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.
Will Macbook ever get independent graphical memory?
- Thread starter macgeek77
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The iBook G4 had a dedicated graphics card so I don't see why wouldn't the MacBook have a dedicated graphics card.
Hope apple will come to its senses. Stop taking all the money from MacBook sales, get guts, and put like a radeon x1600 in there or something... cheaper, maybe, like nvidia's geforce 7400, or maybe radeon x700
I don't think it will happen. Macbook is a consumer product, budget is a big issue for consumers. Having a independent graphics processor/memory is a "pro" feature. You get it with a Macbook Pro. It is one of the things that differentiates the two.
Apple's relationship with Intel is too strong. The MacBook will transition to the X3100 next. That will bring it just under the Radeon X1300 in performance (funny coincidence, no?).
Yuck!! I don't think that this question really has an answer that you could work with. The main reason is that Apple NEVER lets anyone know what is coming up or what kind of upgrades are planned. Using historical patterns to predict the future may offer some sort of an indication, but with Apple I wouldn't want to make any kind of a bet based on that.
You might consider consulting a fortune teller.......
Sopranino
You might consider consulting a fortune teller.......
Sopranino
Just another voice thinking Apple will remain with Intel graphics for the Macbook (and Mac mini) from now on. The graphical performance is, well, similar to the dedicated cards they used to use, and the X1300 will be a good improvement. It just works out so much better for Apple this way, not to mention that it's an appropriate graphics solution for a notebook of this size aimed at this market.
Further to what miniConvert said, at the time Apple explained that the move to Intel integrated graphics was made because improvement in the technology; when the Mac mini got the GMA950, it was able to display the Core Image components, whereas the previous version which had an ATI card couldn’t.
Compared to video cards, integrated graphics are cheaper, less power-hungry/better battery life and take up less space in the enclosure – which are not inconsiderable advantages when you’re producing a consumer laptop.
The MB’s have been amazing sellers for Apple (the machines were the major factor for last quarter’s 88% rise in profits) and I’ve not read one feasible explanation (not being able to play Quake 4 doesn't count) why Apple was wrong to choose the GMA950 over a dedicated video card or how this has impacted negatively in terms of sales.
Of course, there are who say that they will never get a MB for that reason and have said explicitly that that’s why they opted for a MBP… even though the most taxing thing they’ll use it for is WoW or surfing.
It’s worth remembering how much rubbish is posted about the GMA950.
From a business point of view, why would it do that?
Compared to video cards, integrated graphics are cheaper, less power-hungry/better battery life and take up less space in the enclosure – which are not inconsiderable advantages when you’re producing a consumer laptop.
The MB’s have been amazing sellers for Apple (the machines were the major factor for last quarter’s 88% rise in profits) and I’ve not read one feasible explanation (not being able to play Quake 4 doesn't count) why Apple was wrong to choose the GMA950 over a dedicated video card or how this has impacted negatively in terms of sales.
Of course, there are who say that they will never get a MB for that reason and have said explicitly that that’s why they opted for a MBP… even though the most taxing thing they’ll use it for is WoW or surfing.
It’s worth remembering how much rubbish is posted about the GMA950.
From a business point of view, why would it do that?
Blurry CoverFlow scrollbar...with CoverFlow in Leopard's Finder, this better be fixed...
Some apps have things I can't use, like Disco...
Ive read some people reporting about that issue with Coverflow, but thought it had been fixed with an update. If its not fixed when incorporated in Leopard, theres gonna be some unhappy people
and yes, I am in the same boat as you!
Dont know Disco, but assume the MBs doesnt meet its the graphical requirements.
When I said how this has impacted negatively I left out in terms of sales on the end sorry about that! I'll edit my post as stupidly missing out those words gives a different sense.
What I meant in the line you quoted, there have been quite a few posters (on forums generally) that stated that integrated graphics are totally useless (the inference being that this is because by the very virtue of being integrated) and Apple shot themselves in the foot by using them rather than a dedicated video card.
Another point Ive seen people make is that the GMA950 is simply trash so theyve opted to go for the MBP even though some are using it for little more than surfing or playing WoW. Potentially, I think giving the MBs a half decent graphics a few months back would have damaged MBP sales for this reason and also because some MB reviews in publications that target creatives, concluded that the MB was a surprisingly capable machine and worth a look -make it good for 3D work as well and I think it would have come even more highly recommended.
Although I have read people give excellent detailed technical reasons why various dedicated graphics solutions are better, no ones managed to show how using them would have increased MB sales or not using them has severely stuffed Apple.
Certainly, the GMA950 isnt perfect Ive never claimed that and never will but I think by using it, Apple has displayed reasonable business sense and not insanity. But something else is always round the corner...
Dont know Disco, but assume the MBs doesnt meet its the graphical requirements.
When I said how this has impacted negatively I left out in terms of sales on the end sorry about that! I'll edit my post as stupidly missing out those words gives a different sense.
What I meant in the line you quoted, there have been quite a few posters (on forums generally) that stated that integrated graphics are totally useless (the inference being that this is because by the very virtue of being integrated) and Apple shot themselves in the foot by using them rather than a dedicated video card.
Another point Ive seen people make is that the GMA950 is simply trash so theyve opted to go for the MBP even though some are using it for little more than surfing or playing WoW. Potentially, I think giving the MBs a half decent graphics a few months back would have damaged MBP sales for this reason and also because some MB reviews in publications that target creatives, concluded that the MB was a surprisingly capable machine and worth a look -make it good for 3D work as well and I think it would have come even more highly recommended.
Although I have read people give excellent detailed technical reasons why various dedicated graphics solutions are better, no ones managed to show how using them would have increased MB sales or not using them has severely stuffed Apple.
