PDA

View Full Version : Apple Migrating to NVIDIA Chipsets in new MacBooks




MacRumors
Oct 11, 2008, 10:05 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Appleinsider reports (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/10/11/apple_dumping_intel_chipsets_for_nvidias_in_new_macbooks.html) that they have "confirmed" that the new MacBooks will utilize NVIDIA's new MCP79 platform. While Intel will continue to supply the main processor for Apple's notebooks, the underlying support chips will be made by NVIDIA:Kept uncharacteristically secret by NVIDIA for most of the year, the MCP79 platform is so far considered a substitute for Intel's Centrino 2 "Montevina" platform, offering support for the same 1066MHz front side bus, optional DDR3 memory and PCI Express 2.0 interfaces.
AppleInsider lists several design advantages over Intel's chipset, including:

- Smaller physical size using one chip rather than two
- DriveCache, which uses Flash storage to speed up boot times
- Hybrid SLI which switches from discrete to integrated graphics when battery is low

Apple may or may not choose to take advantage of these technologies, but the option exists. The biggest advantage in using the NVIDIA chipset, however, will be its enhanced graphics capabilities.

NVIDIA is believed to use a new set of GeForce 9300 and 9400 series integrated GPUs which "will theoretically blow past" the Intel integrated graphics chipsets that currently power Apple's MacBooks. Still, the integrated graphics chipsets will lag behind the dedicated ones that are used in Apple's higher-end notebooks. The use of NVIDIA chipsets will also be of importance when Apple releases Snow Leopard, which will be able to offload general processing onto GPUs.

While there had been speculation (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=598) that Apple might adopt NVIDIA's chipsets, MacSoda first reported (http://macsoda.com/2008/09/18/new-nvidia-chipset-for-use-in-new-macbook/) confidently that the chipset would be NVIDIA's.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/10/11/apple-migrating-to-nvidia-chipsets-in-new-macbooks/)



Eidorian
Oct 11, 2008, 10:06 PM
Must wait until it hits the refurb store to buy one...

11800506
Oct 11, 2008, 10:08 PM
Well that is really great news then!

Clayne
Oct 11, 2008, 10:09 PM
Must wait until it hits the refurb store to buy one...

Haha, can you do that?

I don't think I can wait..

Orlandooo
Oct 11, 2008, 10:09 PM
Ooooh how sneaky, deleting my post and correcting the mistake!

Anyway, this sounds like the update should be worthwhile, even if one of the main improvements (general processing on GPUs) is only evident when Snow Leopard arrives!

ChrisN
Oct 11, 2008, 10:11 PM
Sounds awesome and do you think you could run some year old games like TF2 at a decent framerate like 50-60 maybe 70?

ChrisN

Eidorian
Oct 11, 2008, 10:13 PM
Sounds awesome and do you think you could run some year old games like TF2 at a decent framerate like 50-60 maybe 70?

ChrisNHalf-Life 2 gets about 30 FPS at 1280 x 800 and Medium/High settings on my GMA X3100. Keep in mind I'm using Intel's latest drivers.

MasterNile
Oct 11, 2008, 10:15 PM
This is very interesting and probably the best reason (for me) to get a new MB

EDIT-but I'll probably wait to get it refurbished as well

Merkuryy
Oct 11, 2008, 10:15 PM
Good!!!! That mean we'll have MB as Tony Parker, and MBP as Lebron James. MB does not got as much power and strength as MBP, but got enough speed to do things well, While MBP still got potential power to achieve more duty:cool:

blashphemy
Oct 11, 2008, 10:20 PM
wow, big diss to Intel :P I can't understand how Apple can do this, considering Apple's big thing has been "our things just work", not "high-performance" - nVidia had that big manufacturing flub with a rather large number of their chips including, as I recall, some that were in MacBook Pros? Intel has been making extremely reliable chips for some time now.

portishead
Oct 11, 2008, 10:20 PM
It would be great to see Apple move away form integrated graphics. I hope they do the same for the Mac Mini.

DsurioN
Oct 11, 2008, 10:21 PM
Awesome! Bring on Tuesday 1 PM EST! :D

ChrisN
Oct 11, 2008, 10:23 PM
Half-Life 2 gets about 30 FPS at 1280 x 800 and Medium/High settings on my GMA X3100. Keep in mind I'm using Intel's latest drivers.

Does TF2 run the same or does it take more power, but 30 on X3100 sounds good so on a Nvidia hopefully 50 :)

ChrisN

NewSc2
Oct 11, 2008, 10:24 PM
Are there any benchmarks or tests comparing the GeForce 9300/9400 GPUs to the Intel ones and the current MBP dedicated graphics cards?

Twenty5
Oct 11, 2008, 10:25 PM
Hopefully these new Nvidia chipsets wont self implode like those 8600M's did haha....

Seriously... i hope they dont...:confused:

NintendoChick
Oct 11, 2008, 10:25 PM
Sweet! Better graphics will be a huge plus with the MacBooks...

Eric S.
Oct 11, 2008, 10:26 PM
This has to be the worst-kept secret of the year.

Eidorian
Oct 11, 2008, 10:27 PM
Does TF2 run the same or does it take more power, but 30 on X3100 sounds good so on a Nvidia hopefully 50 :)

ChrisNI don't have TF 2 to test out otherwise I would.

