PDA

View Full Version : Asus's 13.3'' Core Duo Laptop


MacRumors
Apr 19, 2006, 10:08 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

A couple of reports (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060412101438.shtml) have claimed that Asustek is the manufacturer for Apple's upcoming 13.3" MacBook.

One reader reports that a search of Asustek's site shows one existing 13.3" Intel laptop model (W6F) (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?modelmenu=1&model=1073&l1=5&l2=75&l3=0) that may provide some hints as to what can be expected from Apple's implementation.

The specs (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=1073&l1=5&l2=75&l3=0) for the 13.3" Intel Core Duo laptop from Asus includes:

- Intel Core Duo 1.60GHz-2.16GHz, 2MB On-Die L2 Cache, 667 MHz
- Mobile Intel 945GM Express Chipset
- On board 512MB, 1x SO-DIMM socket up to 1536 MB (512MB+1024MB)
- 13.3 wide active matrix TFT LCD (WXGA)
- Embedded Intel® 945GM (Video)

Obviously, the form factor will be different, but the overall specs could be similar. It has been felt that Apple will tier the processors available to the MacBook to be less powerful than the MacBook Pro, however, if Apple is positioning the MacBook to also replace the 12" PowerBook, such a limitation may not be necessary. This all remains speculative at this time, however.

lvnmacs
Apr 19, 2006, 10:12 AM
C'mon Apple! I want my 13.3 MacBook!

student_trap
Apr 19, 2006, 10:13 AM
not a bad machine...i would really like to see a proper graphics card though!

Lord Blackadder
Apr 19, 2006, 10:14 AM
Ugh, embedded graphics again...don't do it Apple, please!

The rest of the specs look good though - didn't expect a 2GHz Core Duo (but it makes sense if there will no longer be a 12" pro laptop).

Dunepilot
Apr 19, 2006, 10:14 AM
There's no way Apple will let the MacBook look anything like that example on the Asus site, IMO.

Mods - the 2nd poster in this thread has a pretty strange name. Is this appropriate for the board?

peanut48
Apr 19, 2006, 10:14 AM
is this available in the market? mite get this one itself....am tired of waiting for apple to release the macbook....

SuperSnake2012
Apr 19, 2006, 10:14 AM
I thought I was going to be first but there seems to be many eager MR readers on here :D

I just hope that Apple's machine does not have this Intel video... ugh. That would be so disappointing. :( It wouldn't be very smart for Apple to do that to the Macbook, because they would be cutting their sales right there... if you wanted an actual video card you would have to spend twice as much on a 15" MacBook Pro and I don't think many would be willing to do that.

AidenShaw
Apr 19, 2006, 10:17 AM
not a bad machine...i would really like to see a proper graphics card though!
Apple would remove the ExpressCard slot, the modem, not offer the full range of CPU speeds, ....

Apple doesn't believe in "Choice", since they want to up-sell you to the MBP.

Vinnie_vw
Apr 19, 2006, 10:17 AM
What the hell...? First Intel in Macs, then Windows on Macs, now Asus makes Macs... Is Apple the new Nike, with making nothing of their own, besides branding? (No, I didn't forget about OS X)

devilot
Apr 19, 2006, 10:18 AM
Mods - can someone ban this guy, the offensive nickname is one thing, but all he ever does is post the above.If you ever want to report a post/user for whatever reason... rather than make a public outcry, click on that angry looking red triangle w/ the exclamation point in it.

Here, I'll even show people, graphically, what icon I'm talking about.

dr_lha
Apr 19, 2006, 10:19 AM
If you ever want to report a post/user for whatever reason... rather than make a public outcry, click on that angry looking red triangle w/ the exclamation point in it.
Hmm.. I didn't know that. Thanks.

dextertangocci
Apr 19, 2006, 10:19 AM
not a bad machine...i would really like to see a proper graphics card though!

I agree, the 32MB VRAM is WAY to little in the current ibooks.

cubist
Apr 19, 2006, 10:20 AM
Integrated graphics is what you're gonna get, people, get used to it.

That is a very nice laptop, for a PC laptop, where tacky chrome accents, ports on all sides and a generally bumpy look are de rigeur. Apple's version will probably cost a little more, but remember you're the one who has to look at it every day.

~Shard~
Apr 19, 2006, 10:21 AM
It will be interesting to see if this new MacBook will be a replacement for the 12" PowerBok or not... I wonder how Apple is planing on structuring their portable line-up...

dr_lha
Apr 19, 2006, 10:21 AM
What the hell...? First Intel in Macs, then Windows on Macs, now Asus makes Macs... Is Apple the new Nike, with making nothing of their own, besides branding? (No, I didn't forget about OS X)
This isn't exactly a new thing.

student_trap
Apr 19, 2006, 10:21 AM
Apple would remove the ExpressCard slot, the modem, not offer the full range of CPU speeds, ....

Apple doesn't believe in "Choice", since they want to up-sell you to the MBP.

and it'll work, i only really like smaller laptops, but integrated graphics would definitely bump me up to the MBP

ih8pc
Apr 19, 2006, 10:22 AM
If Apple made that I wonder what they were thinking. It look's like one of those really thin sony notebooks. Not an iBook.:mad:

pincho
Apr 19, 2006, 10:24 AM
omg i thought i read 'Apple's 13.3" Core Duo Laptop' :( :(

im not sure if these specs would be worth it, maybe OS X and the 13.3" screen will.. come on Apple!!

Dr.Gargoyle
Apr 19, 2006, 10:24 AM
If Apple made that I wonder what they were thinking. It look's like one of those really thin sony notebooks. Not an iBook.:mad:
The macbook will not have the same design, just similar hardware...

excalibur313
Apr 19, 2006, 10:25 AM
What the hell...? First Intel in Macs, then Windows on Macs, now Asus makes Macs... Is Apple the new Nike, with making nothing of their own, besides branding? (No, I didn't forget about OS X)

Asus makes some of the highest quality motherboards one can buy. When I built my computer a while back I used them and I was really impressed with their performance.

ih8pc
Apr 19, 2006, 10:25 AM
The macbook will not have the same design, just similar hardware...
THANK'S FOR FILLING ME IN

Multimedia
Apr 19, 2006, 10:26 AM
IOW We Still Know Nothing And Continue To Guess. :p :eek: :D

dextertangocci
Apr 19, 2006, 10:28 AM
What the hell...? First Intel in Macs, then Windows on Macs, now Asus makes Macs... Is Apple the new Nike, with making nothing of their own, besides branding? (No, I didn't forget about OS X)

Who cares who makes the hardware for apple? As long as it is built to Apple's specifications, and the quality is high, there is no need to worry...:)

AidenShaw
Apr 19, 2006, 10:30 AM
Is Apple the new Nike, with making nothing of their own, besides branding? (No, I didn't forget about OS X)
OSX is NextStep glued to a BSD clone - so you're accurate there too.

Thanatoast
Apr 19, 2006, 10:30 AM
So what will this 945GM not be able to do? I mean, I realize there's principle involved, but what games will I not be able to play on it?

AidenShaw
Apr 19, 2006, 10:33 AM
So what will this 945GM not be able to do? I mean, I realize there's principle involved, but what games will I not be able to play on it?
It's the same graphics chip that's in the MiniMacIntel....

The 1.7 kilo laptop market is not a gamer's market - I doubt that anyone looking at this Asus laptop cares at all about games.

Windows users who want to play games have lots of other choices. (Ouch, there's that word "choice" again.)

Kelmon
Apr 19, 2006, 10:33 AM
If true then I wonder if Asus will consider removing the "Asus recommends Microsoft Windows XP" statement from their web site. How anyone can say that and maintain a straight face is beyond. It's kinda like saying "Asus recommends a swift kick in the bollocks"...

DKZ
Apr 19, 2006, 10:33 AM
Asus makes some of the highest quality motherboards one can buy. When I built my computer a while back I used them and I was really impressed with their performance.

But that does hardly mean that they are expert in the laptop sector, I for my self, even though I have had good experiences with both asus motherboards and graphics cards, wasn't overly happy with apples choice of manufactur.

JDOG_
Apr 19, 2006, 10:33 AM
Integrated graphics :rolleyes:

I don't know how anyone can defend them over a dedicated graphics card. Admittedly, the new intel graphics are waaaay more powerful than older versions, but nothing is like a nice 128-512 mb card in there :D

Photorun
Apr 19, 2006, 10:34 AM
I knew people would gravitate to the embedded video thing. I'm just as disappointed as anyone.. BUT.. I do get the reasoning behind this for low end consumer products. It's not a great solution but it certainly does work, the rest of the peecee industry has had to put up with this for years, you don't see them b*tchin' and whinin' over it. If it saves room, weight, size, and can offer okay performance for lower end 3D gaming it's fine. If you're really into gaming and/or feel it's essentially to have a beefy video card spring for the MBP. iBooks are aimed at the lower end of the consumer market and/or education anyways. Provided these bad boys start at a price point under a grand (c'mon Apple) then these are a fine addition to the Mac line.

Edit: Ouch! I just went and clicked the "enlarge" button on the site to pan around what the laptop looks like... FUGLY! Which is perfect for the aesthetically challenged (i.e. Windoze lUser) but for a Mac, if it was this clunky to look at around the edges then... ouch! Doubt Apple would allow that. And the way the monitor plug looks and the audio ins and outs... this thing as the aesthetics of pile of heaping cow poop thrown aginst a fan and splattered across a a field of maggots.

dagger01
Apr 19, 2006, 10:35 AM
I think this is the best guess at specs for the MacBook (iBook) based on public information yet published. Based on the specs of the Intel iMac, Mac mini, and the MacBook Pro, it would seem that Apple is taking what they can get their hands on quickly during the initial product change over. I think next year's models, or at least the next major rev of the product line once all Intel, will be the much more exciting products. These will be the ones that show the real fruits of the Apple-Intel partnership and the cool innovative things we've come to expect from Apple. It's something that Intel has actually LONGED for over many years, so I'm really looking forward to it! Tack on the release of Leopard sometime next year and Apple is going to be riding high! And, we'll all have some cool toys. ;-) Huzzah!

Photorun
Apr 19, 2006, 10:35 AM
If true then I wonder if Asus will consider removing the "Asus recommends Microsoft Windows XP" statement from their web site. How anyone can say that and maintain a straight face is beyond. It's kinda like saying "Asus recommends a swift kick in the bollocks"...

Considering what most Windoze lUsers have to put up with even on a good day, the "swift kick in the bollocks" would be a major upgrade.

MrCrowbar
Apr 19, 2006, 10:36 AM
<Yawn> I'm seriously thinking of getting a 12" powerbook. I imagine the upcoming Macbook would have an inch of bullet proof plastic around it like the iBooks have. And even if the tech specs are right, size does matter here. I need a small laptop because I have something to compensate :rolleyes: :p

Apple might really discontinue the 12" pro laptop and I know many of you agree that this is bad. We might see a 12" along with the 17" once Merom is out since the laptops qould greatly benefit from that chip. Maybe Steve said: "No, 3,5 hours battery on the 12" is way uncool. We already put a larger battery in the MacBook Pro but it won't fit in a 12". Let's wait for the better CPUs for the laptops."

The specs of that Asustech book don't look so bad. I like "Core Duo 1.60GHz-2.16GHz". I wonder how much of this will be recycled for the Macbook. Mainboard with integrated graphics? Screen? How much pixles is WXGA anyway?

iBrow
Apr 19, 2006, 10:38 AM
Enough of the waiting :D

Come on Apple bring them out! ( I personally dont mind the "Embedded" graphics card since i dont play games )

Danksi
Apr 19, 2006, 10:38 AM
What the hell...? First Intel in Macs, then Windows on Macs, now Asus makes Macs... Is Apple the new Nike, with making nothing of their own, besides branding? (No, I didn't forget about OS X)

Don't you realise that most Western companies are like this....basically paying for a design/name... we westerners don't 'make' stuff anymore, we just 'buy' it, use it and through it away.

grouse
Apr 19, 2006, 10:38 AM
Has anyone clocked the story on Macosrumors.com that this stuff about MacBook is all nonsense and the iBook moniker is here to stay?

Also, what the b*ggary has happened to our friends at appleinsider.com, I can't seem to load them today. Any thoughts/news?

ImAlwaysRight
Apr 19, 2006, 10:39 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

A couple of reports (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060412101438.shtml) have claimed that Asustek is the manufacturer for Apple's upcoming 13.3" MacBook.

One reader reports that a search of Asustek's site shows one existing 13.3" Intel laptop model (W6F) (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?modelmenu=1&model=1073&l1=5&l2=75&l3=0) that may provide some hints as to what can be expected from Apple's implementation.

The specs (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=1073&l1=5&l2=75&l3=0) for the 13.3" Intel Core Duo laptop from Asus includes:

- Intel Core Duo 1.60GHz-2.16GHz, 2MB On-Die L2 Cache, 667 MHz
- Mobile Intel 945GM Express Chipset
- On board 512MB, 1x SO-DIMM socket up to 1536 MB (512MB+1024MB)
- 13.3 wide active matrix TFT LCD (WXGA)
- Embedded Intel® 945GM (Video)

Obviously, the form factor will be different, but the overall specs could be similar. It has been felt that Apple will tier the processors available to the MacBook to be less powerful than the MacBook Pro, however, if Apple is positioning the MacBook to also replace the 12" PowerBook, such a limitation may not be necessary. This all remains speculative at this time, however.
OK, c'mon, what's the point of posting this? Other than just trying to get hits to your website.

Even the lowly $599 Mac Mini has better GMA950 integrated graphics, and TWO memory slots instead of one. At worst Apple is going to have the same hardware specs as the Mini. But I think we'll see a few upgrades, one of which I am hoping is a dedicated graphics card, at least in the best MacBook model.

Until you get a firm release date and/or can tell us what graphics are going to be in the thing, rehashing 3 months worth of speculation is getting kinda old. Now this is just ONE MORE Macbook thread I'm going to follow and waste my time on because I just can't help myself and am sick. I have MacBook fever. I need professional help or need the MacBook to come out soon. For the love of all that is good and sacred, please don't post any more MacBook threads!

Lord Blackadder
Apr 19, 2006, 10:40 AM
Integrated graphics is what you're gonna get, people, get used to it.

