when you just said that googling GMA950 would turn up a spec of 400mhz on INTEL'S site. Intel has specced it to manufacturers as a chip that can consume less power, albeit at a lower speed. At the least, Intel should have EVERY mention of the chip's specs say that it has speeds of "up to" 400 mhz. Apple is definitely chosing not to mention that they're not giving the chip enough power to max it out, but that's one of its design functions, plain and simple. If the Macbook were 2" thick with giant, omnipresent fans or everyone was saying "wow, my macbook is stone cold when it's running full out!" then I could totally understand some of you folks being upset about them not designing the Macbook to fully juice the GMA950, but the reality is that it's an impeccably (mostly) designed laptop with no room to budge.
By the way, is the way the chip is clocked a hardware or software issue? What I'm curious about is, if Apple was able to offer better power efficiency and distribution in a downloadable update for the Macbook, would they also be able to route more power to the GMA950, or is that a matter of jumpers?
 
treblah said:
If you read Intel GMA950 and then Google "Intel GMA950" and read directly from Intel's site that the GMA950 runs at 400MHz you would think that the GMA950 in the MacBook is running at 400MHz, no?
Click to expand...

Then you should be really pissed when you find out that your 1.83GHz Core Duo MacBook doesn't run at 1.83 GHz all the time. In fact, the chips scale down when not in heavy use, and the amount of this scaling down is based on how much Apple decides to scale it down by based on a user's energy saver preferences, and internal monitoring of heat and such.

My point is that this may also mean that a 1.83GHz Core Duo WinPC laptop with fans that come on more frequently may actually be running faster, on average, than MacBooks with the same 1.83 GHz Core Duo cpu. :eek:

Let the crying continue.
 
mopppish said:
Well, in that case the blame for "false advertising" would actually be Intel's. If Intel's site only were to say it runs at 400mhz and not that it is actually specced to run at different speeds at different voltages, then that's their fault.
Click to expand...

.... A TRULY informed consumer would know that the chip is meant to be clocked by voltage use and that voltage supplied to the chip may vary in different laptops...
Click to expand...

I think you sort of made the point I was going to make.


Apple is using Intel's GMA 950 within specifications, which means that they're using the Intel GMA 950 the way it was meant to be used by design, and that means not running at full speed all the time. Same goes for CPUs. Not a single manufacturer says that the CPU is supposed to run at full speed all the time. They don't tell you this because they don't need to tell you that they're using it the way it has always been designed to be implemented, which involves scaling up and down.
Computer companies don't have to tell you when they're using a component correctly, do they? :confused:

The only 2 things I disagree with is the exclusion of the words "up to" if describing the speed of their Intel GMA 950, and that the 950 graphics chipset is meant to be scalable, and Apple isn't offering this scalability. If it gets boiling hot (ie: doing something intense AND in the Aussie summer heat), I wouldn't even mind if it scaled the GMA 950 even lower. But if the MB I ordered yesterday is plugged into the wall, and it's running cool and below a particular temperature threshold, I expect the bloody thing to scale UP and run at 1.5 Volts, and 400 MHz. :eek:

Maybe they never expect the laptop to be running at a temperature cool enough to allow for the graphics chipset to run at 1.5 V, 400 MHz. I don't know.
 
I am sure the MacBook isn't the only notebook with the GMA950 running at a lower frequency. The Sony UX mobile PC has a GMA950, but as it is the size of a PDA, I bet it doesn't run at 400MHz. The GMA950 at full voltage will run at 400MHz, but due to design, voltage, and heat constraints the GMA950 can have its voltage and frequency decreased.
 
DOES ANYBODY KNOW IF YOU CAN RESTORE THE CLOCK SPEED TO 400MHZ AGAIN???

Sorry for shouting, just really wanted a reply and nobody answered the first time..:rolleyes:
 
Then you should be really pissed when you find out that your 1.83GHz Core Duo MacBook doesn't run at 1.83 GHz all the time.
Click to expand...
Bad analogy. Correct analogy: "You should be really pissed if you find out that your 1.83GHz Core Duo Macbook doesn't actually run at 1.83GHz."

Which, yeah, you should be.
 
Good Lord people. All I'm saying is that if Apple advertises a GMA950 in the the Mac mini and MacBook and they are not equal Apple should disclose that fact! :rolleyes:
 
Timepass said:
And you all wonder why people dont trust apple on there specs or numbers on how fast there computers are.

This is just another one of those times where apple is trying to pull the wool over the consumers eyes. The more media attention apple gets the more it going to hurt when these cover up come to the light. Some big media outlets going to figure out some day soon that nailing apple on all this lieing and sly things they are doing is going to be huge story.

Apple will go from being this great clean company to lower than dirt in a matter of days.
Click to expand...

Yes, surely when this gets out, the consumers will be in the streets, demanding their rightful 150 mhz, since so many know: A. what a megahertz is, B. how it affects anything, or C. that their computer has a graphics chip at all.
 
can someone just do some game benches between a mini and a macbook and settle this.
 
Well, as a pontential switcher, this just delayed my purchase of a macbook... As if the gma 950 was so great that it could take underclocking... The gma was the only reason I hadn't bought the macbook, but I was still considering it, now its a definately no-no, at least until they come up with a better graphic solution, maybe the next intel integrated solution won't be crippled...
 
ictiosapiens said:
Well, as a pontential switcher, this just delayed my purchase of a macbook... As if the gma 950 was so great that it could take underclocking... The gma was the only reason I hadn't bought the macbook, but I was still considering it, now its a definately no-no, at least until they come up with a better graphic solution, maybe the next intel integrated solution won't be crippled...
Click to expand...
Same feelings here. I was going to wait for them to go 64 and grab one up but now I'm reconsidering.
 
On a semi related note the macbook pro is also underclocked compared to the imac however the imac is underclocked by 50mhz compared to what pc owners ae getting in thier laptops.
 
mopppish said:
...I could totally understand some of you folks being upset about them not designing the Macbook to fully juice the GMA950, but the reality is that it's an impeccably (mostly) designed laptop with no room to budge.
Click to expand...
Yes, the 13" MacBook IS much SMALLER than the 12" PowerBook, I quite agree:eek:
 
dextertangocci said:
DOES ANYBODY KNOW IF YOU CAN RESTORE THE CLOCK SPEED TO 400MHZ AGAIN???

Sorry for shouting, just really wanted a reply and nobody answered the first time..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

well, according to Intel, you'd have to bump the voltage up to 1.5V in order to get to 400Mhz. This is most likely impossible as well as impractical. Generally speaking, overclocking anything in a laptop is a no-no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back