Are there any benchmarks or tests comparing the GeForce 9300/9400 GPUs to the Intel ones and the current MBP dedicated graphics cards?I'd take a look at the 8400M GS benchmarks. It's the same GPU.

Hopefully these new Nvidia chipsets wont self implode like those 8600M's did haha....

Seriously... i hope they dont...:confused:It's a new batch and a different GPU but there's still that slight worry isn't there?

MasterNile
Oct 11, 2008, 10:29 PM
This has to be the worst-kept secret of the year.

lol I think someone is forgetting the new iPods ;)

Jak3
Oct 11, 2008, 10:30 PM
these are still integrated...good news that it's NVidia though

Eric S.
Oct 11, 2008, 10:31 PM
It would be great to see Apple move away form integrated graphics. I hope they do the same for the Mac Mini.

The Macbook (as opposed to the Macbook Pro) will still have integrated graphics and it should. That's a big factor in Apple being able to reduce the price.

Eidorian
Oct 11, 2008, 10:34 PM
these are still integrated...good news that it's NVidia thoughA 8400M GPU built into the MCP79 chipset and the option to include dedicated VRAM.

vixapphire
Oct 11, 2008, 10:34 PM
nice to see the macrumors folks are apparently working overtime in advance of this laptop update. nice work!

ventro
Oct 11, 2008, 10:36 PM
nvidia is unreliable. steer clear apple!

winterspan
Oct 11, 2008, 10:37 PM
Are there any benchmarks or tests comparing the GeForce 9300/9400 GPUs to the Intel ones and the current MBP dedicated graphics cards?

The Geforce 9100M is the only currently known integrated/motherboard graphics chipset for nVidia laptop motherboards. According to the rumors, the macbook 'MCP79' board will have a new integrated graphics chipset based on the discrete Geforce 9300M (there actually isn't a "9400M" -- the marketing name refers to teh combination of a 9300M and an integrated chipset running together in parallel "Hybrid SLI" mode). What performance and specifications it will have, we don't know yet. If I were to guess, I'd bet the performance will similar to the existing "9300M G" discrete card (which would be nearly 2X as fast as the latest Intel GMA).

Also, for the MB Pro, hopefully it also uses an nVidia board and Apple implements their "Hybrid Power" technology. It will allow the Macbook Pro to turn off it's discrete GPU when not in heavy use and use the integrated chipset instead to save power.

I put together this graphic just to serve as a rough performance comparison between nVidia's latest mobile GPU generation.

notes:
- On the graph I included the 8600GT which is the current Macbook Pro card to show as comparison. I believe the current Macbook uses the GMA X3100.
- SP stands for "Stream Processors" (shaders) which are the SIMD processing units that make up a nVidia's modern GPUs.
- Nvidia GPUs have three separate clock frequencies -- one each for the main clock, shader processor clock, and memory clock. On the graph, only the shader clock is listed.
- 3DMark05 and 3DMark06 are standard graphics performance benchmarks.
- I did the best I could and double-checked the data, but I can not make *ANY GUARANTEES* about the accuracy of the information on the chart.

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/839/nvidiagraphicsxx7.png

BigD58
Oct 11, 2008, 10:38 PM
Awesome! This is great news. Could you imagine the possibilities.....good games actually come to mac??:eek:

queshy
Oct 11, 2008, 10:40 PM
I think it's all about timing. The MacBooks released next week will probably be the ones that will power Snow Leopard for a lot of us. Makes sense to put a semi-capable card in there...

winterspan
Oct 11, 2008, 10:40 PM
For the people who say "Why does the Macbook/Macbook Pro need decent graphics capability? Just buy a gaming PC" ---

1) Graphics acceleration is NOT limited to gaming. First of all, the entire OSX interface runs on OpenGL. More importantly, professional video/graphics applications (based on CoreImage and other frameworks) utilize OpenGL for accelerated graphics processing and rendering. Remember the "Pro" in Macbook Pro?? 3D modeling, animation, CAD/CAM, video editing, compositing, etc all need decent graphics acceleration. Even Photoshop is supposedly going to be hardware accelerated in CS4.

2) Apple's OpenCL will make it much easier for applications to utilize the parallel processing capability of modern GPUs to offload certain types of processing.

3) Many people CAN'T AFFORD buying a dedicated computer just for gaming AND a Macbook/MB Pro. They want ONE device that can do it all.

4) nVidia's graphics chipsets have much better hardware HD video decoding than Intel's GMA. The image quality and enhancement features are better (iDCT, deinterlacing, upscaling, etc) and they use a lot less CPU power during decoding. (Even hardware video decoding uses some CPU time.. and the amount depends on the implementation. AMD's GPUs are even better than nVidia in this regard)

mpb2000
Oct 11, 2008, 10:40 PM
So, with the "optional DDR3 memory" what are we looking at for user-installed memory options? I'm certainly no hardware genius when it comes to computers, but I have been planning on buying my own memory and upgrading, since, as everyone knows, Apple charges ridiculous amounts of money for the same memory. I know DDR3 is going to cost more and, at least currently, is worse on latency, so does this chipset allow for DDR2 and DDR3 memory? I suppose we'll have to wait and see if the new notebooks will accept the same memory as the old ones. I need to buy my Crucial memory!

winterspan
Oct 11, 2008, 10:41 PM
nVidia had that big manufacturing flub with a rather large number of their chips including, as I recall, some that were in MacBook Pros? Intel has been making extremely reliable chips for some time now.
nvidia is unreliable. steer clear apple!