Not me, thanks. They should at least offer a real GPU as an option IMHO Benchmarks show abysmal performance in games compared to even old GPUs. the Radeon 9550 in the iBook is probably a better GPU in many ways. The integrated stuff is cheap with a capital C though - my guess is that Apple can't afford to put both the expensive Core Duo CPU and a real GPU in the computer without hurting the profit margin, so something had to give.

Please, Apple: make a Radeon or GeForce GPU a BTO option for those of us who want better video performance.

zelman
Apr 19, 2006, 10:41 AM
just so nobody else has to google it: Wide XGA Wide XGA (WXGA) is a wide screen display standard that supports a resolution of 1280 to 1366 horizontal pixels by 720 to 800 vertical pixels.

I care because display quality is why I got my mac in the first place.

Danksi
Apr 19, 2006, 10:42 AM
At worst Apple is going to have the same hardware specs as the Mini.

Have you seen the size of the Mini's Power-brick, I could only imagine the battery life.

denial
Apr 19, 2006, 10:43 AM
Apple Insider now thinks that the macbook will arrive "next month". Sigh.

student_trap
Apr 19, 2006, 10:43 AM
The 1.7 kilo laptop market is not a gamer's market - I doubt that anyone looking at this Asus laptop cares at all about games.
indeed i don't care for games, but i need to run external moniters. My current powerbook 12in has trouble and stutters a little when trying to dual screen with a 40" screen. I was hoping that the 12in powerbook's replacement would be able to cope a little better:(

student_trap
Apr 19, 2006, 10:44 AM
Have you seen the size of the Mini's Power-brick, I could only imagine the battery life.
have you seen the powerbrick for the mbp!

MarcelV
Apr 19, 2006, 10:46 AM
Please, Apple: make a Radeon or GeForce GPU a BTO option for those of us who want better video performance.
It's called a Macbook Pro ;)

blueimac'00
Apr 19, 2006, 10:50 AM
Hey, I've beenwith mac for a while but I dont know much about computers besides the basics. I've really been anticipating the release of the macbook, but would the graphics card on it be good enough to play advanced fps's and stuff (call of duty 2)?

MonaLisa
Apr 19, 2006, 10:52 AM
I hope the Macbook uses the Intel integrated graphics solution. It works FINE, and it's cheap. It is interesting that the vast majority of posters to Mac related boards tend to be only interested in FPS. There are other uses for computers besides gaming.

kugino
Apr 19, 2006, 10:54 AM
Not me, thanks. They should at least offer a real GPU as an option IMHO Benchmarks show abysmal performance in games compared to even old GPUs. the Radeon 9550 in the iBook is probably a better GPU in many ways. The integrated stuff is cheap with a capital C though - my guess is that Apple can't afford to put both the expensive Core Duo CPU and a real GPU in the computer without hurting the profit margin, so something had to give.

Please, Apple: make a Radeon or GeForce GPU a BTO option for those of us who want better video performance.
i agree with cubist...i think we're going to see integrated graphics in the macbook or ibook or whatever it's going to be called. will they have BTO on the ibook? i don't know...it will depend on whether it's a replacement for the 12" macbook pro...

Lord Blackadder
Apr 19, 2006, 10:56 AM
It's called a Macbook Pro ;)

A valid point, but why all the sudden are "real" embedded GPUs too expensive for budget computers? The iBook has had a "real" GPU since 1998.

Another thing is that ATI's integrated GPUs outperform Intel's (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=1) by a significant margin, so we aren't even getting the best integrated GPU out there. :(

7on
Apr 19, 2006, 10:56 AM
Here ya go's

http://www.mobilityguru.com/2006/04/10/hp_dv1000t_core_duo_laptop_features_new_intel_gma_950_graphics_processor/page10.html

I now hope they do put an ATI in there...

j26
Apr 19, 2006, 10:57 AM
That ain't no consumer laptop lads and ladettes.

I checked with an Australian site and compared the price of that to a 20" iMac

iMac (http://www.estore.com.au/Browse/d50af27d6d5a494e8ae370d4b874ccd4001ItemDetail.aspx) - $1,980
Asus 1.66 (http://www.estore.com.au/Browse/02b0f872345240ed808d22b910293145001ItemDetail.aspx) - $2,861

I am not paying 50% more than a 20" iMac for a consumer laptop!

Groovey
Apr 19, 2006, 10:57 AM
Ugh, embedded graphics again...don't do it Apple, please!

The rest of the specs look good though - didn't expect a 2GHz Core Duo (but it makes sense if there will no longer be a 12" pro laptop).

Agreed. It's starting to look more and more like this is the point where I sadly leave the iBook/MB line and start waiting for the 12"/13" MBPro. Though it probably is difficult to tell yet, if the integrated graphics would ever feel bad or slow down other actions involving RAM. Just afraid it might... Opinions?

student_trap
Apr 19, 2006, 11:00 AM
Agreed. It's starting to look more and more like this is the point where I sadly leave the iBook/MB line and start waiting for the 12"/13" MBPro. Though it probably is difficult to tell yet, if the integrated graphics would ever feel bad or slow down other actions involving RAM. Just afraid it might... Opinions?

but will there even be a 12/13" mbp????????:confused: :confused: :confused:

7on
Apr 19, 2006, 11:03 AM
That ain't no consumer laptop lads and ladettes.

I checked with an Australian site and compared the price of that to a 20" iMac

iMac (http://www.estore.com.au/Browse/d50af27d6d5a494e8ae370d4b874ccd4001ItemDetail.aspx) - $1,980
Asus 1.66 (http://www.estore.com.au/Browse/02b0f872345240ed808d22b910293145001ItemDetail.aspx) - $2,861

I am not paying 50% more than a 20" iMac for a consumer laptop!

well duh, I'm not asking apple to put a 256MB dedicated Vcard in there - just by those numbers that were posted my Raedon 9000 with 64MB of dedicated memory outperforms the GMA950

MrCrowbar
Apr 19, 2006, 11:03 AM
Wouldn't it be hard (expensive) to manufacture 2 different mainboards (1 with integrated graphocs chip and one with a slot for a graphics card)? I mean, it's a laptop, you can't leave much free spaces in there for optional stuff. Look at the Mac mini, it has integrated graphics across the line.

So the Macbook line would follow that model (remember it has to remain cheap enough for custumers) so there can only be one mainboard for the whole line. And since the cheapest model has to be affordable (999$), integrated graphics is mandatory here. So I say integrated graphics for the whole line. Works great for 2D anyway and I'm sure it saves a lot of battery power. Imagine 6 hours of battery life... woah! :eek:

spacemoose
Apr 19, 2006, 11:05 AM
Posted by Groovey and clicked on by the blind monkey, spacemoose:
Agreed. It's starting to look more and more like this is the point where I sadly leave the iBook/MB line and start waiting for the 12"/13" MBPro. Though it probably is difficult to tell yet, if the integrated graphics would ever feel bad or slow down other actions involving RAM. Just afraid it might... Opinions?

What the hell...? First Intel in Macs, then Windows on Macs, now Asus makes Macs... Is Apple the new Nike, with making nothing of their own, besides branding? (No, I didn't forget about OS X)

Not to be off topic, but the comparison to Nike is rather unfair. They are one of the few shoe companies that actually does research in-house (their campus in Oregon has some amazing facilities) to develop the technologies they use in their shoes. Sure they contract out the manufacturing (China be cheap), but they design their stuff.

Edit ---- oops, quoted wrong person, hehe :rolleyes:

j26
Apr 19, 2006, 11:05 AM
well duh, I'm not asking apple to put a 256MB dedicated Vcard in there - just by those numbers that were posted my Raedon 9000 with 64MB of dedicated memory outperforms the GMA950


??? Why the rudeness???

And what relation does what you said have to my post???

rdas7
Apr 19, 2006, 11:06 AM
Anyone else notice that the guy on the plane seems to be using Mac OS? Menubar at the top, icons on the desktop right aligned.

Probably nothing, just amusing.

7on
Apr 19, 2006, 11:07 AM
but will there even be a 12/13" mbp????????:confused: :confused: :confused:

I doubt it, more likely the MB would run from $1000-$1999 and MacBook Pros $1999-infinity. All it is, is a name. Naming a 13" laptop "Pro" won't make it any faster. I think they're just trying to get rid of all the "iBook or 12" Powerbook" decisions. I think the "Pro" moniker is like a size level. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 17" come out as the MacBook Extreme or MacBook Premium or something.

7on
Apr 19, 2006, 11:08 AM
??? Why the rudeness???

And what relation does what you said have to my post???

what rudeness? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

QCassidy352
Apr 19, 2006, 11:09 AM
I hope the Macbook uses the Intel integrated graphics solution. It works FINE, and it's cheap. It is interesting that the vast majority of posters to Mac related boards tend to be only interested in FPS. There are other uses for computers besides gaming.

There are 3 reasons using integrated graphics is really, really stupid.
1) It uses other system resources, resulting in overall reduced performance
2) You don't have to be a "gamer" to appreciate playing a game once in a while. It would be nice to have a computer that, although not made for gaming, could handle some casual gaming as one part of the general use of the computer.
3) Using the worst possible graphics solution shortens the overall life of the computer. Even the 1.2 Ghz ibooks could not take full advantage of Tiger's effects, and I believe they were the current model when Tiger was released. It will take very little time for these integrated graphics to be unable to support what will become standard visuals.

Furthermore, low-end dedicated graphics solutions (such as a 64 MB Radeon 9550 or x1300) are dirt-cheap these days. Crippling a $1200 laptop with a POS graphics solution to save $30 makes very little sense to me.

jaxstate
Apr 19, 2006, 11:09 AM
Remember, Apple did hire a bunch of ex Sony Laptop designers a while back.:cool:
If Apple made that I wonder what they were thinking. It look's like one of those really thin sony notebooks. Not an iBook.:mad:

milo
Apr 19, 2006, 11:11 AM
So what will this 945GM not be able to do? I mean, I realize there's principle involved, but what games will I not be able to play on it?

Probably just Quake 4 and Doom 3, and you can probably limp through those at the lowest settings. What games are you interested in?

I don't know how anyone can defend them over a dedicated graphics card. Admittedly, the new intel graphics are waaaay more powerful than older versions, but nothing is like a nice 128-512 mb card in there :D

Integrated graphics are cheaper. I'd rather save the money than pay more for a graphics card I won't take advantage of.

Groovey
Apr 19, 2006, 11:14 AM
Not to be off topic, but the comparison to Nike is rather unfair. They are one of the few shoe companies that actually does research in-house (their campus in Oregon has some amazing facilities) to develop the technologies they use in their shoes. Sure they contract out the manufacturing (China be cheap), but they design their stuff.

Took a while to understand your reply, you might have quoted wrong? :) I don't think people need to be worrying about Asustek manufacturing the Macbooks. Weren't at least iBook G4's already manufactured by the same company? At least my iB G4's been working like a charm.

student_trap
Apr 19, 2006, 11:16 AM
I doubt it, more likely the MB would run from $1000-$1999 and MacBook Pros $1999-infinity. All it is, is a name. Naming a 13" laptop "Pro" won't make it any faster. I think they're just trying to get rid of all the "iBook or 12" Powerbook" decisions. I think the "Pro" moniker is like a size level. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 17" come out as the MacBook Extreme or MacBook Premium or something.

well i suppose that the other reason that the pro name was a good thing was that the 12" powerbook also had an aluminium shell.

The merging of lines will probably reslut in a lower spec'd laptop with a plastic shell. That is a laptop that i don't want, although i need portability...decisions decisions

Lord Blackadder
Apr 19, 2006, 11:21 AM
One other point against the integrated GPUs is that they tend to be less capable for handling HD video, which might be a big deal for more people than the gaming issue.

As for me, I am only a casual gamer but care enough about 3D performance that I won't buy a new laptop that can barely play new games.

JDOG_
Apr 19, 2006, 11:22 AM
Integrated graphics are cheaper. I'd rather save the money than pay more for a graphics card I won't take advantage of.

Right, but look at any PC laptop these days and it's rocking a video at least 64mb, right up to 256mb at a lower price than iBooks. I'm not going to get into the whole Mac vs. PC hardware discussion, because it's null, but you're already paying a premium for a great computing experience, so why do you feel the need to have outdated technology?

I for one was pissed when my iBook couldn't do some of the fun Core Image stuff Tiger can do (given it was an "older" machine at <2 years) Like others have said, there will probably be some new bells and whistles in Leopard that will require stronger hardware as a kick to get people to buy new machines, and those with integrated graphics will get left in the dust...this is obviously the way of the world, but my main point is how can you justify people in the PC realm getting much better graphics cards for economy prices while Apple "settles" with integrated graphics so THEY can save the money.

I guarantee the new iBooks will cost just as much as the current ones, if not more...and if these specs pan out, we'll be getting less horsepower under the hood (in terms of historical hardware inflation) than we "should"

Danksi
Apr 19, 2006, 11:24 AM
...
3) Using the worst possible graphics solution shortens the overall life of the computer. Even the 1.2 Ghz ibooks could not take full advantage of Tiger's effects, and I believe they were the current model when Tiger was released. It will take very little time for these integrated graphics to be unable to support what will become standard visuals.

Furthermore, low-end dedicated graphics solutions (such as a 64 MB Radeon 9550 or x1300) are dirt-cheap these days. Crippling a $1200 laptop with a POS graphics solution to save $30 makes very little sense to me.

Cheap = Profits

Forcing customers to buy new every 2-3 years = Profits

Apple's a business.. not a charity

bigandy
Apr 19, 2006, 11:27 AM
*ignores argument because of obvious unfounded arguments about the strength of the intergrated graphichs, which are actually far better in this incarnation compared with previously..*

anonicon
Apr 19, 2006, 11:28 AM
I'm somewhat surprised to see all the people complaining about integrated graphics on this board, but not shocked.

Given the severe thinness of the laptop and all the components and connective circuitry that has to be stuffed into that space, while also ensuring that there's sufficient airspace for cooling the CPU and hard drive, Integrated Graphics make a lot of sense, and are a smart move.

If you really need to play a FPS your laptop, buy a Powerbook. If you want a bigger, less sexy notebook that has space for a dedicated graphics card, buy a Powerbook or a Dell.

milo
Apr 19, 2006, 11:29 AM
indeed i don't care for games, but i need to run external moniters. My current powerbook 12in has trouble and stutters a little when trying to dual screen with a 40" screen. I was hoping that the 12in powerbook's replacement would be able to cope a little better:(

Why would you think integrated graphics would make it unable to run an external monitor? The minis can even play back HD, it should be able to drive a monitor without any stuttering.

