MACBOOK faster than MACBOOK PRO

[MacRumorUser]

EDIT: LET ME CLEAR THIS UP!!! This is not a bash at the MacBookPro as the thread title would have you believe. Its to stop the bloody whingers going on and on about how rubbish the MacBook is.

The results below or with a macbook 2 against a 1.83 macbookpro. Basically it beats it in most departments, but of course had that been a 2ghz macbookpro results for test would be even....

But it shows that the MacBook is a very capable laptop and extremely competative with laptops of the same price.

Hope that clears up the missunderstanding...........

--------------



This was already posted admid another post as a subfix, but it deserves its own thread.

Look at these results and stop slagging off the macbook because of intel GMA950. It's as much a pro machine as you want it to be


http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macbook.ars/5

One last observation I really wanted to make were my impressions concerning running a popular game in Windows XP on the MacBook's hardware. Many people are critical of this machine's apparent lack of ability to run state-of-the-art games. While these people are technically correct (see benchmarks later on), there's a whole class of games out there that can be fully enjoyed.

One game that I've been dying to try out for a while is an MMORPG called EVE Online. I've run across several people online who were concerned about whether or not the MacBook would be able to play this game efficiently. I downloaded the client from the EVE website and signed up for a 14-day trial and got started. Having never played the game on a souped-up PC, I can't really give a comparative analysis of the speed of the game. However, I did play through the entire tutorial and ran a few "missions" and I'm confident when I say that playing EVE online with the default settings looks beautiful and turned out to be pretty darn awesome.

I notice no stuttering and only a few delays which I believe could be attributed to the game downloading content from servers as I progressed through the game. I found the game pretty enjoyable—it reminded me of a little of playing TradeWars 2002 on a BBS back in the day—and I think that casual gamers will find that the MacBook will be able to adequately run somewhat new and enjoyable 3D Windows-only games. From discussions with people more knowledgable than I, I'm also confident you should be able to play games like Second Life, The Sims 2, and World of Warcraft with tweaks the graphics options. If you were hoping to be able to play taxing games like Oblivion and Half-Life 2, you're going to be out of luck, and you'd be better off waiting for Apple's Intel workstation offerings or just buying a dedicated gaming machine.

[Josias]

Extreme! Remeber though, that the 1.83 MBP has now 2.0 GHz, so they are the same now. It has been proven though, that the MacBook has graphics inferior in any type of performance to the MBP's total powner X1600!:cool:

[shadowmoses]

This is really cool, shows that so many people slagging off the intergrated graphics are wrong....also makes a purchase of a MBP seem pretty dim unless you really need the extra screen size,

ShadOW

[QCassidy352]

This is really cool, shows that so many people slagging off the intergrated graphics are wrong....

LOL are you kidding me? Perhaps you've seen these benchmarks. (http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/firstlooks/macbookbench/index.php)

I'll give you the short version: the macbook barely beats the ibook G4 and actually LOSES to a G4 powerbook playing UT2004. The intel imac and MBP have about 3x the FPS of the macbook and the G4s (depending on exactly which one you're talking about).

Integrated graphics are complete and total ****. Any machine with 2.0 core duo should absolutely tear a single processor G4 apart. After all, that's why we went to intel, right? Instead, much lower clocked single processor G4s are running roughly equal in gaming because even the outdated card in the G4 ibook is leaps and bounds better than the GMA950.

xbench graphics scores mean nothing in terms of real world games performance.

[xyian]

"Well, that's just like, your opinion, man."

LOL are you kidding me? Perhaps you've seen these benchmarks. (http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/firstlooks/macbookbench/index.php)

xbench graphics scores mean nothing in terms of real world games performance.

[rjgonzales]

"Well, that's just like, your opinion, man."


i love that movie:p

[odedia]

Extreme! Remeber though, that the 1.83 MBP has now 2.0 GHz, so they are the same now. It has been proven though, that the MacBook has graphics inferior in any type of performance to the MBP's total powner X1600!:cool:

The X1600 is underclocked on the MBP. So it makes sense that it would be about the speed of the GMA950.

Oded S.

[telecomm]

The X1600 is underclocked on the MBP. So it makes sense that it would be about the speed of the GMA950.

Oded S.

Uhhh.... except that it's not. See the benchmarks posted above.