They had a manufacturing issue with solder that would fail at high heat levels and have since switched to a different material without the problems. The units that are having problems are months to years old. Especially given their $250 million write-down for repairs, I'm sure they've made sure everything is working correctly.

portishead
Oct 11, 2008, 10:41 PM
The Macbook (as opposed to the Macbook Pro) will still have integrated graphics and it should. That's a big factor in Apple being able to reduce the price.

I should have said Intel graphics, not integrated. But yeah...

ChrisN
Oct 11, 2008, 10:42 PM
Imagine the 9800GTX or one of the newer ATI 4800 series in the pro, now that would be a pro laptop

ChrisN

scottintosh
Oct 11, 2008, 10:44 PM
The current video processor is one of the reasons I waited several months for this update.. Im excited!!

Raptura
Oct 11, 2008, 10:45 PM
I Better Get My Job Soon! Call Me You Morons!!!!!

Aranince
Oct 11, 2008, 10:47 PM
Awesome! This is great news. Could you imagine the possibilities.....good games actually come to mac??:eek:

Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are coming to Mac the same time it's coming to PC. Blizzard rocks!

winterspan
Oct 11, 2008, 10:49 PM
Imagine the 9800GTX or one of the newer ATI 4800 series in the pro, now that would be a pro laptop
ChrisN

No that would make a gaming laptop. A real professional laptop aka mobile workstation should have a mobile nVidia Quadro or ATI FireGL card option. It's actually odd that Apple doesn't offer a MB Pro Quadro card considering its not only a "pro" laptop, but the Mac Pro has one so obviously driver issues regarding the extended OpenGL feature set and application certifications have already been worked out for CAD/CAM/3d animation/etc.

Does anyone know why Apple doesn't offer a professional OpenGL card (nVidia Quadro, ATI FireGL, et al ) for the Macbook Pro? Have they done it in the past for a Powerbook or other laptop?

mathcolo
Oct 11, 2008, 10:50 PM
Now my current MacBook will be highly obsolete.:(

Mr. Bubbles
Oct 11, 2008, 10:54 PM
this is interesting! I wonder if the consumer level video capabilities will now be equal to, or outpace my first gen MBP!

It makes sense that they would have more powerful chipsets to handle all that blu ray video! *crosses fingers* :rolleyes:

jincongz
Oct 11, 2008, 10:56 PM
Now I officially cry... My macbook seems so ancient now.

elpenguino
Oct 11, 2008, 10:57 PM
Awesome! This is great news. Could you imagine the possibilities.....good games actually come to mac??:eek:

Seems like things are going that way. It looks like they're trying to get into gaming with the iPod Touch. Besides, why not get into the gaming market a little more seriously? In these times of woe and want, who doesn't want to forget their troubles by blowing stuff up?

MasterNile
Oct 11, 2008, 10:58 PM
Now I officially cry... My macbook seems so ancient now.

lol your MacBook is not ancient...not till tuesday :p

NewMacbookPlz
Oct 11, 2008, 10:59 PM
sa-weet!!!

This was why I held out past the current generation...I was praying for the harkening back to iBook days where we had the dedicated ATI Mobility 9200 :cool::apple:

I'll be at teh store the day they're available....yes.

CD3660
Oct 11, 2008, 11:01 PM
Now my current MacBook will be highly obsolete.:(

Such is the cost of progress. You could always sell it and cut your losses, then get a new one. :)

Abstract
Oct 11, 2008, 11:02 PM
I think I'll wait for Rev B.

MasterNile
Oct 11, 2008, 11:03 PM
I think I'll wait for Rev B.

I figure I'll wait till they've got them refurbished, by then most of the faults with the Rev A will be known and if they seem too much then I indeed will be waiting for Rev B with you as well

Jak3
Oct 11, 2008, 11:14 PM
A 8400M GPU built into the MCP79 chipset and the option to include dedicated VRAM.

really? so we'll have a dedicated-integrated video card lol :D

err...VRAM is your GPU accessing your ram to work faster IIRC, right? if so, it could help, until the 8400 can't be pushed any farther or bottlenecking occurs...

remember that pipes and shaders are just as/more important as megabites when talking about GPUs

either way, this will blow the current integrated intels out of the water:D

ztigerpaw
Oct 11, 2008, 11:14 PM
It would be great to see Apple move away form integrated graphics. I hope they do the same for the Mac Mini.

I'd get a newer Mac Mini if they did that. I still got the G4.

mac jones
Oct 11, 2008, 11:20 PM
Gee, lets' see

Nvidia **** up unbelievably yet Apple has already signed on and it's just to late to bail out on these losers.

So lets all Beta test the junk folks

No seriously it should be great (crosses fingers)

:D

gmoney550
Oct 11, 2008, 11:25 PM
Now the gap between the macbook and macbook pro diminishes...