Though it probably is difficult to tell yet, if the integrated graphics would ever feel bad or slow down other actions involving RAM. Just afraid it might... Opinions?

That's not the case on the mini. Apps run just fine, the shared video ram doesn't slow down apps at all. Unless you're running a high end game, you'd never be able to tell what kind of video hardware you're using. Worse case, you upgrade the ram, which I'd recommend on any computer anyway.

There are 3 reasons using integrated graphics is really, really stupid.
1) It uses other system resources, resulting in overall reduced performance
2) You don't have to be a "gamer" to appreciate playing a game once in a while. It would be nice to have a computer that, although not made for gaming, could handle some casual gaming as one part of the general use of the computer.


1 simply isn't true, the minis run apps just as well as any other mac. If it were true, show us a benchmark where non-graphic performance suffers?
2 The mini runs "casual" games just fine. You just can't run hardcore games at high resolutions.

People need to stop making statements out of ignorance, it's obvious you've never used one of the minis.

One other point against the integrated GPUs is that they tend to be less capable for handling HD video, which might be a big deal for more people than the gaming issue.

Not the case with the mini. HD tends to be limited more by the CPU, the mini duo can play all sizes of HD with no problem. A core solo would be a WAY bigger limitation on one of these than integrated video would be.

Right, but look at any PC laptop these days and it's rocking a video at least 64mb, right up to 256mb at a lower price than iBooks.


The asus linked *in this very article* has integrated graphics. Some cheaper PC laptops have a video card. But generally, even on the PC side, cheaper laptops are more likely to have integrated, and as you get more expensive, you see more video cards. There are even cheap desktop PC's that use onboard video.

student_trap
Apr 19, 2006, 11:30 AM
*ignores argument because of obvious unfounded arguments about the strength of the intergrated graphichs, which are actually far better in this incarnation compared with previously..*

so can they handle HD at 1080?

anonicon
Apr 19, 2006, 11:31 AM
As for me, I am only a casual gamer but care enough about 3D performance that I won't buy a new laptop that can barely play new games.

Soooooo...you'll be getting a Powerbook? Good laptop.

milo
Apr 19, 2006, 11:32 AM
so can they handle HD at 1080?

YES! (at least on the core duo...beg for that, it boosts the machine WAY more than a video card)

student_trap
Apr 19, 2006, 11:35 AM
Why would you think integrated graphics would make it unable to run an external monitor? The minis can even play back HD, it should be able to drive a monitor without any stuttering.

i know that they will run an external, but the question is how smoothly? I ask because its the graphics card that has to handle things such as core image (i think) (for the visual stuff in Tiger), and at the moment my 64meg card stutters when trying to do all of this visual stuff on two moniters, my girlfriends mbp however (256meg) has no problems. Now im not asking for 256 in a 13in laptop, but whether whatever it has will handle the increasingly visual centric nature of the current and comming OS's

Lord Blackadder
Apr 19, 2006, 11:35 AM
Soooooo...you'll be getting a Powerbook? Good laptop.

Yep, MacBook Pro for me. I'm not in the market for the iBook-replacement laptop but if I was the GMA950 would be a bummer.

The integrated graphics give good performance in many areas but I'm still of the opinion that the benefits of sticking a Mobility Radeon/GeForce Go in the new laptop outweigh the costs.

gregorsamsa
Apr 19, 2006, 11:40 AM
I remember last year loads of rumours about how the intel Macs would be cheaper with greater specs all round. Seems the new MacBook (IBooK) will be anything but. Not exactly earth-shattering announcement. Perhaps I was expecting too much. Hopefully there'll be 2 MacBooks, the 2nd with 15" screen & slightly bigger specs for about £799 (I'm assuming the 13.3" will retail for about £699). If not, my ever-reliable iBook G4 won't be replaced for a while to come (unless I go Apple desk-top). Decisions, decisions.

MrCrowbar
Apr 19, 2006, 11:42 AM
YES! (at least on the core duo...beg for that, it boosts the machine WAY more than a video card)

Yup. Decompressing video in general goes on the CPU. The graphics card merely does some scaling and hardware filtering to make a scaled video look less pixely. I doubt the entry level Macbook will handle 1080 despite the screen qould be too small for that anyway. But 720, no problemo. There were rumors about the screen having native 720 resolution anyway thus eliminating scaling (graphics card load) completely.

MacRumorUser
Apr 19, 2006, 11:46 AM
I remember last year loads of rumours about how the intel Macs would be cheaper with greater specs all round. Seems the new MacBook (IBooK) will be anything but. Not exactly earth-shattering announcement. Perhaps I was expecting too much. Hopefully there'll be 2 MacBooks, the 2nd with 15" screen & slightly bigger specs for about £799 (I'm assuming the 13.3" will retail for about £699). If not, my ever-reliable iBook G4 won't be replaced for a while to come (unless I go Apple desk-top). Decisions, decisions.

There will NOT be a 15" macbook :rolleyes: If you want a macbook 15" get macbookpro.

£799 is the base price and £1099 for the advanced model.

Like it or not those are competative prices for a 'ultraportable' with a core duo processor.

So you best get saving...

student_trap
Apr 19, 2006, 11:47 AM
I doubt the entry level Macbook will handle 1080 despite the screen qould be too small for that anyway. But 720, no problemo. .


see this is the thing, i'd run it connected to a HD TV which can handle 1080. Also, my current powerbook handles 720. *keeps fingers crossed for 12/13" mbp with higher specs*

Groovey
Apr 19, 2006, 11:48 AM
That's not the case on the mini. Apps run just fine, the shared video ram doesn't slow down apps at all. Unless you're running a high end game, you'd never be able to tell what kind of video hardware you're using. Worse case, you upgrade the ram, which I'd recommend on any computer anyway.


Good post. Or I was happy to read just that. It's true I don't need impressive framerates on 3D games, just the speed in apps. Still it would be nice to have the BTO option.

antonink2006
Apr 19, 2006, 11:53 AM
One other point against the integrated GPUs is that they tend to be less capable for handling HD video, which might be a big deal for more people than the gaming issue.

As for me, I am only a casual gamer but care enough about 3D performance that I won't buy a new laptop that can barely play new games.

Agreed!
The following rant applies to the mac-mini and -potentially- the ibook.
Remember the RevA G5 imac and its $35 NVidia "graphics solution"? A bunch of mac faithful tried to convince everyone that this card was more than enough (same arguments: we don't all play games; the NVidia is enough for web browsing and email; we are all bonkers if we expect a GF7800 in an imac; etc, etc).
The truth of the matter is:
1) This POS card represented the only black mark in an otherwise excellent mid-range system and the issue was addressed in RevB (ie, Apple acknowledged this as the main weakness, to their credit)
2) We can do "web browsing and email" on a G3; what is the point of paying another $1000 for a core-duo? (long live my G3 ibook by the way - still going strong/still gorgeous)
3) To reiterate from a couple of years ago: no one expects a quad SLI 7900-based card in the ibook - however, an x1300/x1400 is very do-able and affordable (please visit Anandtech/Tom's Hardware/ Hard OCP for comparable slim-factor systems with Intel CPUs).
4) The argument that "if PC users put up with integrated solutions, then it's ok for us".... Since when has Apple become a follower as opposed to a trend setter?

Please stop defending bad decisions (for consumers) in terms of cost/engineering; this is clearly a market segmentation issue and it is safe to assume that the marketing monkeys are calling the shots.

BornAgainMac
Apr 19, 2006, 11:57 AM
I would like to see two Laptop lines for Apple. The Macbook Pro is for the professional that wants desktop power and speed. Another for battery life and lightweight and small. If you want to do gaming then go for the Macbook Pro line.

gregorsamsa
Apr 19, 2006, 12:04 PM
There will NOT be a 15" macbook :rolleyes: If you want a macbook 15" get macbookpro.

£799 is the base price and £1099 for the advanced model.

Like it or not those are competative prices for a 'ultraportable' with a core duo processor.

So you best get saving...

Cheapest Macbook Pro (With VAT) is well over £1,400! There's certainly a market for a sub-£1,000 15.4" Macbook (iBook) with better graphics than the 13.3" model. But, sadly, you may be right; it may not happen. On the other hand, maybe a nice surprise awaits in about 12 months time. I'll keep hoping. Don"t fancy the 13.3" going by current speculation.

student_trap
Apr 19, 2006, 12:06 PM
I would like to see two Laptop lines for Apple. The Macbook Pro is for the professional that wants desktop power and speed. Another for battery life and lightweight and small. If you want to do gaming then go for the Macbook Pro line.

you put it so simply, yet so correctly

Lord Blackadder
Apr 19, 2006, 12:11 PM
I would like to see two Laptop lines for Apple. The Macbook Pro is for the professional that wants desktop power and speed. Another for battery life and lightweight and small. If you want to do gaming then go for the Macbook Pro line.

The problem is I'll bet that the new MacBooks won't be much lighter and won't get substantially better battery life than the MacBook Pro - just like the current iBooks.

wyatt23
Apr 19, 2006, 12:18 PM
i don't really need an iBook for hardcore gaming, and if the intel 945GM makes this cheap enough for me to buy off the bat, i'd say bring it on.


heres the graphics: http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm


here's the chipset: http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/945gm/index.htm



though, i wouldn't be tooo upset if i had dedicated video :cool:

netdog
Apr 19, 2006, 12:20 PM
Personally, I am not thrilled about the prospect of a 1.5GB RAM cap, especially considering that some of my RAM will be allocated to the graphics. With Parallels a must run on my portable, this could create a problem, and I really don't like the sterile look of the MacBook Pro. 2GB on my Core Duo iMac is just right for OS X with an XP guest. I really hope that the iBook sports 2 dimm slots.

Project
Apr 19, 2006, 12:22 PM
Cheapest Macbook Pro (With VAT) is well over £1,400! There's certainly a market for a sub-£1,000 15.4" Macbook (iBook) with better graphics than the 13.3" model. But, sadly, you may be right; it may not happen. On the other hand, maybe a nice surprise awaits in about 12 months time. I'll keep hoping. Don"t fancy the 13.3" going by current speculation.

Exactly... im tired of people thinking that pro line = bigger screens and that if you want a big screen or you want to play a game you need to spend £1,400. Ridiculous.

gregorsamsa
Apr 19, 2006, 12:23 PM
The problem is I'll bet that the new MacBooks won't be much lighter and won't get substantially better battery life than the MacBook Pro - just like the current iBooks.

How much better battery life or lightness do we expect if going by the current iBooks. I'd score my 12'' iBook 100 out of 100 in both departments! The new MacBook is bound to be light (though not as light) & very good on battery life.

netdog
Apr 19, 2006, 12:27 PM
If true then I wonder if Asus will consider removing the "Asus recommends Microsoft Windows XP" statement from their web site. How anyone can say that and maintain a straight face is beyond. It's kinda like saying "Asus recommends a swift kick in the bollocks"...

Most people will never have any idea that the MacBooks are made by Asus. How many regular users can name the maker of the previous iBooks?

As for recommending Windows, yes, Asus isn't allowed to sell OS X with their machines, so it seems pretty logical that they recommend their OEM versions of Windows.

dr_lha
Apr 19, 2006, 12:29 PM
Why would you think integrated graphics would make it unable to run an external monitor? The minis can even play back HD, it should be able to drive a monitor without any stuttering.

That's not the case on the mini. Apps run just fine, the shared video ram doesn't slow down apps at all. Unless you're running a high end game, you'd never be able to tell what kind of video hardware you're using. Worse case, you upgrade the ram, which I'd recommend on any computer anyway.

1 simply isn't true, the minis run apps just as well as any other mac. If it were true, show us a benchmark where non-graphic performance suffers?
2 The mini runs "casual" games just fine. You just can't run hardcore games at high resolutions.

People need to stop making statements out of ignorance, it's obvious you've never used one of the minis.

Not the case with the mini. HD tends to be limited more by the CPU, the mini duo can play all sizes of HD with no problem. A core solo would be a WAY bigger limitation on one of these than integrated video would be.

The asus linked *in this very article* has integrated graphics. Some cheaper PC laptops have a video card. But generally, even on the PC side, cheaper laptops are more likely to have integrated, and as you get more expensive, you see more video cards. There are even cheap desktop PC's that use onboard video.
Milo, you posted everything I was thinking. You're now my MacRumors best mate! :)

Peace
Apr 19, 2006, 12:30 PM
Most people will never have any idea that the MacBooks are made by Asus. How many regular users can name the maker of the previous iBooks?

As for recommending Windows, yes, Asus isn't allowed to sell OS X with their machines, so it seems pretty logical that they recommend their OEM versions of Windows.


AsusTek used to make the iBook

BenRoethig
Apr 19, 2006, 12:31 PM
Most people will never have any idea that the MacBooks are made by Asus. How many regular users can name the maker of the previous iBooks?

As for recommending Windows, yes, Asus isn't allowed to sell OS X with their machines, so it seems pretty logical that they recommend their OEM versions of Windows.

The ibooks are already manufactured by Asus. Besides, because of an upcoming Dell contract, they're in the process of spinning off their OEM manufacturing business from their retail line.

Chrispy
Apr 19, 2006, 12:32 PM
Integrated graphics - no thanks!

dr_lha
Apr 19, 2006, 12:33 PM
Integrated graphics - no thanks!
Lets make this the last "Integrated Graphics" comment shall we?

mikea
Apr 19, 2006, 12:39 PM
What gives?
Does anybody realy know what they are talking about?
I had become SO interested in this "MacBook" in January. SO, I became hooked on all these rumor sites...What a joke..sorry. SOLO, DUO, Eyesight, No isight, spin wheel, 13.3, 15, black or white... but everyone is only guessing....No one has a clue...NO ONE...I'm off it..i'll just wait...for it and find out on CNN...ro something a little bit more reliable.....and yes I am aware that this is a rumor sight..OH CRAP wait a minute!!!!!....THEY JUST ANNOUNCED IT ON CNN..it think...my buddy told me his buddy read it on AI..or something like that..its a triple core chip with 2 isights (one for each eye), it has a 480 gig hard drive...and runs on solor power, or if you are in Europe it comes with a built in dual core wind mill.
see ya

boncellis
Apr 19, 2006, 12:40 PM
This isn't exactly a new thing.