[andiwm2003]

........................................
Integrated graphics are complete and total ****. Any machine with 2.0 core duo should absolutely tear a single processor G4 apart. .............................


i'm getting tired of this. could you please put a qualifier on statements like this? like: Integrated graphics are complete and total **** for 3d games.

games are completely useless (although they are fun for some people). nobody really needs them (although of course many want them). therefore they are not the only standard to judge a machines performance.

the 950 is fine for everthing that's not 3d with the added benefit of creating less heat and costing next to nothing.

so your statement is correct if limited to 3d games. for the rest of the applications it's not correct.

[macenforcer]

i'm getting tired of this. could you please put a qualifier on statements like this? like: Integrated graphics are complete and total **** for 3d games.

games are completely useless (although they are fun for some people). nobody really needs them (although of course many want them). therefore they are not the only standard to judge a machines performance.

the 950 is fine for everthing that's not 3d with the added benefit of creating less heat and costing next to nothing.

so your statement is correct if limited to 3d games. for the rest of the applications it's not correct.


FINALLY! Thank you. Games should only be played on Xbox 360. This macbook ROCKS!

[decksnap]

i'm getting tired of this. could you please put a qualifier on statements like this? like: Integrated graphics are complete and total **** for 3d games.

games are completely useless (although they are fun for some people). nobody really needs them (although of course many want them). therefore they are not the only standard to judge a machines performance.

the 950 is fine for everthing that's not 3d with the added benefit of creating less heat and costing next to nothing.

so your statement is correct if limited to 3d games. for the rest of the applications it's not correct.

It's unfortunate that there is a disproportionate amount of people on this board whose priority is games...

but thank you. So sick of hearing about the graphics card.

[MacRumorUser]

It's unfortunate that there is a disproportionate amount of people on this board whose priority is games...

but thank you. So sick of hearing about the graphics card.

Agreed. Feck Games, look at the other bench results... For getting the job done the macbook rocks.

all the people grumbling over integrated & games, could you all just gather together in the corner and SOD OFF!

There's more to life than poxy doom 3 :rolleyes:

:p :p :p

[jacobj]

XBench is the most useless benchamarking tool I have enver had the misfortune to be exposed to. If a review uses it then the review must be ignored.

[telecomm]

... There's more to life than poxy doom 3 :rolleyes:

:p :p :p

...Which wouldn't run very well on a MacBook ;) :D

[Dont Hurt Me]

LOL are you kidding me? Perhaps you've seen these benchmarks. (http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/firstlooks/macbookbench/index.php)

I'll give you the short version: the macbook barely beats the ibook G4 and actually LOSES to a G4 powerbook playing UT2004. The intel imac and MBP have about 3x the FPS of the macbook and the G4s (depending on exactly which one you're talking about).

Integrated graphics are complete and total ****. Any machine with 2.0 core duo should absolutely tear a single processor G4 apart. After all, that's why we went to intel, right? Instead, much lower clocked single processor G4s are running roughly equal in gaming because even the outdated card in the G4 ibook is leaps and bounds better than the GMA950.

xbench graphics scores mean nothing in terms of real world games performance.Good post, you also can read about the cheapo Intel graphics at Inside Mac Gaming they also did a review and mind you non of these guys are even using new games but old ones like UTK4. Start throwing HL2 or Doom3 on those integrated graphics and folks will be crying that they have integrated graphics, then try throwing a new game on it like F.E.A.R. or some of the titles coming out this summer and those folks will be screaming. Integrated graphics is Apples way of making sure you will want another machine in a year or so.

[iKwick7]

"Well, that's just like, your opinion, man."


Fantastic quote! :)

[decksnap]

Integrated graphics is Apples way of making sure you will want another machine in a year or so.

Apple does not assume, like you gamers do, that the majority of their target market is gamers. And they are correct. The system they put together gives the average user the biggest bang for the buck.

[MacRumorUser]

Good post, you also can read about the cheapo Intel graphics at Inside Mac Gaming they also did a review and mind you non of these guys are even using new games but old ones like UTK4. Start throwing HL2 or Doom3 on those integrated graphics and folks will be crying that they have integrated graphics, then try throwing a new game on it like F.E.A.R. or some of the titles coming out this summer and those folks will be screaming. Integrated graphics is Apples way of making sure you will want another machine in a year or so.

Lets face it if it wasnt for bootcamp, there would be no HL2, FEAR etc....

MAC Gaming remains unaffected.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Apple does not assume, like you gamers do, that the majority of their target market is gamers. And they are correct. The system they put together gives the average user the biggest bang for the buck.
Sorry but there just isnt any Bang! in any Integrated graphics machine, please continue the spin.