SirOmega
Oct 11, 2008, 11:26 PM
I always thought it was odd to go with nVidia for one generation of laptops (and possibly iMacs now as well), and then have to turn back to Intel next year with the mobile nehalem chips arrive.

nVidia doesnt have and probably will never get a license for them to be able to make chipsets for the Nehalem-based chips. So when the mobile versions come out, Apple pretty much has to go back to an Intel-based chipset and their craptacular integrated graphics.

Now maybe Apple is doing this to send a message to Intel - get off your ****ing ass and make integrated graphics not suck. Intel's huge attempt to get into graphics (Larabee) wont arrive until at least 2010 for laptops - discrete and integrated. Maybe Intel gets their act together for the mobile 5-series chipset and makes the integrated video at least as good as the 9300M we'll see in the new MacBooks. We can only hope.

scottintosh
Oct 11, 2008, 11:35 PM
err...VRAM is your GPU accessing your ram to work faster IIRC, right? if so, it could help, until the 8400 can't be pushed any farther or bottlenecking occurs...



VRAM is video ram. Dedicated video cards have built in vram. Integrated cards usually share regular system RAM. sharing system RAM is much slower than having dedicated Video ram built into the video card.

Jak3
Oct 11, 2008, 11:39 PM
VRAM is video ram. Dedicated video cards have built in vram. Integrated cards usually share regular system RAM. sharing system RAM is much slower than having dedicated Video ram built into the video card.

so what the other poster was saying was that there's the option for the integrated GFX card to share it's space in the system with a dedicated GFX card?

I can see that happening since integrated cards take up nearly no space, there would be room for a dedicated alongside it...

fteter
Oct 11, 2008, 11:40 PM
Hot Dawg. A new nVidia GPU to BBQ in the new and improved MB - sounds like a potential repeat of the current MBP/nVidia issue. From a reliability perspective, my faith in nVidia today is almost zip. Wish they'd gone with the Intel chipset...maybe providing a BTO option for the nVidia GPU for the "risk takers".

iMacmatician
Oct 11, 2008, 11:40 PM
This basically guarantees midrange GPUs (9600M/9650M) in the MacBook Pro, unless the distinction between them will be more diverse (case, CPU, RAM, HDD, GPU, display) than now (case, GPU, display). Hope that doesn't include goodies like the glass trackpad.

It's actually odd that Apple doesn't offer a MB Pro Quadro card considering its not only a "pro" laptop, but the Mac Pro has one so obviously driver issues regarding the extended OpenGL feature set and application certifications have already been worked out for CAD/CAM/3d animation/etc.

Does anyone know why Apple doesn't offer a professional OpenGL card (nVidia Quadro, ATI FireGL, et al ) for the Macbook Pro?So it seems that the MacBook Pro is not really a pro notebook.

chadder007
Oct 11, 2008, 11:40 PM
I can't believe they are going with NVidia chipsets after all of the problems NVidia has had with the GPU's failing like crazy these past few months.
:(

chadder007
Oct 11, 2008, 11:41 PM
Hot Dawg. A new nVidia GPU to BBQ in the new and improved MBP. From a reliability perspective, my faith in nVidia today is almost zip. Wish they'd gone with the Intel chipset...maybe providing a BTO option for the nVidia GPU for the "risk takers".

werd.

Eidorian
Oct 11, 2008, 11:41 PM
so what the other poster was saying was that there's the option for the integrated GFX card to share it's space in the system with a dedicated GFX card?

I can see that happening since integrated cards take up nearly no space, there would be room for a dedicated alongside it...The MCP79 has the option to have dedicated VRAM even if it is an integrated solution. This is in addition to just sharing system RAM.

There's also the option to have the MCP79 and a dedicated nVidia GPU as well.

Bitslong
Oct 11, 2008, 11:48 PM
So, with the "optional DDR3 memory" what are we looking at for user-installed memory options? I'm certainly no hardware genius when it comes to computers, but I have been planning on buying my own memory and upgrading, since, as everyone knows, Apple charges ridiculous amounts of money for the same memory. I know DDR3 is going to cost more and, at least currently, is worse on latency, so does this chipset allow for DDR2 and DDR3 memory? I suppose we'll have to wait and see if the new notebooks will accept the same memory as the old ones. I need to buy my Crucial memory!

In the same boat, want to buy RAM now due to poor AU$ and current cheap prices.

My guess is that we'll see DDR2-800Mhz being utilised in these new laptops (currently DDR2-667Mhz).
Early adopters will be finding out about compatibility for us. Lets hope the Nvidia chipsets are more forgiving of RAM.

hdhanani
Oct 11, 2008, 11:49 PM
Must wait until it hits the refurb store to buy one...

I will have the money by mid December to buy one so I will go this route as well if I can find the right refurb model...

tonyl
Oct 11, 2008, 11:50 PM
The cost of NVIDIA chipset is also low. No firewire in the low end Macbooks?

mneblett
Oct 11, 2008, 11:54 PM
Now I officially cry... My macbook seems so ancient now.If it makes you feel better, you're still lightyears ahead of my 7 year old Titanium PowerBook and its whopping .867GHz CPU. ;)

Yeah, I'm REALLY ready for an update.