No it isn't. In fact, many people would argue that it's better off this way. Just so long as the OS and iLife Suite don't get outsourced ;).

pmanija
Apr 19, 2006, 12:41 PM
Now look, whos the main audiance for the iBook/MacBook laptop?
Students, kids and thous who cant/dont wont to pay big money for the laptop.

Integraited graphics, well... its not so bad if you not in the games. Compare the current iBook - it has the same RAM sizes (512 + up to 1536) and... integraited graphics :confused:

Sure in the new one's it will be at least 128MB (maybe 256) and DDR2 667 MHz memory, SATA drives and that's it... Evolution.

What about the 13.3" display? It's the golden middle, on widescreen you get more space. but not all people like wide dispalys

So in the end you'l get a laptop thats in the middle of the current iBook machines (lets hope that is costs not much more and weights less that 2 kg)

So what do we got:

13.3" screen
512MB DDR2
60-80GB SATA HDD
WLAN + BT
DVD+/-RW DL drive
Intel Core Duo CPU (at least 1.66GHz)
iSight and Apple Remote
Wight ± 2kg

And the price: ~1199

Barham
Apr 19, 2006, 12:43 PM
What most of you guys are missing on the dedicated graphics front is that this is not "just" an ibook upgrade. Personally, I would guess that the target market for the ibook will be just fine (perhaps not even notice) with integrated graphics. Now for the problem that I have. This is also a replacement for the 12" PB, which is the option for people who want performance in a small package. I realize that they want to upsell to a MBP, but I DON'T WANT A 15" LAPTOP. I've had one and they're too big for my taste. I don't mind if I take a small performance hit, but dropping a dedicated graphics card all together is a GIANT hit.

Personally, I think that integrated/dedicated graphics is the perfect way to differentiate the 12" PB replacement from the 12" iBook replacement.

BenRoethig
Apr 19, 2006, 12:45 PM
What most of you guys are missing on the dedicated graphics front is that this is not "just" an ibook upgrade. Personally, I would guess that the target market for the ibook will be just fine (perhaps not even notice) with integrated graphics. Now for the problem that I have. This is also a replacement for the 12" PB, which is the option for people who want performance in a small package. I realize that they want to upsell to a MBP, but I DON'T WANT A 15" LAPTOP. I've had one and they're too big for my taste. I don't mind if I take a small performance hit, but dropping a dedicated graphics card all together is a GIANT hit.

Personally, I think that integrated/dedicated graphics is the perfect way to differentiate the 12" PB replacement from the 12" iBook replacement.

That's what the radeon x1300 is for. GMA950 should be reserved for $700 celeron machines.

dr_lha
Apr 19, 2006, 12:47 PM
What most of you guys are missing on the dedicated graphics front is that this is not "just" an ibook upgrade. Personally, I would guess that the target market for the ibook will be just fine (perhaps not even notice) with integrated graphics. Now for the problem that I have. This is also a replacement for the 12" PB, which is the option for people who want performance in a small package. I realize that they want to upsell to a MBP, but I DON'T WANT A 15" LAPTOP. I've had one and they're too big for my taste. I don't mind if I take a small performance hit, but dropping a dedicated graphics card all together is a GIANT hit.

Personally, I think that integrated/dedicated graphics is the perfect way to differentiate the 12" PB replacement from the 12" iBook replacement.
Agreed, I'd defintely want a replacement for my 12" PB in the near future, and I'd prefer it to be a "pro" laptop. I think we'll have to wait and see how the MacBook weighs in though. If its more compact, does closed lid monitor spanning and has two upgradable RAM slots I think it will be a good replacement for the 12" PB. GMA 950 or no.

It should be noted however that the GMA 950 GFX chip outperforms the NVidia GeForce 5200 Go in the current 12" PB.

Barham
Apr 19, 2006, 12:54 PM
Noted, but that card was garbage from the get go.









though I knew that and bought mine anyway.....

pavetheforest
Apr 19, 2006, 01:04 PM
So what will this 945GM not be able to do? I mean, I realize there's principle involved, but what games will I not be able to play on it?

umm...ANY good game!?!?!
halflife 2...farcry....warcraft... whatever
yeah yeah, i know what people will reply, buy the macbook pro then
i'm not rich people! stick in an x1300, come on now

jholzner
Apr 19, 2006, 01:08 PM
What the hell...? First Intel in Macs, then Windows on Macs, now Asus makes Macs... Is Apple the new Nike, with making nothing of their own, besides branding? (No, I didn't forget about OS X)

Apple hasn't manufactured there own computers for years. They probably could have but it would be more expensive and then everyone would b**** about the even higher price. Also, IBM and Moto made the PPC so I don't really see your point. Apple isn't shipping Macs with Windows

Chrispy
Apr 19, 2006, 01:09 PM
Lets make this the last "Integrated Graphics" comment shall we?

I don't think we will ever have a last "integrated graphics" comment ;) It is very upsetting because Apple has been so good about using dedicated graphics cards in their systems in the past. Sigh...

alec
Apr 19, 2006, 01:20 PM
... That though we may play games, Apple's target is not gamers. I do not know anyone (though maybe my pool is small) that bought an Apple because they were a gamer. They bought it because they were designers, liked the Mac OS, hated Windows, etc., not because they expected to be able to play 3d games on lower-end Macintosh computers.

That being said, integrated graphics? What happened to Separate but Equal? Brown vs Board of Education baby!

babble
Apr 19, 2006, 01:42 PM
Maybe... But, Apple want's to gain new markets. So they need to give the most out of all their offerings.

I'm a designer and that's why I've been on a Mac for a long time. But, I see designers turning away from Apple, for games, for cheaper hardware, etc.

I'm sure Apple, like in all good business pratices, doesn't want the cheapsakes market. But they still want the gamers.

All this to say, I'm a designer and I also love to play games on my Mac (WoW, Heroes, etc.). So please Apple, give us more than the minimum.

PS To the guy responding about what games we won't be able to play on it. Keep it real. I'm already more than able to play WoW on my eMac at home (and it only has a 32MB card).

pavetheforest
Apr 19, 2006, 01:42 PM
... That though we may play games, Apple's target is not gamers. I do not know anyone (though maybe my pool is small) that bought an Apple because they were a gamer. They bought it because they were designers, liked the Mac OS, hated Windows, etc., not because they expected to be able to play 3d games on lower-end Macintosh computers.

That being said, integrated graphics? What happened to Separate but Equal? Brown vs Board of Education baby!


the main audience is...what, STUDENTS?!!!! now that macs run windoze, students can play.... GAMES and then run adobe cs2 creative suite after the fun for design homework...i definitly wont get the new macbook if it has integrated craphics.....students play games, i want to be able to play good games on an OS that wont crap out, with a card that wont suck, for a decent price because mommy and daddy dont pay for my things....

pavetheforest
Apr 19, 2006, 01:45 PM
PS To the guy responding about what games we won't be able to play on it. Keep it real. I'm already more than able to play WoW on my eMac at home (and it only has a 32MB card).

maybe you can run it on your 32mb card, but not on the settings the games were designed for, if i want to play a pixels game, i'll play darwinia for ten minutes

boncellis
Apr 19, 2006, 01:54 PM
Poor dr_lha, you must be tearing your hair out, people just don't seem to see your point. I just want you to know that I do, and you've convinced me that IIG are not as bad as everyone has labeled them.

It's a minority, albeit a vocal one (of course they'll show up on this board), that really want their Apple notebook to play the latest and greatest graphics intensive games. I would think they would be foaming over Sony pushing back the PS3 release or Nintendo taking its time with the Revolution rather than Apple not giving them the x1600 in a notebook for $1099.

Perspective. It goes a long way.

dr_lha
Apr 19, 2006, 02:01 PM
Poor dr_lha, you must be tearing your hair out, people just don't seem to see your point. I just want you to know that I do, and you've convinced me that IIG are not as bad as everyone has labeled them.

It's a minority, albeit a vocal one (of course they'll show up on this board), that really want their Apple notebook to play the latest and greatest graphics intensive games. I would think they would be foaming over Sony pushing back the PS3 release or Nintendo taking its time with the Revolution rather than Apple not giving them the x1600 in a notebook for $1099.

Perspective. It goes a long way.
Thanks for the support. I guess my problem is that I don't give a crap about games. At least not computer games, I do all my gaming on my PS2 and Gamecube, and that won't be changing any time soon.

However I think I am in the majority rather than the minority here. Most students I know (my wife is a student and I work at a University so I know quite a few) use laptops every day but don't ever play games on them past a little tetris/solataire/suduko style stuff.

PC gaming is a niche market, a small niche at that. If people don't believe this compare the number of computers in the world to the number of PS2s. Now compare how well PC games sell compared to PS2 games. PS2 games far outsell any PC games.

All I know is that the GMA 950 has the best GFX performance out of any of my Macs when doing the stuff that matters to me: Playing Movies, UI interaction and using Google Earth (which runs smoother than on my wife's iBook despite running under Rosetta).

antonink2006
Apr 19, 2006, 02:12 PM
It's a minority, albeit a vocal one (of course they'll show up on this board), that really want their Apple notebook to play the latest and greatest graphics intensive games. I would think they would be foaming over Sony pushing back the PS3 release or Nintendo taking its time with the Revolution rather than Apple not giving them the x1600 in a notebook for $1099.
Perspective. It goes a long way.

You are so right! And we are so daft...
But please do point me to the quote advocating the use of the X1600 or higher in an ibook. The only references I can find mention the x1300. :p

This is not about playing the latest and greatest graphics intensive games, but for a (tiny) degree of future-proofing.

netdog
Apr 19, 2006, 02:18 PM
Yup. Decompressing video in general goes on the CPU. The graphics card merely does some scaling and hardware filtering to make a scaled video look less pixely. I doubt the entry level Macbook will handle 1080 despite the screen qould be too small for that anyway. But 720, no problemo. There were rumors about the screen having native 720 resolution anyway thus eliminating scaling (graphics card load) completely.

You doubt this based on what?

Does the Mini Core Solo do 1080i? That would give us the answer -- if there is even going to be a Core Solo MacBook. Anyway, if somebody with a Core Solo Mini could post as to whether their computer can do 1080, that should allow us to make informed judgements about the capabilities of a MacBook solo with integrated 950 graphics.

Now there is a name we might see. The MacBook Solo and the MacBook Duo. I don't like it, but I could see it.

milo
Apr 19, 2006, 02:33 PM
This is not about playing the latest and greatest graphics intensive games, but for a (tiny) degree of future-proofing.

And the only problem with that argument is that we have no idea if a low end mobile card would be any more future-proof than integrated graphics.

Does the Mini Core Solo do 1080i? That would give us the answer -- if there is even going to be a Core Solo MacBook.

Nope. That's why I keep saying that a good processor is more important than a graphics card. I'm hoping the base model has a duo, unless they're able to drop the price to $799.

netdog
Apr 19, 2006, 02:38 PM
Nope. That's why I keep saying that a good processor is more important than a graphics card. I'm hoping the base model has a duo, unless they're able to drop the price to $799.

Having run my iMac since about a week after their introduction, I have to say that I am totally sold on the Core Duo. My previous machine was a 3.4 P4, and I had never used a dual-core cpu before, but I am really blown away. Amazing cpu, amazing machine.

ManchesterTrix
Apr 19, 2006, 02:39 PM
To talk of something besides graphics, am I the only person in the world that would kill for a 11.1 inch/2.5 lbs Apple laptop?

Bsresponsive1
Apr 19, 2006, 02:42 PM
To talk of something besides graphics, am I the only person in the world that would kill for a 11.1 inch/2.5 lbs Apple laptop?

I have the 10.6 inch widescreen vaio and It is an excellent size.

I would agree that an ultra portable mac would be great.

boncellis
Apr 19, 2006, 02:47 PM
To talk of something besides graphics, am I the only person in the world that would kill for a 11.1 inch/2.5 lbs Apple laptop?

You might be.

Jk, I think something smaller than 12", or now 13.3", is something Apple might make a run at, but I'm not sure it would be a traditional notebook--maybe something like a tablet. I think the portability/features quotient reaches a point of diminishing returns below a certain point. If it's a new form factor (no keyboard, separate docking station, etc.) then it would have a better chance to catch on, I think.

ManchesterTrix
Apr 19, 2006, 02:50 PM
You might be.

Jk, I think something smaller than 12", or now 13.3", is something Apple might make a run at, but I'm not sure it would be a traditional notebook--maybe something like a tablet. I think the portability/features quotient reaches a point of diminishing returns below a certain point. If it's a new form factor (no keyboard, separate docking station, etc.) then it would have a better chance to catch on, I think.

The Sony Vaio TX series seems to be doing pretty well. Which is pretty much what I want from a laptop(Well except for the needing to run OS X). Granted, it IS a niche, but I'll keep dreaming.

boncellis
Apr 19, 2006, 03:03 PM
I like Sony's stuff too. Who knows what kind of a stranglehold they would have on things if they didn't continuously shoot themselves in the foot with all the proprietary technology they come out with.

I had a 12" PB, and it was a sleek machine. I can just imagine how it would be to carry around a tiny thing like the Sony that was referred to, or the Fujitsu sub-notebook. It is a niche, which means Apple probably won't touch it--I think the rumored 13.3" form factor is evidence of that. That's not to say that they shouldn't, though!

dr_lha
Apr 19, 2006, 03:05 PM
You doubt this based on what?

Does the Mini Core Solo do 1080i? That would give us the answer -- if there is even going to be a Core Solo MacBook. Anyway, if somebody with a Core Solo Mini could post as to whether their computer can do 1080, that should allow us to make informed judgements about the capabilities of a MacBook solo with integrated 950 graphics.

Generally speaking, the mini Core Duo and do 1080p and the Core Solo can do 720p (and stutters of 1080p), so yes, it is totally dependant on the CPU and not the GFX card.

daschim
Apr 19, 2006, 03:05 PM
What are the measurements of a 13"widescreen display?? Can it be 5.52 inch high and 11.59 wide? If this is true .... than this is very small. I hope there will be some 15" consumer laptops.

dr_lha
Apr 19, 2006, 03:08 PM
To talk of something besides graphics, am I the only person in the world that would kill for a 11.1 inch/2.5 lbs Apple laptop?
Nope. Prior to owning my 12" PB (my first Mac) I owned a IBM Thinkpad X20 and a Sony Vaio 505TR.