Certainly, the GMA950 isnt perfect Ive never claimed that and never will but I think by using it, Apple has displayed reasonable business sense and not insanity. But something else is always round the corner...
That's a ridiculous way to think. I'm sorry, but you have drank too much of the Apple kool-aid if you actually believe that.
I guess you never used an iBook. It had a video card despite being the "consumer" level laptop. Apple could shove in an older graphics card if they wished.....one that doesn't come close to the ones used in the MBP.
The thing is, I don't mind that Apple is using Intel integrated graphics. Integrated graphics aren't much worse than low-end graphics cards anyway. Once Apple starts using Intel's new GMA X3000, I see even less reason to use a "real" graphics card.
Ask anyone why they want a graphics card in a MacBook, and they'll likely say, "For gaming." The MacBook is a low end laptop, and the GMA 950 is capable of playing games with "low end" spec requirements. It really is. If you want to play the really flashy games, you need to pay for really flash hardware.
Same thing can be said about desktops. Same can be said about other laptop brands.
And besides, Apple isn't offering an uncompetitive pricing or specs when compared to Dell --- not in my part of the world. In fact, Dell's similarly priced laptops use a slower 1.66 GHz Core 2 Duo processor, and the GMA 950 found in the MacBook. You can upgrade it to a faster proc, but then it'd be more expensive than the MacBook.
The MacBook is a consumer laptop. It's designed for consumer tasks; web browsing, e-mail, music, some video, word processing, etc. If you need the extra functionality, get the MacBook Pro which is well worth it in my opinion. This whole argument is blown out of proportion mainly because Apple only has a two-product notebook strategy, while competitors have more options. When in reality, Apple's MacBook is perfectly capable of playing lower-spec games despite its lack of a discrete graphics card. Like other brands, if you need a "gaming" machine or the extra graphic power for creative professions, then you need to get the MacBook Pro.
Throughout the computer industry, the consumer end generally has an integrated GPU and most people don't even notice/care. My mother only recently cared about her computer not having one and the only reason is that her GPU won't display in her new monitor's native resolution.
I think the (slightly overused) saying applies here; that if you need a dedicated GPU, you already know you do. Gamers, professionals and enthusiasts already know they'll require a dedicated chip, so they buy the machine that works for them. Web surfers, email-ers, etc. for the most part will buy the cheapest machine that will accomplish their tasks--which usually doesn't have a dedicated GPU--which isn't needed in the first place.
I think the (slightly overused) saying applies here; that if you need a dedicated GPU, you already know you do. Gamers, professionals and enthusiasts already know they'll require a dedicated chip, so they buy the machine that works for them. Web surfers, email-ers, etc. for the most part will buy the cheapest machine that will accomplish their tasks--which usually doesn't have a dedicated GPU--which isn't needed in the first place.
I'm sick of all this "consumers do this stuff only" babble. Consumers play video games and this will only become more common as old people die. I would go so far as to say that there's not a single good modern game on the Mac, though plenty of others would disagree. However, if other companies follow EA's lead, this will be changing, and then the current horrible MacBook strategy won't be sufficient.
Could you be more specific. Exactly what is ridiculous?
Then you guessed wrong. I have an iBook as well as a Macbook CD.
If Apple "shoved" an older graphic card into the Macbook, would the slight performance improvement be worth the added cost? Probably not for most people and definitely not for me.
I can agree with that. If someone wants high end video performance, then they'll just need to buy a high end machine.
But there's still a distinctive line separating the "casual gamer" (consumers who play games) from the "hardcore gamer". I do play some games, but I'd still consider myself a casual gamer - I can run Half-Life/Counter Strike and the original UT on my 5-year-old Sony laptop with IIG (the 845, I believe), sure it doesn't give me a great picture and only runs ~30 FPS, but I'm content and not demanding.
The same thing goes for the casual gamers who want to play The Sims or whatnot. Apple even has a page dedicated to games and suggests games that the MacBook and MacMini are capable of handling. And the rumored upgrade to the X3000/X3100 when the MB goes to SantaRosa will make it even more capable.
Your hardcore gamer, who's obsessed with the response time of his monitor, the resolution of his mouse, and the insane FPS@1900x1200 with FSAA, etc. knows that he will need something a little </sarcastic> more beefy than the GMA 950. I'll stick by my initial assessment that those who need it know they need it.
You were expecting old people to do something else?
The GMA950 is quite capable of playing many games from the last 5 years at undemanding levels of detail. It ranks somewhere between a Radeon X200 and X300 in performance. The real problem with the GMA950 is not its speed as its lack of hardware T&L. If Apple goes with the X3100, and I think they will, then this will become a non-issue. Even Oblivion will be playable(ish) on the new machines.
well im not getn my macbook till oct,so they better not release ones with dedicated graphics in 2007 lol,just my luck they will.damn!
edit:i ment in 2008.anyway like my partner said,ill have it for two years then want a new one.i only had this pc for like a year and a half lol
edit:i ment in 2008.anyway like my partner said,ill have it for two years then want a new one.i only had this pc for like a year and a half lol
Well, not to ruin your party or something, but they didn't ... They have just recently updated them remember?
Also the X3100 are **** aswell, it isn't much snappier than 950 GMA, it sucks major ass compared to any real GPU.
They will be updated some time within the next 6 to 7 months and probably with the X3100 which, for a cheap, low power GPU is fairly decent. It is 3 times faster at most 3D tasks than the GMA950 and is close to the Radeon X1300 in speed. As I said, it is nearly as fast as an X1300 and has hardware T&L, which is a major change for integrated graphics.