SirOmega
Oct 11, 2008, 11:55 PM
The cost of NVIDIA chipset is also low. No firewire in the low end Macbooks?

Possible - did the leaked case pictures show FW on the MB model? I've got a FW drive I use for time machine and I'd be pissed if I had to get rid of it.

clarksonknight
Oct 11, 2008, 11:57 PM
Now I officially cry... My macbook seems so ancient now.

*ahem* Your MACBook is ancient?? Try rolling with an iBook and you'll truly know the meaning of ancient.

Jak3
Oct 12, 2008, 12:01 AM
The MCP79 has the option to have dedicated VRAM even if it is an integrated solution. This is in addition to just sharing system RAM.

There's also the option to have the MCP79 and a dedicated nVidia GPU as well.

So basically, lot's of options, hopefully some of them BTO (I'd love to have a dedicated GFX card in a MB...unless of course a 13" MBP comes out, that would be a deal sealer for me)

macbooker15
Oct 12, 2008, 12:01 AM
The Geforce 9100M is the only currently known integrated/motherboard graphics chipset for nVidia laptop motherboards. According to the rumors, the macbook 'MCP79' board will have a new integrated graphics chipset based on the discrete Geforce 9300M (there actually isn't a "9400M" -- the marketing name refers to teh combination of a 9300M and an integrated chipset running together in parallel "Hybrid SLI" mode). What performance and specifications it will have, we don't know yet. If I were to guess, I'd bet the performance will similar to the existing "9300M G" discrete card (which would be nearly 2X as fast as the latest Intel GMA).

Also, for the MB Pro, hopefully it also uses an nVidia board and Apple implements their "Hybrid Power" technology. It will allow the Macbook Pro to turn off it's discrete GPU when not in heavy use and use the integrated chipset instead to save power.

I put together this graphic just to serve as a rough performance comparison between nVidia's latest mobile GPU generation.

notes:
- On the graph I included the 8600GT which is the current Macbook Pro card to show as comparison. I believe the current Macbook uses the GMA X3100.
- SP stands for "Stream Processors" (shaders) which are the SIMD processing units that make up a nVidia's modern GPUs.
- Nvidia GPUs have three separate clock frequencies -- one each for the main clock, shader processor clock, and memory clock. On the graph, only the shader clock is listed.
- 3DMark05 and 3DMark06 are standard graphics performance benchmarks.
- I did the best I could and double-checked the data, but I can not make *ANY GUARANTEES* about the accuracy of the information on the chart.

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/839/nvidiagraphicsxx7.png

Great job on that chart.

This is a major jump for apple, but I definitely don't want them to become just another laptop maker(or even :eek: just an iPod company!)

EDIT: That didn't really make much sense did it?

Eidorian
Oct 12, 2008, 12:16 AM
So basically, lot's of options, hopefully some of them BTO (I'd love to have a dedicated GFX card in a MB...unless of course a 13" MBP comes out, that would be a deal sealer for me)The MacBook will probably just stick with the IGP on the chipset. The MacBook Pro might have both an IGP and dedicated soltuion and be able to swap on demand.

tonyl
Oct 12, 2008, 12:19 AM
Possible - did the leaked case pictures show FW on the MB model? I've got a FW drive I use for time machine and I'd be pissed if I had to get rid of it.

The Air doesn't have FW either.

SirOmega
Oct 12, 2008, 12:24 AM
The Air doesn't have FW either.

I'm not interested in an Air, I'm interested in a regular MB.

Also, Intel's chipset doesn't have FW support either, it does it with a separate chip.

booksacool1
Oct 12, 2008, 01:00 AM
Wow, if the MB gets a 9300M G/GS based card, capable of getting almost 2000 3dmark06 points, it'll be almost as fast as my old 6800gt once was. Amazing. :eek:

Then you really will be able to play games on the MB.

months
Oct 12, 2008, 01:10 AM
Must wait until it hits the refurb store to buy one...

This is very interesting and probably the best reason (for me) to get a new MB

EDIT-but I'll probably wait to get it refurbished as well


Why do you guys want to get a refurb? Just cause it's cheaper? I definitely can't wait, an Apple store is 2 minutes from where I live in Toronto, I'm for sure going to be there right when it opens just on the chance that they might become available on the 14th.

wheelhot
Oct 12, 2008, 01:12 AM
To: winterspan

See, I told you when people mention GPU in MacBooks the first thing came into their mind is games..games and games.

I understand your point of having a proper GPU and I support with you in that but the problem is people kept thinking that the MBP should have the best mobile GPU and what's their reason? Games.

What games they want to play? High-end games.

Yeah, I guess Apple definition of Pro here doesn't refer to engineering usage, maybe for art and photo use?

MasterNile
Oct 12, 2008, 01:16 AM
Why do you guys want to get a refurb? Just cause it's cheaper? I definitely can't wait, an Apple store is 2 minutes from where I live in Toronto, I'm for sure going to be there right when it opens just on the chance that they might become available on the 14th.