Both of these were sub 3lb computers with no CD rom/floppy built in and I was really happy with them. I'd love to see Apple produce a lighter laptop without a optical drive (how often do I really use my DVD drive in my laptop?), but I really think 12" is about as a small a screen as I want. The 10.4" VAIO screen was a little too small for my liking, even though I used it for 2+ years.

mikea
Apr 19, 2006, 03:10 PM
There is no "MacBook" any more than there is, or ever will be, a desktop model called simply the "Mac." There is currently a MacBook Pro, just as the PowerMac will eventually become the "Mac Pro" if Apple decides to follow through with that naming scheme as it most likely will. As with the iMac, the iBook will continue to be the moniker Apple's entry/mid-level consumer laptop.

Other, new portable Macs have long been rumored to join the 'Book family, probably under the name MacBook Thin for an ultraportable mid-range model. It is possible that the Thin could ship alongside the new iBooks, but the iBooks name is not going away and those who simply call it the "MacBook" are getting confused by the ever-present "Game of Telephone effect". They may want to check their sources before they continue confusing the community by using that name.

dr_lha
Apr 19, 2006, 03:12 PM
There is no "MacBook" any more than there is, or ever will be, a desktop model called simply the "Mac." There is currently a MacBook Pro, just as the PowerMac will eventually become the "Mac Pro" if Apple decides to follow through with that naming scheme as it most likely will. As with the iMac, the iBook will continue to be the moniker Apple's entry/mid-level consumer laptop.

Other, new portable Macs have long been rumored to join the 'Book family, probably under the name MacBook Thin for an ultraportable mid-range model. It is possible that the Thin could ship alongside the new iBooks, but the iBooks name is not going away and those who simply call it the "MacBook" are getting confused by the ever-present "Game of Telephone effect". They may want to check their sources before they continue confusing the community by using that name.
We'll see won't we?

milo
Apr 19, 2006, 03:13 PM
As with the iMac, the iBook will continue to be the moniker Apple's entry/mid-level consumer laptop.

So kindly explain Steve Jobs statement that all macs would have MAC in the name. (hint: iBook does not have MAC in the name)

boncellis
Apr 19, 2006, 03:17 PM
So kindly explain Steve Jobs statement that all macs would have MAC in the name. (hint: iBook does not have MAC in the name)

The iMacBook? Blecchh. ;)

aswitcher
Apr 19, 2006, 03:23 PM
It seems that the graphics card is how Apple is choosing to distinguish its low end from its high.

But really, shouldn't there be a MacMiniBook with the integrated graphics cards and an iMacBook without...

dr_lha
Apr 19, 2006, 03:29 PM
Perhaps now would be the time to remind everyone that Apple has yet to announce the Graphics Card for the iBook replacement, so any talk of Integrated Graphics is pure speculation.

(I think it will come with IG, but thats just a guess).

AidenShaw
Apr 19, 2006, 03:52 PM
Even the lowly $599 Mac Mini has better GMA950 integrated graphics...
Umm, the GMA950 is the graphics core in the 945GM chipset - this has the same graphics as the MiniMacIntel.

AidenShaw
Apr 19, 2006, 03:58 PM
Another thing is that ATI's integrated GPUs outperform Intel's (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=1) by a significant margin, so we aren't even getting the best integrated GPU out there. :(
Read the article again - the ATI isn't "integrated", it is "embedded".

Big difference, it's an extra chip that costs extra money and needs extra space on the mobo and extra power.

The Intel GMA950 is part of the northbridge chip. No extra chips, no extra board real estate....

King Elessar
Apr 19, 2006, 04:10 PM
Come on, I've been thinking this for a long time, and the folks over at MOSR has also confirmed this.

The new iBook will still be an "iBook", not simply "MacBook". There won't be a "MacBook" any more than there'd be a desktop simply called the "Mac".

Look at the new Intel Macs, see the iMac? It's still the "iMac", not "Mac".
Similarly, the iBook will remain the "iBook".

As for other MacBooks... maybe the MacBook Thin...

AnimeUnrivaled
Apr 19, 2006, 04:12 PM
I've been saying from day one that Apple simply won't be getting a purchase from me at all if they don't release a pro 12"/13" laptop. Then, I saw the specs on this Asus machine and saw the 2.16GHz Core Duo, so I thought that maybe Apple could, in fact, simply make the MacBook have a much larger range than the iBook did, and replace the small PowerBook with a high-end MacBook. However, integrated graphics, while arguably adequate and now expected for consumer-level laptops (I still don't like the idea, but I can't really blame Apple for wanting to save money), are simply not an option for a pro machine. So basically, if Apple releases the MacBook without a processor cap, we know there will be no small pro machine, and therefore no small machine with dedicated graphics (unless it's a configurable option). That would mean no Apple laptop purchase for me (and me sticking to linux on the laptop, as annoying as the setup can be for that).

Come on Apple! Don't let me down! You want ~$2500+ of my hard-earned cash, don't you?

aquajet
Apr 19, 2006, 04:13 PM
I will seriously consider upgrading from my 12" PB to a MB when it becomes available, regardless of whether or not it has a dedicated graphics processor. I was concerned about the integrated graphics technology used in the mini making its way into the MB, but if it outperforms the GeForce 5200 in my PowerBook, then it can't be a bad thing, right? That's the way I see it.

As much as I like the 12", I really hate the high surface temperatures and the fan running constantly. I always regretted replacing my 14" iBook G4 with my current 12" PB and have been considering switching back for the past year. So once the MB is available, I might just go for it.

King Elessar
Apr 19, 2006, 04:13 PM
There is no "MacBook" any more than there is, or ever will be, a desktop model called simply the "Mac." There is currently a MacBook Pro, just as the PowerMac will eventually become the "Mac Pro" if Apple decides to follow through with that naming scheme as it most likely will. As with the iMac, the iBook will continue to be the moniker Apple's entry/mid-level consumer laptop.

Other, new portable Macs have long been rumored to join the 'Book family, probably under the name MacBook Thin for an ultraportable mid-range model. It is possible that the Thin could ship alongside the new iBooks, but the iBooks name is not going away and those who simply call it the "MacBook" are getting confused by the ever-present "Game of Telephone effect". They may want to check their sources before they continue confusing the community by using that name.

Hey that's a direct copy and paste from MOSR, at least quote where you got it man.

rhsgolfer33
Apr 19, 2006, 04:21 PM
You doubt this based on what?

Does the Mini Core Solo do 1080i? That would give us the answer -- if there is even going to be a Core Solo MacBook. Anyway, if somebody with a Core Solo Mini could post as to whether their computer can do 1080, that should allow us to make informed judgements about the capabilities of a MacBook solo with integrated 950 graphics.

Now there is a name we might see. The MacBook Solo and the MacBook Duo. I don't like it, but I could see it.

Ive read the mini duo doing 1080p on this forum, but its not like it matters, most people dont have anything capable of watching 1080p on. Id imagine the mini solo could do 720p no problem but I doubt 1080p would be watchable on it.

The people complaining about not being able to play the latest games on their mackbook are out of touch. Computer gaming is slowly dying with the introduction of $400 consoles that have graphics that kill the graphics of most computers. I used to love computer gaming, but see no reason to buy a computer capable of it now, I'll just save $600 and buy a 360, a couple of games, and hook it up to my toshiba 56" 1080p tv with 6.1 surround, that setup kills any computer I could comeup with. I'll buy Call of Duty for my macbook(to play in between classes at schoo and on the road), itll play fine, it plays on my 1.6ghz, 256mb of ram, integrated graphics compaq, so it should be killer on a core duo, iig, 1gb macbook.

Airforce
Apr 19, 2006, 04:26 PM
Computer gaming is slowly dying with the introduction of $400 consoles that have graphics that kill the graphics of most computers.

Most? Maybe last year ;)

mac-x
Apr 19, 2006, 04:28 PM
Sorry to go on about the graphics :)

But imo the price you pay for the new system, like say E1000.-, i expect that i can play my games running normal.
I mean just for playing a game isnt so much asking for? im the gameplay over graphics type, im happy as is works. For real gaming i take my desktop.
So i hope anyone can confirm this will atleast work (with specs so far)

---talking about gaming as an extra, dont tell me why apple;)

jcoffman78
Apr 19, 2006, 04:31 PM
This speculation is stupid. I heard new iBooks at MWSF, nothing happened; i heard new iBooks on the 30th anniversary...nothing!!! So frankly i don't give a rats ass when they come out. I love Apple and will never use a PC again but this waiting is killing me. I check this site, among others, to see the latest info, but have been fed nothing but BS for months. Steve just give me the new iBooks/Macbook damnit!! I am sick of waiting

mac-x
Apr 19, 2006, 04:36 PM
This speculation is stupid. rats ass

atleast 1 thing is good about this.......it kills time

rats ass :p

rhsgolfer33
Apr 19, 2006, 04:37 PM
Most? Maybe last year ;)

Well an $8000 quad sli with GeForce 7900's might be better, but its also 20 times more expensive;) . You cant find a computer anywhere near the price range of a 360 thatll play games nearly as well.

mikea
Apr 19, 2006, 04:45 PM
Ys,
I know it ws a quote..just wanted to see a reaction. Only because this whole thing is completely confusing me...

Airforce
Apr 19, 2006, 04:47 PM
Well an $8000 quad sli with GeForce 7900's might be better, but its also 20 times more expensive;) . You cant find a computer anywhere near the price range of a 360 thatll play games nearly as well.

$500-$600 will get you a computer that will beat the 360 in resolution, graphics, and be a lot more useful than just gaming ;)

milo
Apr 19, 2006, 04:50 PM
The new iBook will still be an "iBook", not simply "MacBook". There won't be a "MacBook" any more than there'd be a desktop simply called the "Mac".


As I said to an earlier poster, if that's the case then explain SJ's comment that all macs will have MAC in the name?

And MOSR is a joke, whenever they predict something it's more likely that the opposite will be the truth.

[QUOTE=AnimeUnrivaledSo basically, if Apple releases the MacBook without a processor cap, we know there will be no small pro machine, and therefore no small machine with dedicated graphics (unless it's a configurable option).[/QUOTE]

What "pro" apps do you plan on running on a 13" laptop that require heavy duty 3d accelertation?

mac000
Apr 19, 2006, 04:56 PM
why dont people just buy a laptop to have a mobile computer and if you want some hoarsepower buy a friggin' desktop w/ like a 23" screen with some speakers and a nice chair ... intel graphics? who cares as long as it looks good and the keeps price low along with core duo NO solo, im sold, no?

mutantteenager
Apr 19, 2006, 04:57 PM
I've been saying from day one that Apple simply won't be getting a purchase from me at all if they don't release a pro 12"/13" laptop. Then, I saw the specs on this Asus machine and saw the 2.16GHz Core Duo, so I thought that maybe Apple could, in fact, simply make the MacBook have a much larger range than the iBook did, and replace the small PowerBook with a high-end MacBook. However, integrated graphics, while arguably adequate and now expected for consumer-level laptops (I still don't like the idea, but I can't really blame Apple for wanting to save money), are simply not an option for a pro machine. So basically, if Apple releases the MacBook without a processor cap, we know there will be no small pro machine, and therefore no small machine with dedicated graphics (unless it's a configurable option). That would mean no Apple laptop purchase for me (and me sticking to linux on the laptop, as annoying as the setup can be for that).

Come on Apple! Don't let me down! You want ~$2500+ of my hard-earned cash, don't you?

I agree, I want a new 12" PowerBook with a *real* graphics card, not some wannabe. It would be surprising, but not unbelievable if Apple did merge the 12" PB into the iBook replacement line, but what about Pro's who want to run Motion, After Effects or even Aperture? Integrated graphics is not a solution. Even Sony do a Dual Core with real graphics, so Apple will no doubt at least do it as an option, or really see a lot of the compact PowerBook/pro trade go elsewhere. And no, they won't get my money either!:p

milo
Apr 19, 2006, 05:12 PM
I agree, I want a new 12" PowerBook with a *real* graphics card, not some wannabe. It would be surprising, but not unbelievable if Apple did merge the 12" PB into the iBook replacement line, but what about Pro's who want to run Motion, After Effects or even Aperture? Integrated graphics is not a solution. Even Sony do a Dual Core with real graphics, so Apple will no doubt at least do it as an option, or really see a lot of the compact PowerBook/pro trade go elsewhere. And no, they won't get my money either!:p

You're really itching to run an app like Motion on a 13" (or smaller!) laptop?

rhsgolfer33
Apr 19, 2006, 05:22 PM
Even Sony do a Dual Core with real graphics, so Apple will no doubt at least do it as an option, or really see a lot of the compact PowerBook/pro trade go elsewhere. And no, they won't get my money either!:p

That sony is also almost as expensive or more expensive than the Macbook Pro for the upper end models. It starts at $1449 with a core solo, 512mb of ram, a 40gb hd, combo drive, and no camera. When you up it to 1.66ghz core duo, 60gb hd, and camera its $1639(thats a pretty low end model and you have to costomize it on sonys site to get one for that price). So, Apple's 12" powerbook replacement *should* have a dedicated card, but I wouldnt be to surprised if it doesnt, especially if it stays at the current 12" powerbook price of $1499.

generik
Apr 19, 2006, 06:14 PM
Come on Apple! Don't let me down! You want ~$2500+ of my hard-earned cash, don't you?

Considering Apple has to machine new tools for the new lines and commit to buy millions of units from the ODMs, I can very safely say that your $2500 doesn't even matter in the slightest if Apple feels that it is not commercially viable (aka doesn't sell in the millions)

teddy07x
Apr 19, 2006, 06:40 PM
Asus makes some of the highest quality motherboards one can buy. When I built my computer a while back I used them and I was really impressed with their performance.

they (asus) actually makes THE highest quality motherboards. ;)
used to work with that stuff, could oc an asus and it would run.
all other crap just gave in. as for their laptops I do not know.


now the real question is, will it have a right-click mouse?

wyatt23
Apr 19, 2006, 06:41 PM
mac000 said it best

why dont people just buy a laptop to have a mobile computer and if you want some hoarsepower buy a friggin' desktop w/ like a 23" screen with some speakers and a nice chair ... intel graphics? who cares as long as it looks good and the keeps price low along with core duo NO solo, im sold, no?

if you're really looking to game that badly [or really need to use these pro apps], your notebook was released a few months back.