[Eric5h5]

FINALLY! Thank you. Games should only be played on Xbox 360. This macbook ROCKS!

That's a very narrow and unhelpful view. Maybe you don't, but lots of people want to play games on their computer. If Apple used a real graphics card (even a relatively low-end one), the gamers would be happier, and it wouldn't negatively affect non-gamers in any way. Nobody could seriously think that cutting out part of their market for no good reason (other than some shmoozing with Intel) is a good idea, surely?

--Eric

[ManchesterTrix]

That's a very narrow and unhelpful view. Maybe you don't, but lots of people want to play games on their computer. If Apple used a real graphics card (even a relatively low-end one), the gamers would be happier, and it wouldn't negatively affect non-gamers in any way. Nobody could seriously think that cutting out part of their market for no good reason (other than some shmoozing with Intel) is a good idea, surely?

--Eric

Expense, more heat, less battery life. There's machines with solid GPUs for those that need them and machines without for those who have no need. Perhaps there is a product gap by not offering a 13.3" machine with a GPU but hell there's a product gap with the lack of a sub-notebook. Apple has always had gaps.

[atari1356]

This was already posted admid another post as a subfix, but it deserves its own thread.

and as was already pointed out in that other thread, the reason the MacBook is faster in some tests is because it's the 2GHz model, and they tested it against a 1.83GHz MacBook Pro.

Your thread title is very misleading...

[Core Trio]

The X1600 is underclocked on the MBP. So it makes sense that it would be about the speed of the GMA950.

Oded S.


I really dont think the X1600 is underclocked THAT much, just enough to reduce heat, if it was never found out by someone actually seeing the numbers I'm sure 99% of people would never even notice it was underclocked to begin with.

[ManchesterTrix]

I really dont think the X1600 is underclocked THAT much, just enough to reduce heat, if it was never found out by someone actually seeing the numbers I'm sure 99% of people would never even notice it was underclocked to begin with.

I know how much some hate to hear about games, but I did notice the underclocking when playing Oblivion. It was very unresponsive until I bumped up the clock and memory. It was also noticeable in Inventor. But you're right, the underclocked x1600 is still heads and shoulders above the GMA.

[dukebound85]

oh boy how did anyone ever live with their mac before intel since you know they couldn't play hardley any games. i think it's funny that once intel and THEN bootcamp, people all of the sudden judge a system on its gaming capability. quite funny on how this mindset has changed so quickly

[plinden]

Here's a little bit of research I did a couple of months ago: macrumors (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2227891#post2227891)

To quote myself:

I think gamers overestimate the demand for 3D games on the PC. Because that's what they and all their friends are doing, they think everyone is.

There were 210-220 million (http://www.howtoweb.com/cgi-bin/insider.pl?zone=119061) PCs sold last year, while there were 38 million (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=7832) games for the PC sold.

I don't know what the breakdown in figures are for 3D games in that 38 million, but even if it's as high as 1/2, that means only 10% of PCs are running 3D games, and I'm pretty sure it's a lot less. Battlefield 2 and Call of Duty 2 are the only FPS games in the top ten games for North America last year, and serious gamers buy more than one game a year.

Console games outsold PC games 5 to 1 in 2005.



The MacBook is more than good enough for what 95% of people do 99% of the time. On their computers, that is.

[MIDI_EVIL]

First, buy a MacBook, then get a girlfriend, you won't need to worry about running Doom 3 at ultra high resolution 5434543FPSECONDSSS!!!111one.

Rich.

[dukebound85]

Here's a little bit of research I did a couple of months ago: macrumors (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2227891#post2227891)

To quote myself:


The MacBook is more than good enough for what 95% of people do 99% of the time. On their computers, that is.

also gamers tend to buy more than one game i would think and the same is not generally true for the buying of a computer. for instance, i have had my computer for 3 years but i buy more than one console game a year

[dukebound85]

First, buy a MacBook, then get a girlfriend, you won't need to worry about running Doom 3 at ultra high resolution 5434543FPSECONDSSS!!!111one.

Rich.


or better yet get a girlfriend and then no longer be able to afford a computer

[slu]

i'm getting tired of this. could you please put a qualifier on statements like this? like: Integrated graphics are complete and total **** for 3d games.

games are completely useless (although they are fun for some people). nobody really needs them (although of course many want them). therefore they are not the only standard to judge a machines performance.

the 950 is fine for everthing that's not 3d with the added benefit of creating less heat and costing next to nothing.

so your statement is correct if limited to 3d games. for the rest of the applications it's not correct.