Besides the lower price, and not NEEDING one immediately
I figure I'll wait till they've got them refurbished, by then most of the faults with the Rev A will be known and if they seem too much then I indeed will be waiting for Rev B

So basically...I'm waiting for the MR community to be the guinea pigs lol

Eidorian
Oct 12, 2008, 01:22 AM
Why do you guys want to get a refurb? Just cause it's cheaper? I definitely can't wait, an Apple store is 2 minutes from where I live in Toronto, I'm for sure going to be there right when it opens just on the chance that they might become available on the 14th.I like saving money on my Macs. ;)

richmlow
Oct 12, 2008, 01:24 AM
Well....despite all this hoopla regarding rumors of Nvidia chips going into the MacBook and MacBook Pro lines....I think that we are going to be disappointed with the new MacBook line.

As usual, I suspect that Apple is going to be cheap when it come to the MacBook line....ie. no dedicated GPU option. I don't care how "fast" the new integrated GPU solutions are. I want a dedicated GPU option in the MacBook...otherwise, it's no go for me.

Actually, I don't like how Apple is cutting corners on its products and yet, still charging premium prices. Their high quality operating system does not match their (relatively) low quality hardware.




To: winterspan

See, I told you when people mention GPU in MacBooks the first thing came into their mind is games..games and games.

I understand your point of having a proper GPU and I support with you in that but the problem is people kept thinking that the MBP should have the best mobile GPU and what's their reason? Games.

What games they want to play? High-end games.

Yeah, I guess Apple definition of Pro here doesn't refer to engineering usage, maybe for art and photo use?

MasterNile
Oct 12, 2008, 01:28 AM
Well....despite all this hoopla regarding rumors of Nvidia chips going into the MacBook and MacBook Pro lines....I think that we are going to be disappointed with the new MacBook line.

As usual, I suspect that Apple is going to be cheap when it come to the MacBook line....ie. no dedicated GPU option. I don't care how "fast" the new integrated GPU solutions are. I want a dedicated GPU option in the MacBook...otherwise, it's no go for me.

Actually, I don't like how Apple is cutting corners on its products and yet, still charging premium prices. Their high quality operating system does not match their (relatively) low quality hardware.

Just some questions, not to sound argumentative or anything but:
What do you need a dedicated GPU in a MacBook for?
Would you be satisfied if they had a dedicated GPU in the MBP and had a 13" MBP?
Or are you saying you want a dedicated GPU for the price of a MB?

highjumppudding
Oct 12, 2008, 01:29 AM
of course this is the future. apple only supported the integrated spec from the beginning to cut costs and because of their partnership with intel. ati is on amd's side, nvidia is neutral. it will be a great partnership.

Eidorian
Oct 12, 2008, 01:33 AM
of course this is the future. apple only supported the integrated spec from the beginning to cut costs and because of their partnership with intel. ati is on amd's side, nvidia is neutral. it will be a great partnership.I think you've missed the great partnership ATI and Intel have when it comes to video cards and chipsets.

richmlow
Oct 12, 2008, 01:34 AM
Apple didn't seem to have trouble offering a dedicated GPU solution during the PowerPC iBook days. Of course, they didn't have a choice as there were no integrated GPU solutions to be used in conjunction with PowerPC.

As soon as Apple switched to Intel....they immediately take the low road and start putting in integrated GPU's in the lower-end laptops/mini. One day, they are saying how poorly integrated graphics solutions are...and after the switch, there is no further mention of the drawbacks of integrated GPU's.

If I want an integrated GPU solution, I wouldn't be buying a Macintosh....I'd just go get a cheap PC.



Just some questions, not to sound argumentative or anything but:
What do you need a dedicated GPU in a MacBook for?
Would you be satisfied if they had a dedicated GPU in the MBP and had a 13" MBP?
Or are you saying you want a dedicated GPU for the price of a MB?

iNassar
Oct 12, 2008, 01:34 AM
WoW just what i was waiting for!! Thanks Jobs!

commander.data
Oct 12, 2008, 01:38 AM
A 9600M GT would be kind of disappointing. It is an improvement over the 8600M GT, but really not that much considering the MBP already used the GDDR3 version and the 9600M GT still only has 32 Stream Processor, just clocked higher. I was hoping for a 9700M GT.

Apple really should incorporate an ATI Mobility Radeon 4670. Especially with all this talk of OpenCL. Only ATI's HD3xxx and HD4xxx series and nVidia GT2xx series supports 64-bit double precision floats. nVidia's 8xxx and 9xxx series only do 32-bit floats, so while they may be fast in games, they would be more limited in GPGPU applications. Although it may not show through in games due to driver limitations in exploiting ATI's 5-way architecture, the 4670's 320 Stream Processors really should show their power in GPGPU applications over the higher clocked 32 Stream Processors in most of nVidia's mainstream mobile lineup. The Mobility Radeon 4xxx series is supposed to launch before the year is out and I can think of no bigger event for ATI to gain momentum than to be in Apple's MBP and take part in the upcoming Apple event.

And in terms of switching between integrated and discrete graphics cards, Intel's Montevina also supports this feature if OEMs decide to use it. Intel's implementation is also GPU agnostic between ATI and nVidia GPUs, which is beneficial to avoid locking into one vendor.