Stridder44
Apr 19, 2006, 08:12 PM
OK so Integrated Graphics doesnt suck eh? How well does it do with WoW? (details too please...not just "it runs fine" when that means it runs at lowest settings with an FPS of 2).


/Serious question. Not trying to argue.

AnimeUnrivaled
Apr 19, 2006, 08:13 PM
What "pro" apps do you plan on running on a 13" laptop that require heavy duty 3d accelertation?
I haven't understood these arguments from people. Just because I ask for discreet graphics does not mean I ask for powerful discreet graphics. I'm not asking for an X1600 (although I wouldn't complain). I'm asking for something along the lines of an X1300. I don't care about hardcore gaming on a small laptop. That said, with integrated graphics, even minor gaming is pretty much not an option (And yes, I know the performance of these things). You can't even play older games at a respectable resolution (1024x768) without turning things all the way down if you want a decent frame rate.

For office computers that will be serving no purpose other than word processing / web surfing, I completely agree that integrated graphics are sufficient. Especially if this will be done at lower resolutions. If you have a decent cpu (core duo fits the bill), then this is even more true. Once media comes into the picture, however, this changes. I don't care if the GMA graphics in the Core Duo Mac mini "can handle" 1080 video. Frankly that doesn't say anything about the GMA's ability. The fact is that the Core Solo Mac mini can't handle it (If I still had the link to the article I read that in I'd link you), which means the GMA graphics aren't doing much. A decent graphics accelerator (not necessarily a powerful one, this includes cheaper ones like the X1300) offloads some of the processing (beyond just scaling) from the cpu. Also, for someone who wants a machine for personal use that is also portable, it is not unreasonable to ask for a graphics accelerator that can handle playing some relatively recent games with either a)options turned down all the way but at native resolution or b)options at a reasonable level at slightly lower resolutions. Integrated Graphics offer neither of these cases.

Additionally, as far as pro apps on a small laptop are concerned, there are many things I'd personally like to do. If I want to use it plugged into high-resolution external displays without having to deal with general UI slowdown, slowdown in Tiger's advanced graphical features, or slowdown in apps that might not be the most graphically demanding on a low-res screen (ie Google Earth), I need dedicated graphics. Google Earth may run fine on integrated graphics normally, but if you run it on a 1920x1200 external display while having many other windows open on both the external display and the built-in display, and start using expose, you will experience slowdown.

And finally, there's the RAM issue. Intel GMA graphics take RAM away from your system. Maybe I don't want to particularly run something graphics intensive. But say I want to run Garageband while running Parallels. That requires a good chunk of memory. Now if the argument is that this is a budget system and you should add memory yourself, that means the system will actually cost more than if Apple had included a built-in Graphics accelerator that did not take system RAM. After all, I might not need to add as much memory (which is capped anyways in a system this size) if the laptop cost slightly more and had a dedicated graphics solution. Even if the cost comes out to about the same, you then have a situation where you have a similar amount of system-available memory, with less upgrade potential in that system-available memory with the integrated solution, as well as a system that can't do quite as much graphics acceleration. So the end result is that it's less of a value for me even if I never do something exceptionally graphics intensive, but I want to upgrade my laptop's memory to its max because of my usage patterns. The issue here is not only the graphics horsepower.


Considering Apple has to machine new tools for the new lines and commit to buy millions of units from the ODMs, I can very safely say that your $2500 doesn't even matter in the slightest if Apple feels that it is not commercially viable (aka doesn't sell in the millions)

I wasn't actually serious in saying that Apple should worry about my money in particular. That said, the 12" Powerbook certainly did sell well, so I don't think there's a question as to whether or not a small pro laptop would be worth it.


I don't want to game badly on a small laptop. I might, however, want to do so occasionally and not suffer miserable performance at low resolutions with little eye candy. The cost for a low-end discreet solution is minimal (sub $50) and will slightly future-proof the laptop with higher upgrade potential for system RAM as well as greater chances for being able to do eye-candy from future revisions of the OS (10.5 is going to be here relatively early in the life of this laptop). I hated getting an original Mac mini only to find that Tiger (released just barely later) already had graphical features that my computer couldn't do. I know the tech well enough to know that the GMA includes all the features as far as shaders and such are concerned that the low-end discreet stuff have, but it won't necessarily be able to perform such features smoothly.

dr_lha
Apr 19, 2006, 08:23 PM
Google Earth may run fine on integrated graphics normally, but if you run it on a 1920x1200 external display while having many other windows open on both the external display and the built-in display, and start using expose, you will experience slowdown.

Google Earth runs better on my Core Solo mini at 1680x1050 running under Rosetta than it does on my wife's iBook with running natively at 1024x768

And finally, there's the RAM issue. Intel GMA graphics take RAM away from your system.

Its not an issue. Running on the 1680x1050 screen the integrated GFX chips take away 19Mb of system RAM. A very small percentage.

dr_lha
Apr 19, 2006, 08:25 PM
OK so Integrated Graphics doesnt suck eh? How well does it do with WoW? (details too please...not just "it runs fine" when that means it runs at lowest settings with an FPS of 2).

/Serious question. Not trying to argue.
WoW has pretty low requirements. I think on the native MacBook resolution it will run quite acceptibily. I've seen benchmarks on the web at higher resolution than this laptop will have with FPS scores in double digits, >25FPS IIRC.

Stridder44
Apr 19, 2006, 08:41 PM
WoW has pretty low requirements. I think on the native MacBook resolution it will run quite acceptibily. I've seen benchmarks on the web at higher resolution than this laptop will have with FPS scores in double digits, >25FPS IIRC.


Hm. I like what I see. One thing that I thought was interesting here (http://www.penny-arcade.com/) (read the section titled "BootCamp"). That made me smile :)

Surreal
Apr 19, 2006, 09:17 PM
Hm. I like what I see. One thing that I thought was interesting here (http://www.penny-arcade.com/) (read the section titled "BootCamp"). That made me smile :)

i can't help but think that is partially (read-mostly) because of this. (http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=5984)

Stridder44
Apr 19, 2006, 09:22 PM
i can't help but think that is partially (read-mostly) because of this. (http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=5984)




Yikes....

nsjoker
Apr 19, 2006, 09:42 PM
InTeGraTed GrapHIcs For JoO!11!1one!!!1

No... but seriously. The MacBook will have integrated graphics. I think you guys are asking for too much and expect Apple to pull a miracle out of their :eek: and deliver you a 13.3" MacBook Pro for $1299. Not gonna happen, just be happy that you're getting a Core Duo 1.66 Ghz and built-in iSight. If the MB got let's say... a Radeon X1300, it would cannibalize MB-P sales. They would be essentially the same machine but the MacBook being better for it's portability and lower price.

Bottom Line: Expect that Asustek notebook's specs but decked out in Apple style. Maybe next rev will get dedicated graphics. :rolleyes:

gammamonk
Apr 19, 2006, 11:14 PM
iBooks are basically aimed at students. If you want to sell to students, you need either the word "nvidia" or "ati" in the description somewhere. Integrated lameo graphics? no way.

BenRoethig
Apr 19, 2006, 11:25 PM
i can't help but think that is partially (read-mostly) because of this. (http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=5984)

It's not the first nor is it the last time Apple has done this. They are more than willing to sacrifice performance if it means the machine is a little quieter or better looking.

matticus008
Apr 19, 2006, 11:46 PM
I haven't understood these arguments from people. Just because I ask for discreet graphics does not mean I ask for powerful discreet graphics.
It's discrete, not discreet. Unless, of course, you mean graphics chips which are modest or avoid calling attention to themselves.

You can't even play older games at a respectable resolution (1024x768) without turning things all the way down if you want a decent frame rate.
Based on what? Quake 3 engine games, UT2004, etc. all work at totally playable framerates, not not at the lowest settings. What do you mean by "older" game?

A decent graphics accelerator [...] offloads some of the processing (beyond just scaling) from the cpu.
The problem with this is that a cheap graphics card might be lesscapable of handling HD, since the CPU, despite not being optimized for graphics, could easily perform better than a low-end GPU. People here have to face the reality that ATI embedded graphics aren't a realistic option. Intel defines the motherboard specs, so until Apple goes somewhere else, they can choose from Intel IGCs or third-party discrete GPUs. And any of the low-end discrete GPUs are still from older generations of hardware that don't support the graphics features of "modern" GPUs. For future-proofing, integrated graphics is better than a 9200, 9550, 9600, or even 9700.

a)options turned down all the way but at native resolution or b)options at a reasonable level at slightly lower resolutions. Integrated Graphics offer neither of these cases.
Actually, these "solutions" of yours are exactly what users of integrated graphics can do to improve gaming performance. If you use a dedicated GPU where you have to do these same things, there's no advantage in spending the extra money.

If I want to use it plugged into high-resolution external displays without having to deal with general UI slowdown, slowdown in Tiger's advanced graphical features,
Oh, you mean like how the iBooks already are? Your solution just puts you back into the position of the Tiger/Mac mini rollout. A new version of OS X uses hardware features that aren't available--NO advanced graphical features. Integrated graphics deliver the same fundamental technology as leading-edge cards, meaning that features will work, if performing less. If you're matching an entry-level notebook with a leading-edge, massive display, you're doing it wrong.

Now if the argument is that this is a budget system and you should add memory yourself, that means the system will actually cost more than if Apple had included a built-in Graphics accelerator that did not take system RAM.
Not really. Say the graphics eats up 100MB of usable RAM, and you add 512MB for $60. That means that you're only losing less than one-fifth of that (~$11). Even a "cheap $30 card" is still triple that price. Good effort, but the math doesn't hold up.

I hated getting an original Mac mini only to find that Tiger (released just barely later) already had graphical features that my computer couldn't do.
Exactly. So why would you advocate doing it again? Raising the prices to go a generation backwards in technology will put you in the exact same boat when Leopard arrives. You'd be buying slightly higher performance now for zero performance in the near future on any feature requiring a 2006-vintage GPU, and you've got a computer with the best and fastest that 2004 had to offer.

matticus008
Apr 20, 2006, 12:00 AM
What are the measurements of a 13"widescreen display?? Can it be 5.52 inch high and 11.59 wide? If this is true .... than this is very small. I hope there will be some 15" consumer laptops.
It depends on the exact resolution used, but a 13.3" widescreen display is going to be roughly 11x7, assuming square pixels at native resolution (a safe assumption). It won't be narrower than about 10.5" under any circumstance, as it has to be wide enough to cover a full-size keyboard.

shigzeo
Apr 20, 2006, 12:50 AM
OK so Integrated Graphics doesnt suck eh? How well does it do with WoW? (details too please...not just "it runs fine" when that means it runs at lowest settings with an FPS of 2).


/Serious question. Not trying to argue.


who cares about wow on macbook? could you play any games of any consequence on an ibook from before? i would love wow, but never ever thought of it on an ibook or its replacement, it is simply not a gaming machine, never was and probably will never be. the graphix will certainly be better than that of the old ibook, be glad (which too had integrated ati graphix).

you want to game? get a macbook pro or something!

YoNeX
Apr 20, 2006, 01:13 AM
I can really see a 2 ibook line + a 3rd ibook/powerbook line easily. This would essentially have 2 consumer notebooks, 1 sub consumer/prosumer notebook, 2 prosumer notebook (i'm sure Apple will remove one of the 15" when the 17" comes out).

Predictions:
Base model iBook 12"
$999
+1.67ghz (Celeron)
+Integrated gfx
40GB 4200RPM HD
1024x768
CD Burner
Everything else the same

iBook+ 12"
$1199
+1.67ghz (Core solo Yonah)
+Integrated graphics
60GB 4200RPM HD
1024x768
CD Burner

iBook/PowerBook ~13"
$1499
+1.67ghz (Core duo)
+ x300 (128)
512MB Ram
iSight + Remote
60GB 5400RPM HD
1280x720
DVD Burner

Powerbook 15"
$1999
+1.83ghz (Core duo)
+x600 (256)
+1GB Ram
+iSight + Remote
+ 80 5400RPM HD
DL DVD Burner

Powerbook 17"
$2499
2.0 ghz (Core duo)
+x700 (256)
1GB Ram
1720x1040
100GB 7200RPM or 120GB 5400RPM
DL DVD Burner
+Regular stuff in the MBP

Those are my predictions.

Rocksaurus
Apr 20, 2006, 02:15 AM
The problem with this is that a cheap graphics card might be lesscapable of handling HD, since the CPU, despite not being optimized for graphics, could easily perform better than a low-end GPU. People here have to face the reality that ATI embedded graphics aren't a realistic option. Intel defines the motherboard specs, so until Apple goes somewhere else, they can choose from Intel IGCs or third-party discrete GPUs. And any of the low-end discrete GPUs are still from older generations of hardware that don't support the graphics features of "modern" GPUs. For future-proofing, integrated graphics is better than a 9200, 9550, 9600, or even 9700.


Integrated graphics don't even support hardware t&l... Do they support vertex shaders etc.? I know for a fact that the 9200, 9550, 9600, and 9700 all support hardware t&l. You know what? So does the original Radeon...

It's a little obnoxious how ~1/2 of MR has rushed to Apple's side on this integrated graphics issue. Prior to the Mini's release, how many of you were making posts like "I really hope they put one of those nice Intel GMA's in our Intel Macs, those things kick dedicated graphics butt!". Were any of you calling for integrated graphics? I bet a lot of you sent e-mails to Apple prior to the Mini's release BEGGING for integrated graphics, didn't you? AGH. Of course none of you did, Apple's own Mini site bashed intel integrated graphics.