Well done. You all can call it "spin" all you want, but that fact is that this Macbook is superior to the iBook G4 in every way for 99% of the target users of this product.

Hardcore PC Gamers, as much as you all hate to admit it, ARE A NICHE MARKET. Many more people buy computers and NEVER play a game on it than do. If you think a $1000 laptop made by anyone can be a "serious" gaming machine, please pass what you are smoking this way.

If you must game on an Apple Laptop, buy a MBP. That is one of the reasons they are there. I am so sick of this video card bitching. It is almost worse than the old Powerbook G5 discussions.

[/dev/toaster]

Let me see a MB run BF:2 like the MBP can. Guess what, it can't. The game requires a 128MB card, just like many games coming out now.

Beyond that, I want to see some benchmarks running WoW.

[Core Trio]

I know how much some hate to hear about games, but I did notice the underclocking when playing Oblivion. It was very unresponsive until I bumped up the clock and memory. It was also noticeable in Inventor. But you're right, the underclocked x1600 is still heads and shoulders above the GMA.


how did your MBP run after you bumped up the clockspeed? Did the heat get worse or battery time decrease?

[slu]

Let me see a MB run BF:2 like the MBP can. Guess what, it can't. The game requires a 128MB card, just like many games coming out now.

Beyond that, I want to see some benchmarks running WoW.

So what? You want to run BF:2, get a MBP.

Dell has sold millions of PCs over the years with integrated graphics...and you know what gamers do? They don't buy them. They buy PCs for their needs, which is NEVER the least expensive option.

If you buy a Macbook or a $1000 Dell or whatever for $1000 and you expect to be able to run the latest games on it, you are either ignornat or crazy.

[slu]

Here's a little bit of research I did a couple of months ago: macrumors (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2227891#post2227891)

To quote myself:


The MacBook is more than good enough for what 95% of people do 99% of the time. On their computers, that is.

I am glad someone took the time to prove that gamers are a minority in the overall market. This should be required reading before people complain about the graphics on the Macbook and 3D gaming.

Thanks for your efforts.

[Core Trio]

So what? You want to run BF:2, get a MBP.

Dell has sold millions of PCs over the years with integrated graphics...and you know what gamers do? They don't buy them. They buy PCs for their needs, which is NEVER the least expensive option.

If you buy a Macbook or a $1000 Dell or whatever for $1000 and you expect to be able to run the latest games on it, you are either ignornat or or crazy.


I dont think he was complaining about the MB but just making a case against the title of this thread.

You do have a point tho that more people around here should consider

[MacRumorUser]

ITS A MAC!!!!!

MOST MAC USERS WONT BE RUNNING WINDOWS ON IT - EVER!!!!
MOST MAC USERS WONT THEREFORE BE RUNNING BF2, HL2 OR FEAR.....

WANT THOSE ON A 13" BUY A PC......

Since when did a 2 month old piece of software, capable of running a competitors operating system suddenly become the be all and end all of an APPLE MAC laptop?

Dont like the fact it has integrated, fair enough, dont buy it, no ones forcing you, gaming so so important then you should look at pc full stop.

Gaming has and never will be important to the majority of Apple consumers..

[ManchesterTrix]

So what? You want to run BF:2, get a MBP.

Dell has sold millions of PCs over the years with integrated graphics...and you know what gamers do? They don't buy them. They buy PCs for their needs, which is NEVER the least expensive option.

If you buy a Macbook or a $1000 Dell or whatever for $1000 and you expect to be able to run the latest games on it, you are either ignornat or crazy.

Yes, but I think he's contending that the Macbook is not faster/superior than the Macbook Pro which is what the intent of this thread seems to be.

[ManchesterTrix]

how did your MBP run after you bumped up the clockspeed? Did the heat get worse or battery time decrease?

No idea about the battery as I pretty much run off of power always, but it did increase the heat, I haven't taken the time to measure it though.

[kugino]

gamers are the biggest whiners...never satistifed because they always need/want the newest and fastest. had apple put an x1400 there would be a ton of people complaining that "for just a little bit more they could have put the x1600"...when does it end? never, if you're a gamer :rolleyes:

if you're so seriously into games, get a real gaming machine. if i wanted a serious pro laptop that ran all the final cut studio apps well, i'd go for the macbook pros, not whine about how the macbook doesn't run those apps. sheesh...