EDIT: In terms of switching between integrated and discrete graphics card, I mean the feature that nVidia calls Hybrid Power where the discrete GPU can be shut off to save power and the screen is fed by the IGP. Montevina supports this feature and can work between Intel IGPs and ATI GPUs or Intel IGPs and nVidia GPUs. Intel doesn't support Hybrid SLI of course, but I don't think it matters anyways since Hybrid SLI or what nVidia calls GeForce Boost won't work with anything higher than a GeForce 9500M G anyways. Only Hybrid Power works with mainstream or high-end GPUs, which Montevina supports.

MasterNile
Oct 12, 2008, 01:40 AM
Apple didn't seem to have trouble offering a dedicated GPU solution during the PowerPC iBook days. Of course, they didn't have a choice as there were no integrated GPU solutions to be used in conjunction with PowerPC.

As soon as Apple switched to Intel....they immediately take the low road and start putting in integrated GPU's in the lower-end laptops/mini. One day, they are saying how poorly integrated graphics solutions are...and after the switch, there is no further mention of the drawbacks of integrated GPU's.

If I want an integrated GPU solution, I wouldn't be buying a Macintosh....I'd just go get a cheap PC.

Ah I see, so just kind of the principle of the matter, "If I'm paying $1000 I should have better than a integrated GPU," I agree but have only had Intel Macs so I guess it's just easier for me to accept than some of the people that used to have PowerPCs with dedicated GPUs, and the only reason I want a dedicated GPU is for games anyway which I probably shouldn't be wasting my time on since I have a tendency to get lazy once I get addicted to a game.

SirOmega
Oct 12, 2008, 01:44 AM
Apple didn't seem to have trouble offering a dedicated GPU solution during the PowerPC iBook days. Of course, they didn't have a choice as there were no integrated GPU solutions to be used in conjunction with PowerPC.

Because by the end of the iBook, the Freescale G4 PPC chip that was going in the laptop was $50. The Intel chip that goes in the current MB is $200-300 depending on which model. So you can see why not only did Apple bump the price $100, but also went for the cheaper integrated GPU.

Shop
Oct 12, 2008, 01:45 AM
I think you've missed the great partnership ATI and Intel have when it comes to video cards and chipsets.

?

richmlow
Oct 12, 2008, 01:46 AM
Yes, in large part, it is mainly on principle of which I feel pretty strongly about.

All of my Macs have dedicated GPU solutions in them:

Mac Mini PowerPC G4 (ATI 9200, 64MB VRAM)
Titanium PowerBook G4 (ATI 9000, 64MB VRAM)

All of my future Macs (if any) will also have dedicated GPU's. Actually, even though I've always been a die-hard Apple fan, I've been thinking of just getting a cheap PC as my next computer.




Ah I see, so just kind of the principle of the matter, "If I'm paying $1000 I should have better than a integrated GPU," I agree but have only had Intel Macs so I guess it's just easier for me to accept than some of the people that used to have PowerPCs with dedicated GPUs, and the only reason I want a dedicated GPU is for games anyway which I probably shouldn't be wasting my time on since I have a tendency to get lazy once I get addicted to a game.

subc0mmander
Oct 12, 2008, 01:47 AM
What kind of gaming can we expect to do with a MCP79? Could you run say Crysis on low?

richmlow
Oct 12, 2008, 01:52 AM
I think you missed the point.

Before the Intel switch (ie, all throughout the PowerPC era), Apple NEVER used integrated GPU solutions in any of their machines. After the switch, cheap integrated GPU solutions became the norm for low-end laptops/mini.



Because by the end of the iBook, the Freescale G4 PPC chip that was going in the laptop was $50. The Intel chip that goes in the current MB is $200-300 depending on which model. So you can see why not only did Apple bump the price $100, but also went for the cheaper integrated GPU.

One Ohm
Oct 12, 2008, 01:54 AM
I'll take a macbook air with a firewire combo port please!

Jak3
Oct 12, 2008, 01:58 AM
Perhaps we could play Crysis on low since min requirements are


256 MB video memory, NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT/ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or greater

if it can match the GeForce 6800GT, then we can play it since the rest of the specs check out

alphaod
Oct 12, 2008, 02:09 AM
I'm excited. I hope they also use the PureVideo HD, to enable *cough* Blu-ray 1080p decoding without pegging the GPU. This would mean 30" display support on the MBs and definitely HDCP. Maybe it may mean they will sell the computers with a DVI to HDMI adapter that allows 5.1 surround sound through the DVI with the adapter (like they have on the desktop cards).

What kind of gaming can we expect to do with a MCP79? Could you run say Crysis on low?

Crysis is so overrated. Sure I only played it for few hours, but that was all I needed to know that it wasn't a game I should buy. Maybe the full game is better than the beta, but I still don't people should quantify GPU performance with a video game.

Jak3
Oct 12, 2008, 02:18 AM
I'm excited. I hope they also use the PureVideo HD, to enable *cough* Blu-ray 1080p decoding without pegging the GPU. This would mean 30" display support on the MBs and definitely HDCP. Maybe it may mean they will sell the computers with a DVI to HDMI adapter that allows 5.1 surround sound through the DVI with the adapter (like they have on the desktop cards).



Crysis is so overrated. Sure I only played it for few hours, but that was all I needed to know that it wasn't a game I should buy. Maybe the full game is better than the beta, but I still don't people should quantify GPU performance with a video game.