The issue goes something like this. You integrated supporters think that the integrated haters are demanding too much and don't need dedicated graphics. You think that we're being babies about this and that integrated grahpics aren't THAT bad. I agree with you that some people are taking this a little harder than they need to be, but here's my stance, and I think it's what a lot of people have been trying to say:

Integrated graphics aren't that bad. They suit the needs of a lot of people. But, for a small bit of extra money Apple could put a better, but not necessarily spectacular dedicated graphics card in the computers they sell. We're not asking for a lot here, but I think some of us are a little concerned. We're a little self-conscious perhaps that we pay a premium for a PC that can run OS X. It's disheartening to, in our theoretical example with our theoretical iBook specs to pay 1000+ for a computer that comes with the same graphics card bargain basement PCs come with. Might I add that there are a few sub-$500 PC laptops that come with Radeon integrated graphics in them which also share system memory - and aren't spectacular cards at all - but have demonstrated performance superior to the GMA950. I'm aware that those laptops don't have Core Duos in them, but they're laptops that operate on razor-thin margins. If a company engaging in the cut-throat PC market can afford to put a better integrated chip in their bargain laptop, in a market where buyers likely don't distinguish between graphics chips and in a market where as I said margins are thin, competition is tight, and prices are constantly falling, then why, WHY can't APPLE, our beloved company, just THROW A FREAKING CARD IN THEIR MACHINES THAT'S NOT AN INTEGRATED INTEL CARD? Where's your sense of outrage? Oh right, it's masked behind your blind loyalty.

matticus008
Apr 20, 2006, 03:39 AM
Integrated graphics don't even support hardware t&l... Do they support vertex shaders etc.? I know for a fact that the 9200, 9550, 9600, and 9700 all support hardware t&l. You know what? So does the original Radeon...
Hardware transform and lighting is not a prerequisite for anything. Without the hardware support, T&L is performed by software. It is the distinction and definition of integrated graphics that many features performed by hardware in dedicated GPUs are performed by software (i.e. with the CPU). It's not as though integrated graphics don't support T&L features, like how the 9200 physically couldn't support Core Image features. Pre-9800 graphics cards, because of hardware bound features, do not include all the API functions and fundamental features of newer cards--features that Integrated Graphics DO support. Those older GPUs simply cannot support the latest set of functions, at any level of performance. Integrated graphics DO, allowing for programmers to take full advantage of the latest technology without having to develop for outdated GPUs and being limited by a reduced feature set.

It's disheartening to, in our theoretical example with our theoretical iBook specs to pay 1000+ for a computer that comes with the same graphics card bargain basement PCs come with. Might I add that there are a few sub-$500 PC laptops that come with Radeon integrated graphics in them which also share system memory - and aren't spectacular cards at all - but have demonstrated performance superior to the GMA950.
It's also the same graphics hardware that PC competitors to the iBooks use, and indeed the same hardware that even more expensive notebooks use. Further, it's superior to the hardware in the current iBooks. So if you think that they should take three steps forward, then yes, it might be disheartening to see Apple only take two steps forward, but they're not underperforming.

And once again, Apple doesn't have the option to use the ATI Radeon embedded graphics. Apple buys Intel mainboards. Intel sells mainboards with Intel graphics or ones designed for fully discrete GPUs. You're right that an embedded Radeon would be great for the iBook line, and likely worth the added expense. But it's just not possible without other changes, like switching to a new mainboard vendor.

My sense of outrage requires something to be taken away, or falling behind PC competitors. When that happens, I'll get my pitchfork.

deadpoet
Apr 20, 2006, 03:43 AM
It's a little obnoxious how ~1/2 of MR has rushed to Apple's side on this integrated graphics issue. Prior to the Mini's release, how many of you were making posts like "I really hope they put one of those nice Intel GMA's in our Intel Macs, those things kick dedicated graphics butt!".

I agree, it's disgusting. I bought my iBook because it was a well-rounded product. Would I buy an iBook that came with cheap and nasty graphics? Hell no.

If the integrated graphics farce turns out to be true, Apple had better offer a 12" or 13" MacBook Pro with decent dedicated graphics solution.

AnimeUnrivaled
Apr 20, 2006, 04:38 AM
I agree, it's disgusting. I bought my iBook because it was a well-rounded product. Would I buy an iBook that came with cheap and nasty graphics? Hell no.

If the integrated graphics farce turns out to be true, Apple had better offer a 12" or 13" MacBook Pro with decent dedicated graphics solution.

Exactly what I was trying to say.

All my arguing against Integrated Graphics weren't meant necessarily as arguments for dedicated graphics in the low-end MacBook. I was just saying that Apple needs to either a)put dedicated graphics in (either normal or as an option in higher configurations) the MacBook or b)put out a MacBook that doesn't have dedicated graphics and a separate "pro" line (to use Apple's own terminology) of small laptops (a 13" MacBook Pro) that does.

You can even look in my sig and see that I currently have a laptop with integrated graphics. It's served me well for browsing, chatting, e-mail, and word processing. However I currently can't do anything graphically intensive with it. I still have no real complaints. I paid little and got what I paid for.

After dealing with it for some time now, however, I want to spend big money on a small machine, and get a machine that is worth that money.


Edit:
Also, here's a comparison (link (http://www.mobilityguru.com/2006/04/10/hp_dv1000t_core_duo_laptop_features_new_intel_gma_950_graphics_processor/page8.html)) between two laptops (albeit running Windows) with a Core Duo 1.66. One has a GMA950 graphics solution, the other has a Radeon X1400. Ignore the battery life tests because the X1400 laptop has a 17" screen, so that comparison isn't reliable.
On the page I linked, you can see that Office and DVD performance are nothing to criticize. The following performance shows that general computing is equivalent as well. It's the page after that which shows the absolutely tremendous difference in 3D performance. Nothing I would worry about in the low-end system, but I demand more reasonable performance available in a small system (not a low-end one), and therefore request a small system (MacBook Pro, please?) which has graphics which can even come close to comparing. An X1300 isn't too much to ask for.

antonink2006
Apr 20, 2006, 05:03 AM
Exactly what I was trying to say.
You can even look in my sig and see that I currently have a laptop with integrated graphics. It's served me well for browsing, chatting, e-mail, and word processing. However I currently can't do anything graphically intensive with it. I still have no real complaints. I paid little and got what I paid for.

Could not agree more - browsing, chatting, e-mail, and word processing can be done on a $500 computer. And you don't need the latest core duo or solo to accomplish these tasks.
Which leaves Apple a bit in the cold:
1. Existing Mac users will not "upgrade" as they can perform these basic tasks on their G3/G4 ibooks and their Pismos
2. How do you convince a potential switcher to drop $1,100 on a computer that's only good for browsing, chatting, e-mail, and word processing when they can have the same functionality from a box half the price? (of, course it will not be a core-duo, but we are talking about technology-agnostic consumers who are not looking for fancy things like core-duo and dedicated graphics card)

In fact, it will be a shame if the new ibook suffers the same fate as the mac-mini: indifference is worse than hostility....

AidenShaw
Apr 20, 2006, 06:56 AM
the graphix will certainly be better than that of the old ibook, be glad (which too had integrated ati graphix).!
Most posters are called the ATI chip an "embedded graphics" solution, not an "integrated graphics" solution.

Common terms seem to be:

"integrated graphics" - the GPU is part of the CPU chipset, in the case of the Yonah, the Intel GMA950 core is part of the northbridge of the 945GM chipset
"embedded graphics" - the GPU is in a discrete, additional chip that's soldered to the motherboard
"graphics card" - the GPU is on a separate card, not soldered to the motherboard. Most common in desktop machines, using AGP/PCI/PCIe slots. Some laptop form factors for replaceable cards have been promoted, but aren't in common use.


"Integrated" graphics typically use system RAM for the VRAM, and embedded and cards typically have dedicated video memory (although some hybrids are appearing that use both).
________________________

Posts that claim that "Intel GMA integrated graphics are bad" and "ATI integrated graphics are good" are ignoring a very real architectural difference between the two.

It's not that the Intel graphics engineering is bad, it's that it is a much cheaper and more restricted package.

And the GMA950 is not at all bad for the things that most of the people do most of the time. It just doesn't do certain 3D games nearly as well as discrete solutions with dedicated VRAM.

matticus008
Apr 20, 2006, 07:09 AM
Common terms seem to be:

"integrated graphics" - the GPU is part of the CPU chipset, in the case of the Yonah, the Intel GMA950 core is part of the northbridge of the 945GM chipset
"embedded graphics" - the GPU is in a discrete, additional chip that's soldered to the motherboard
"graphics card" - the GPU is on a separate card, not soldered to the motherboard. Most common in desktop machines, using AGP/PCI/PCIe slots. Some laptop form factors for replaceable cards have been promoted, but aren't in common use.


I'm glad someone put together a summary that illustrates this point! These are good points to state so clearly, AidenShaw. The use of the word "discrete" is still slightly confusing. With embedded graphics, it's not truly a discrete system--it still shares RAM and is interconnected with the CPU (the GPU is, as you say, a discrete from the system chipset, however).

In a discrete graphics system ("graphics card") on a notebook, everything is still soldered to the motherboard, except those few notebooks with mini AGP slots and removable daughtercards. What makes the difference is the fact that it has its own RAM and its own internal connections. The whole graphics subsystem is then connected to the rest of the I/O system.

kev-kev
Apr 20, 2006, 10:22 AM
I had thought that the new MacBook/iBook was going to basically be the Asus W7V, not based off of a x6 design.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/29/asus-w7v-4-2-pound-core-duo-laptop/

Looks a bit better than that previous model, in my opinion.

kev

Macnoviz
Apr 20, 2006, 10:57 AM
Probably just Quake 4 and Doom 3, and you can probably limp through those at the lowest settings. What games are you interested in?


How are integrated graphics on games like Myst V?

fozy
Apr 20, 2006, 11:00 AM
indeed i don't care for games, but i need to run external moniters. My current powerbook 12in has trouble and stutters a little when trying to dual screen with a 40" screen. I was hoping that the 12in powerbook's replacement would be able to cope a little better:(


I have trouble pushing a 20" studio display on single mode with my 1.5ghz 12" PB G4. Do you think they'll include dvi out on the new ibook?

66217
Apr 20, 2006, 12:04 PM
The great mistake Apple made was to anounce the MBP first. It would had been better if they anounced the MB and the MacMini first.
Because now everyone is comparing this MB (which we are not certian how it would be) to the MBP. And thats an impossible thing to do, to compare a $1000-1500 computer with a $2000-2500 one.

And I am cool with the specs of thsi possible MB. If I can play Age of Empires and that type of games, I am happy. I mean, if you want to play Doom 3 in top performance, buy a desktop (it's cheaper).
The MB is for people that wants a portable, silent and cool notebook.

And yes, it is true, you can find better PC's for the same price. The same goes for the MacBook Pro. But keep in mind that Apple sells for the cool factor (remeber the slogan :"Think Different" or "It just works"). And that cool factor has an extra cost.

66217
Apr 20, 2006, 12:06 PM
Edit: sorry I posted twice the same.

milo
Apr 20, 2006, 12:28 PM
The MB is for people that wants a portable, silent and cool notebook.

Let's hope they can deliver that with the MB. They certianly have had trouble delivering silent and cool with the MBP.

Rocksaurus
Apr 20, 2006, 07:29 PM
Hardware transform and lighting is not a prerequisite for anything. Without the hardware support, T&L is performed by software. It is the distinction and definition of integrated graphics that many features performed by hardware in dedicated GPUs are performed by software (i.e. with the CPU). It's not as though integrated graphics don't support T&L features, like how the 9200 physically couldn't support Core Image features. Pre-9800 graphics cards, because of hardware bound features, do not include all the API functions and fundamental features of newer cards--features that Integrated Graphics DO support. Those older GPUs simply cannot support the latest set of functions, at any level of performance. Integrated graphics DO, allowing for programmers to take full advantage of the latest technology without having to develop for outdated GPUs and being limited by a reduced feature set.


It's also the same graphics hardware that PC competitors to the iBooks use, and indeed the same hardware that even more expensive notebooks use. Further, it's superior to the hardware in the current iBooks. So if you think that they should take three steps forward, then yes, it might be disheartening to see Apple only take two steps forward, but they're not underperforming.

Many of us are just asking for an x1300, which isn't a spectacular card, but I do believe supports the latest set of functions. Did I mention it blows the GMA out of the water and isn't all that expensive? I'm aware that Apple is a business, but I'm also aware that their margins are very healthy on Macs, and that they've got what, over $3 billion in their coffers...? $3 billion, just sitting there. Apple's not "behind" the PC industry, but when they can easily afford to be ahead, even by just a little bit, I don't see why it's so unrealistic for us as their loyal base to demand that they are.


And once again, Apple doesn't have the option to use the ATI Radeon embedded graphics. Apple buys Intel mainboards. Intel sells mainboards with Intel graphics or ones designed for fully discrete GPUs. You're right that an embedded Radeon would be great for the iBook line, and likely worth the added expense. But it's just not possible without other changes, like switching to a new mainboard vendor.

My sense of outrage requires something to be taken away, or falling behind PC competitors. When that happens, I'll get my pitchfork.

Okay... So Apple is using ASUS for these boards apparently... Problem solved? Here come the Radeons?

I don't know man, I really like the argument you've laid out, honestly. I think that we just demand different things from Apple. I think it's important for each side of this integrated vs. dedicated debate to acknowledge a few things and just put it to rest and stop arguing about it.

-> The integrated haters/dedicated supporters need to acknowledge that integrated graphics aren't THAT bad, and, for the most part will adequately get the job done in most circumstances.

-> The integrated supporters need to acknowledge (as you have, matticus) that the cost to Apple and the consumer of a graphics solution by ATi or Nvidia, be it a dedicated solution or their own system memory sharing solution would be worth the small monetary price that each side would potentially pay, and that it's not completely insane to desire that Apple replace the Intel solution with one of the aforementioned solutions.

Now. Can we all just get along? :)

matticus008
Apr 20, 2006, 10:33 PM
Many of us are just asking for an x1300, which isn't a spectacular card, but I do believe supports the latest set of functions.
The x1300 is not available on an Intel motherboard design. Apple uses Intel for motherboards. Therefore, Apple cannot use ATI embedded graphics. They could switch to another vendor (including Asus), but for all we know, the Intel pricing is discounted for using Intel motherboards as well, so in addition to a more expensive mainboard, they'd also have more expensive CPUs. It's not an ideal situation, but it is the actual situation.


Okay... So Apple is using ASUS for these boards apparently... Problem solved? Here come the Radeons?
Asus is manufacturing the computers--that doesn't mean manufacturing all the components. The iMac and Mac mini are also made by Chinese companies, with motherboards to Intel specifications. Components from several different companies are used to build Asus notebooks, and in this case, that Asus notebook is a custom design that will ultimately carry an Apple logo.

I don't know man, I really like the argument you've laid out, honestly. I think that we just demand different things from Apple. I think it's important for each side of this integrated vs. dedicated debate to acknowledge a few things and just put it to rest and stop arguing about it.
I agree. The reality is somewhere in between. No, they're not great, but at worst integrated graphics are mediocre. It is, after all, the norm for low to mid range computers, and if it didn't get the job done, so-equipped PCs wouldn't be selling at such tremendous rates.