[ManchesterTrix]

gamers are the biggest whiners...never satistifed because they always need/want the newest and fastest. had apple put an x1400 there would be a ton of people complaining that "for just a little bit more they could have put the x1600"...when does it end? never, if you're a gamer :rolleyes:

if you're so seriously into games, get a real gaming machine. if i wanted a serious pro laptop that ran all the final cut studio apps well, i'd go for the macbook pros, not whine about how the macbook doesn't run those apps. sheesh...

There'd probably be less whining if people wern't trying to prove the equality/superiority of the Macbook like in this thread.

[MacRumorUser]

Yes, but I think he's contending that the Macbook is not faster/superior than the Macbook Pro which is what the intent of this thread seems to be.

Actually thread title is a little misleading. My intent with the thread was to stop all the bitching and slagging off of a very capable laptop from apple.

I like the macbookpro and will be ordering a 17" model at the end of summer, but people were slagging off the macbook left right and center, almost making it sound like it was turd steve job squezed out.....

For most apps it will be as fast as a macbook pro, so how does that make it rubbish all of a sudden?

People bring up PC games and saying the macbook is unsuitable to play them, get over it. If apple hadnt released boot camp it would be a total non issue, and gaming really isnt that important to the vast majority of apple consumers. So by adding itegrated, doesnt suddenly turn a lovely laptop into a piece of crap, because it wont play somthing 99% of mac users would never be playing anyway....

I appologise if the thread lead you to believe I was slagging off the macbook pro because I wasnt. Just wanted to shut the bloody whiners up, which you have to agree is a worthy cause.

[slu]

Yes, but I think he's contending that the Macbook is not faster/superior than the Macbook Pro which is what the intent of this thread seems to be.

Point taken and I agree. I guess I too am getting emotional on this topic and it is affecting my reading comprehension. :)

[kugino]

There'd probably be less whining if people wern't trying to prove the equality/superiority of the Macbook like in this thread.
agreed.

i certainly don't think the MB is better than the MB pro. i'd certainly love an express card slot on my MB as well as an illuminated keyboard, but i can live w/out those things. i think people are generally happy about the performance of the MB relative to the performance of the MBP for MOST things (3D gaming excluded, of course), so people think it's a good deal. i think it's a good deal, but were i to need better graphics and an express card slot, the MBP would be the choice.

[MacRumorUser]

Point taken and I agree. I guess I too am getting emotional on this topic and it is affecting my reading comprehension. :)

Wasnt the point of my thread, I just wanted people to stop bitching on the macbook, by end of the summer I'll have both laptops 17" MBP and 13.3" MB

I think people should be celebrating apple launching a very competative laptop onto the market that is far bette than the model it replaced.

But hey, my message got out wrong...... sorry.....

Cant we agree... WHINNERS ****!!!!

[decksnap]

Sorry but there just isnt any Bang! in any Integrated graphics machine, please continue the spin.

I don't need to spin- I only need to look at the processor to know there's more Bang! in the Macbook than any iBook in history.

[cait-sith]

WTF are you all talking about gaming on a 13" consumer laptop?

Would you buy a 12000$ hyundai accent and then complain that it's not suited for racing?

I think ya'll like to argue.

[BornAgainMac]

I'll give you the short version: the macbook barely beats the ibook G4 and actually LOSES to a G4 powerbook playing UT2004.

That means Integrated Graphics does pretty good. The Powerbook G4 had a pretty good GPU and a pro laptop that was out less than 6 months ago and Integrated Graphics almost owned it but was 3 FPS short.

[bbrosemer]

OMG stop posting biased results and anyone who actually looked at the article and saw that it was a 2.0 vs a 1.83 I congratulate you everyone else shame shame shame on you. Also PUT a GB in these not 512ehh.

[MacRumorUser]

OMG stop posting biased results and anyone who actually looked at the article and saw that it was a 2.0 vs a 1.83 I congratulate you everyone else shame shame shame on you. Also PUT a GB in these not 512ehh.

Read my above comments. I agree after reading the thread title when I first posted it was misleading, just wanted the bitching to stop on the macbook.

[plinden]

I think what some people are taking issue with is, before the new Mini was introduced, Mac users sneered at integrated graphics because we thought it was inferior. Then there was a shift the other way.

For some Mac users, this may be because Apple can do no wrong - people like that are annoying no matter whether they're Mac or PC users.

However, for most people (well me - and I am most people, in case you didn't know) it was "hunh? Integrated graphics? Crap". Then we see the benchmarks and see that it's not too bad ... in fact it's pretty good ... for what we actually use our computers for. And we come to the conclusion that it's pretty good for what you pay.

But the IIG-haters just can't get past "integrated graphics". They can't get past the one benchmark (framerate). It doesn't matter that you can't play Doom 3 on a $1100 PC laptop (e.g. Dell E1405) either, or that the MacBook is as fast at CPU tasks as the MBP and faster than any PC at the same price point.

The rest of us, who have reached the acceptance stage, can point to benchmarks showing Photoshop, iMovie, Cinema4D and iTunes and hundreds of other applications being CPU bound and not GPU bound, till we're blue in the face. It's not going to change the opinion "Don't Hurt Me" etc.

[MacRumorUser]

I think what some people are taking issue with is, before the new Mini was introduced, Mac users sneered at integrated graphics because we thought it was inferior. Then there was a shift the other way.

For some Mac users, this may be because Apple can do no wrong - people like that are annoying no matter whether they're Mac or PC users.

However, for most people (well me - and I am most people, in case you didn't know) it was "hunh? Integrated graphics? Crap". Then we see the benchmarks and see that it's not too bad ... in fact it's pretty good ... for what we actually use our computers for. And we come to the conclusion that it's pretty good for what you pay.

But the IIG-haters just can't get past "integrated graphics". They can't get past the one benchmark (framerate). It doesn't matter that you can't play Doom 3 on a $1100 PC laptop (e.g. Dell E1405) either, or that the MacBook is as fast at CPU tasks as the MBP and faster than any PC at the same price point.

The rest of us, who have reached the acceptance stage, can point to benchmarks showing Photoshop, iMovie, Cinema4D and iTunes and hundreds of other applications being CPU bound and not GPU bound, till we're blue in the face. It's not going to change the opinion "Don't Hurt Me" etc.

Couldnt agree more. Thanks for posting some sense :)

[milo]

This title IS pretty misleading.

Although it does put things into perspective that the new MPB IS faster at some benchmarks than the MPB that Apple was selling up until a few days ago for hundreds more.

Other than gaming, this is a pretty great machine, at an excellent price.

[andiwm2003]

I think what some people are taking issue with is, before the new Mini was introduced, Mac users sneered at integrated graphics because we thought it was inferior. Then there was a shift the other way.

For some Mac users, this may be because Apple can do no wrong - people like that are annoying no matter whether they're Mac or PC users.

However, for most people (well me - and I am most people, in case you didn't know) it was "hunh? Integrated graphics? Crap". Then we see the benchmarks and see that it's not too bad ... in fact it's pretty good ... for what we actually use our computers for. And we come to the conclusion that it's pretty good for what you pay.

But the IIG-haters just can't get past "integrated graphics". They can't get past the one benchmark (framerate). It doesn't matter that you can't play Doom 3 on a $1100 PC laptop (e.g. Dell E1405) either, or that the MacBook is as fast at CPU tasks as the MBP and faster than any PC at the same price point.

The rest of us, who have reached the acceptance stage, can point to benchmarks showing Photoshop, iMovie, Cinema4D and iTunes and hundreds of other applications being CPU bound and not GPU bound, till we're blue in the face. It's not going to change the opinion "Don't Hurt Me" etc.

that is the best and most reasonable summary of what's going on with integrated graphics that i've read on this topic.

thanks, andi

[MacBookDJ]

Apple certainly realized that the integrated vs. non-integrated graphics question would generate a lot of discussion. Those who keep saying that the MacBook is "crap" because of the graphics are playing right into the hands of Apple's marketing machine... by persuading people to go with the MacBook Pro instead (for many extra $$) when they probably don't rally need to. The MacBook certainly performs graphics tasks well enough for most average users... but all the FUD keeps many from understanding that.

Hey, I'm sure we'll see a graphics update down the road for the MacBooks, probably when the Pros are upgraded to a different processor, but that doesn't make today's MacBook automatically "crap."

[MacRumorUser]

This title IS pretty misleading.

Although it does put things into perspective that the new MPB IS faster at some benchmarks than the MPB that Apple was selling up until a few days ago for hundreds more.

Other than gaming, this is a pretty great machine, at an excellent price.

I changed the starting thread to reflect this miss understanding unfortunetly you cant change thread topic titles after the event.

[bbrosemer]

People read the aritcle before you judge the MacBook Pro, because the last time I checked my old dell desktop os faster then my new dell desktop... O yeah thats because there are 2 xeons in the desktop and a p 4 in the new