Rocksaurus
Apr 20, 2006, 11:25 PM
The x1300 is not available on an Intel motherboard design. Apple uses Intel for motherboards. Therefore, Apple cannot use ATI embedded graphics. They could switch to another vendor (including Asus), but for all we know, the Intel pricing is discounted for using Intel motherboards as well, so in addition to a more expensive mainboard, they'd also have more expensive CPUs. It's not an ideal situation, but it is the actual situation.


http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html

I'm kind of confused, if they can put an x1600 in these, why not an x1300?

matticus008
Apr 21, 2006, 01:09 AM
http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html

I'm kind of confused, if they can put an x1600 in these, why not an x1300?
It's okay, it is pretty confusing, but go back and look at AidenShaw's excellent summary. The x1300 being requested is an embedded graphics processor. The x1600 in the iMac and MacBook Pro are discrete graphics systems. Apple's options are 1) integrated systems (Intel 945, in this case) or 2) entirely discrete systems. The "something in between" that offers better performance and still has pretty good value (embedded systems) are only offered on mainboards from a select few manufacturers, none of which supply mainboards for Apple.

Now obviously a leading-edge discrete system is not going into the entry-level products, so any discrete system will be a castrated "value" card, which are usually products which were the high-end a generation or two back, which are affordable because of their age. This presents a problem for API support, which is incomplete in low-end cards. It becomes a decision of compatibility and features vs. higher short term 3D performance. So Apple is forced to decide between moderate, but lasting, performance or higher (but still not top-shelf) performance with a shorter usable lifetime.

Inevitably, some people are going to prefer the latter because they're willing to upgrade more often. But these people are often the same people who don't see the value in the PowerBook (though it would better meet their expectations, and would allow them to upgrade less often, which balances out the price), so they buy the iBook because it's the better value, even though it doesn't quite meet their desires. There are always going to be these "tweeners."

Multimedia
Apr 21, 2006, 10:39 AM
I have trouble pushing a 20" studio display on single mode with my 1.5ghz 12" PB G4. Do you think they'll include dvi out on the new ibook?Who knows? It certainly makes sense to. I'm surprised the last iBook still only has VGA out. That is just plain weird. Must have to do with product differentiation more than a cost difference. :eek: :confused: :(

Multimedia
Apr 21, 2006, 11:07 AM
The great mistake Apple made was to anounce the MBP first. It would had been better if they anounced the MB and the MacMini first because now everyone is comparing this MB (which we are not certian how it will be) to the MBP. And thats an impossible thing to do, to compare a $1000-1500 computer with a $2000-2500 one.

And I am cool with the specs of this possible MB. If I can play Age of Empires and that type of games, I am happy. I mean, if you want to play Doom 3 in top performance, buy a desktop (it's cheaper).

The MB is for people that wants a portable, silent and cool notebook.

And yes, it is true, you can find better PC's for the same price. The same goes for the MacBook Pro. But keep in mind that Apple sells for the cool factor (remeber the slogan :"Think Different" or "It just works"). And that cool factor has an extra cost.It wasn't a mistake Roco. The giant leap in power from a single 1.42 or 1.67 GHz G4 to a Core Duo @ 2GHz had to be made at the pro end first in the most popular size. The PowerBook had been eclipsed by the G5 line for way too long in what the definition of "Power" is. The need for speed was most acute in the Pro mobile line. One member here even sold his PPC Quad after realizing the 2 GHz Core Duo MacBook Pro runs Final Cut Studio almost as fast as his Quad and can still drive his 30" monitor.

We're in a weird mobile space right now - HOT 32-bit with speed soon to be trumped by 64-bit with more speed and at the same time lower power consumption - IE cooler with longer battery life. Those who were starving for mobile Mac speed or are new to Macs can buy now and enjoy a considerable speed bump. But many veteran Mac users may be continuing to wait for the 64-bit Merom mobiles to ship. Still others like myself may even wait for them to ship with Leopard, which according to the latest reports may be as soon as January 2007 but certainly no later than June next year.

Meanwhile, the MacBook can wait a bit longer while ingredients get cheaper and the major MacBook buying season is still ahead of us. Only reason there is this pent up anticipation is because the first MacBook will be radically faster than the current iBook. Doesn't happen like this very often. In fact I can't rmember when it ever happened except a little backward NON-bump when iBooks switched from a 900 MHz G3 to an 800 MHz G4 processor back on October 22,2003. So we're 2.5 years into the G4 iBook era. July 21, 1999 was when the original colorful clamshell 300 MHz G3 iBooks came to market. And they were stuck in G3 land for more than 4 years. So 2.5 years to a radical bump isn't bad considering that there really hasn't been one before.

Point is Apple had to radically bump the Pro mobile liine before the iBook line or it would have canabalized thier Pro mobile market. That's why it's likely that Sunday's NAB press conference will unveil the 17" incarnation of the MacBook Pro while MacBook yearners will still be in the waiting room for at least another 10 days or more. :D

zenmark
Apr 21, 2006, 12:35 PM
What i am most worried about is the dysmal battery life, nowhere that i saw on the asus website did it give indications about the battery life. Thats really unacceptable when you're selling a low power, portable computer, the ibook always boasted its 6 hour battery life which for a student like myself would be very useful (treating the computer more like an ipod that you only need the power adapter when you're at home). Given the battery drop from the 15" powerbook to the new macbook pro its probably safe to say that the macbook will half under half the battery life of the ibook. This begs the question, are they going to keep a model with excelent battery life or are they going to give up on battery life and settle for terrible PC battery life?
If anyone knows what the asus's battery life is it might shed some light on the kind of power we might expect from the macbook.
I just hope that they try harder than with the macbook because if they dont then the old ibooks will look extremely promising, even if they're so much slower.

Rocksaurus
Apr 21, 2006, 01:11 PM
I'm pretty sure the x1300 is a discrete card... Isn't the "Radeon Xpress200" their embedded solution?

matticus008
Apr 21, 2006, 01:16 PM
I'm pretty sure the x1300 is a discrete card... Isn't the "Radeon Xpress200" their embedded solution?
Oops, it looks like "x1300" is a typo that's been carried over from first quote a few pages back. It should be x300.

Rocksaurus
Apr 21, 2006, 03:12 PM
Oops, it looks like "x1300" is a typo that's been carried over from first quote a few pages back. It should be x300.

Ah, that would be the cause of my confusion. Though I would love it if Apple put the x1300 in :)

rhsgolfer33
Apr 22, 2006, 01:17 AM
I had thought that the new MacBook/iBook was going to basically be the Asus W7V, not based off of a x6 design.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/29/asus-w7v-4-2-pound-core-duo-laptop/

Looks a bit better than that previous model, in my opinion.

kev

Man, that would be a killer laptop! Hope apple has something like that in mind if they do a 12" powerbook replacement/macbook.

Josias
Apr 22, 2006, 01:21 PM
I think X13/1400 is dreaming. I think the high end model may have a X600, perhaps 800. Mayeb as an option. dunno. neither do i think there will be a 11". way too small. that's closer to PDA:p

Willis
Apr 23, 2006, 07:58 PM
if i see intergrated graphics on the final product, im going to be gutted. I refuse to have intergrated graphics, unless they have some decent quality them.

Otherwise im going to wait a bit longer and maybe buy a macbook pro :confused: :mad: :(

Multimedia
Apr 23, 2006, 08:58 PM
if i see intergrated graphics on the final product, im going to be gutted. I refuse to have intergrated graphics, unless they have some decent quality them.

Otherwise im going to wait a bit longer and maybe buy a macbook pro :confused: :mad: :(Integrated Graphics Are Likely in the iBook/MacBook. You may as well just go ahead and order your MacBook Pro now. 'Cause integrated graphics are 99% likely as a way to save costs and differentiate the lower priced line from the higher priced line. Sorry. :(

crackbook
Apr 23, 2006, 09:23 PM
Please guys, stop worrying about the negative impact of integrated graphics, the current dedicated card in the current G4 ibook sucks anyway. And the real problem with the PPC ibooks is that the G4 CPU is a total JOKE in the current market.

In recent benchmarks mac mini core SOLO for example, completely wipes the floor of the G4 model it replaced for all applications except 3d games (which was roughly the same). I read somewhere the SOLO boots in half the time as the g4 model they replaced, and beats the current powerbooks too.

I would rather pay less for a cheaper macbook, it will be a great machine for everything you want to do, except 3d gaming. Also it's worth mentioning that if the integrated video memory worries you, you can always double your RAM . If that's not enough performance, or you want to play Half lif 3 then shut up and buy a MacBook PRO.

AidenShaw
Apr 23, 2006, 11:01 PM
Please guys, stop worrying about the negative impact of integrated graphics, the current dedicated card in the current G4 ibook sucks anyway. And the real problem with the PPC ibooks is that the G4 CPU is a total JOKE in the current market.
Be careful, you could be banned for making too much sense. :cool:

Surreal
Apr 23, 2006, 11:05 PM
In recent benchmarks mac mini core SOLO for example, completely wipes the floor of the G4 model it replaced for all applications except 3d games (which was roughly the same). I read somewhere the SOLO boots in half the time as the g4 model they replaced, and beats the current powerbooks too.



i can't help but think that part of the jump in performance is due to the switch in compiling. i am not well versed enough to be specific, but apperently xCode used to compile for size and not speed. (this is the point where someone who does know comes and points out that i have very little idea what i am talking about. ;))

Willis
Apr 24, 2006, 05:15 AM
Ive had a look at what the Mac Mini with its intergrated graphics, and ive noticed it says 64mb. well 64 is better than the current ibooks 32...

Like i said, if the graphics are a reasonable par, i may consider, but it looks like i wont buy till jan 07 now anyway or until Leopard comes out.

Elrond39
Apr 25, 2006, 01:50 AM
I think it was mentioned earlier, but wouldn't getting more memory (RAM) alleviate the 'problem' that some people (such as casual gamers) may think they have with the integrated graphics solution?

Airforce
Apr 25, 2006, 01:52 AM
I think it was mentioned earlier, but wouldn't getting more memory (RAM) alleviate the 'problem' that some people (such as casual gamers) may think they have with the integrated graphics solution?

No, it wouldn't.

antonink2006
Apr 25, 2006, 08:40 AM
No, it wouldn't.

And the proof is here:
http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/04/24/intel_unleashes_dualcore_for_laptops_uk/page17.html

Choice quotes:
- If the results from the graphics benchmarks in PCMark05 suggest that the 945GM might be able to handle graphically-intensive 3D games, 3DMark05 patently deflates this false hope (compared to a lowly x300 solution).
- For productivity applications such as MS Word, Excel and Outlook, the added expense of a dual-core system, however, cannot be justified despite the marginal cost difference. Only those who run virus scans continuously in the background, and who regularly use multiple system services and more resource-intensive applications such as video editing or 3D rendering, are likely to appreciate the dual-core benefits.

Which begs the question: what's the point of having an expensive ninja CPU, combined with a poodle GFX (non) solution? Is this not the ultimate waste of money for consumers that every IT professional who knows their behinds from their elbows would advise against?

RollTide
Apr 25, 2006, 11:06 AM
Which begs the question: what's the point of having an expensive ninja CPU, combined with a poodle GFX (non) solution? Is this not the ultimate waste of money for consumers that every IT professional who knows their behinds from their elbows would advise against?[/QUOTE]

I smell what you're steppin in.

Hope apple doesn't do it.

Elrond39
Apr 25, 2006, 12:37 PM
Aright, so that's graphically intensive 3d games. I'm a very casual gamer. And not all that computer-savvy... so tell me, where does the memory for the IIG come from?

contoursvt
Apr 25, 2006, 12:50 PM
What the hell, what do you guys want (and I say that because I dont have a mac anymore)! You have now a notebook thats way faster than it was and you're complaining about the 3D capabilities (because you cant play games) yet before, when the mac was too slow for hardcore 3D gaming, everyone was like "oh this is a work machine, we're not going to play games and even if we were, we wouldnt buy a PeeCee anyway".. God I cant recall how many times I've seen statements that gaming is not even an issue for mac users. Dont even tell me you'll be using the notebook for Maya or something like that because thats just plain stupid. Heck even if you did get a kick butt video card in there, there would then be complaints that the battery life is no good (as a result of it) and if you were given a larger battery, then it would be too heavy. See where I'm going with this?

Its a fast notebook that does everything except hardcore gaming just fine (I know because I have an older Asus Centrino notebook with onboard graphics and its just fine). I can even play things like UT2003 and Quake3 and misc older games with very good framerates. Sure I cant play doom3 or FEAR but thats what my desktop is for. I'm ranting but it seems like you're complaining about things that dont matter on a laptop.

Please tell me how the integrated graphics will hold you back compared to an X1300 which would suck for new games anyway...

contoursvt
Apr 25, 2006, 12:55 PM
And the proof is here:
http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/04/24/intel_unleashes_dualcore_for_laptops_uk/page17.html

Choice quotes:
- If the results from the graphics benchmarks in PCMark05 suggest that the 945GM might be able to handle graphically-intensive 3D games, 3DMark05 patently deflates this false hope (compared to a lowly x300 solution).
- For productivity applications such as MS Word, Excel and Outlook, the added expense of a dual-core system, however, cannot be justified despite the marginal cost difference. Only those who run virus scans continuously in the background, and who regularly use multiple system services and more resource-intensive applications such as video editing or 3D rendering, are likely to appreciate the dual-core benefits.

Which begs the question: what's the point of having an expensive ninja CPU, combined with a poodle GFX (non) solution? Is this not the ultimate waste of money for consumers that every IT professional who knows their behinds from their elbows would advise against?

Right because you'd use this laptop to play FEAR, Quake4 and DOOM3 or maybe BF2 :rolleyes: If you think you would be on any other laptop other than one that lasts 15 seconds on battery, then you're dreaming. Apple is completely on the right track. The notebook does everything including moderate gaming just perfectly with that hardware and it wipes the floor with the old one anyway for day to day tasks.

alexstein
Apr 25, 2006, 12:57 PM
I think those specs don't look to bad for starters. Who knows maybe Apple is going to through in a dedicated video card.

xavier2k3
Apr 25, 2006, 01:07 PM
just get them to bring out the damn macbook already!

regards
--marty