Ovverated? Yes

Machine Killer? Yes

running Crysis on your rig is like christening it :p
of course, this means CoD4 will run on it too, as well as most other games... :eek: :D

jdaco6
Oct 12, 2008, 02:32 AM
I think you've missed the great partnership ATI and Intel have when it comes to video cards and chipsets.

AMD owns ATI!!!!

Pressure
Oct 12, 2008, 02:35 AM
A 9600M GT would be kind of disappointing. It is an improvement over the 8600M GT, but really not that much considering the MBP already used the GDDR3 version and the 9600M GT still only has 32 Stream Processor, just clocked higher. I was hoping for a 9700M GT.

Apple really should incorporate an ATI Mobility Radeon 4670. Especially with all this talk of OpenCL. Only ATI's HD3xxx and HD4xxx series and nVidia GT2xx series supports 64-bit double precision floats. nVidia's 8xxx and 9xxx series only do 32-bit floats, so while they may be fast in games, they would be more limited in GPGPU applications. Although it may not show through in games due to driver limitations in exploiting ATI's 5-way architecture, the 4670's 320 Stream Processors really should show their power in GPGPU applications over the higher clocked 32 Stream Processors in most of nVidia's mainstream mobile lineup. The Mobility Radeon 4xxx series is supposed to launch before the year is out and I can think of no bigger event for ATI to gain momentum than to be in Apple's MBP and take part in the upcoming Apple event.

And in terms of switching between integrated and discrete graphics cards, Intel's Montevina also supports this feature if OEMs decide to use it. Intel's implementation is also GPU agnostic between ATI and nVidia GPUs, which is beneficial to avoid locking into one vendor.

EDIT: In terms of switching between integrated and discrete graphics card, I mean the feature that nVidia calls Hybrid Power where the discrete GPU can be shut off to save power and the screen is fed by the IGP. Montevina supports this feature and can work between Intel IGPs and ATI GPUs or Intel IGPs and nVidia GPUs. Intel doesn't support Hybrid SLI of course, but I don't think it matters anyways since Hybrid SLI or what nVidia calls GeForce Boost won't work with anything higher than a GeForce 9500M G anyways. Only Hybrid Power works with mainstream or high-end GPUs, which Montevina supports.

Every major IHV supports switching between the dedicated GPU and discrete. ATI have been doing it for over a year now. I don't understand why people suddenly thinks it is all the rage but it would definitely benefit the MacBook Pro but add to the cost.

The Radeon HD 4670 would be one fantastic card to get in the MacBook Pro (sorry for slightly derailing the thread). Cool running and performing like the Radeon HD 3850 / 3870. It would even be faster than the Geforce 8800 GS...oh, I mean the renamed Geforce 9600 GSO that is in the high-end iMac.

Not to mention it is the better when it comes to power consumption being made on a now mature 55nm process.

The MacBook should get the ATI RV730. That is one nice and sweet performing dedicated GPU for its size and power usage. The Geforce 8300 and 8200 are embarrassing compared to it.

MasterNile
Oct 12, 2008, 02:36 AM
AMD owns ATI!!!!

I'm sorry but I don't see your point here, can someone who gets it clarify for me?

richmlow
Oct 12, 2008, 02:39 AM
Unfortunately (if the Nvidia rumors hold true), ATI GPU solutions will not make it into the MacBook/MacBook Pro redesign.


Every major IHV supports switching between the dedicated GPU and discrete. ATI have been doing it for over a year now. I don't understand why people suddenly thinks it is all the rage but it would definitely benefit the MacBook Pro but add to the cost.

The Radeon HD 4670 would be one fantastic card to get in the MacBook Pro (sorry for slightly derailing the thread). Cool running and performing like the Radeon HD 3850 / 3870. It would even be faster than the Geforce 8800 GS...oh, I mean the renamed Geforce 9600 GSO that is in the high-end iMac.

Not to mention it is the better when it comes to power consumption being made on a now mature 55nm process.

The MacBook should get the ATI RV730. That is one nice and sweet performing dedicated GPU for its size and power usage. The Geforce 8300 and 8200 are embarrassing compared to it.

Timichango
Oct 12, 2008, 02:41 AM
I don't think he did miss the point - he was merely stating that no product can exist without price sensitivity to the market. The cost of parts (CPU) going into the MacBook were substantially more expensive, and thus cost had to get cut somewhere else in order for the product to remain at a relatively similar price point.

Putting your matter-of-principal aside (that you think that all macs should have a dedicated GPU because, well, it's Apple), the fact remains that the integrated GPU in the MacBook was still a dramatic improvement over the dedicated radeon that preceded it. We've got a 1st gen MacBook at home, as well as a 1.33ghz iBook, and lemme tell you, the difference is night and day.

So, considering the following:

1st gen Macbook faster than iBook/PowerBook
1st gen Macbook graphics more powerful than iBook/Powerbook
1st gen Macbook cpu 5 or 6 times as expensive as the preceding PPC cpu

How can you argue that they cut corners? Sure it's a different configuration, with a shift in the approach to a core part, but if they're improving the function significantly overall while hitting the same price-point (more or less) and keeping the machine accessible to their market, then what's the problem? For the price of a Macbook I don't expect perfection - I expect 'pretty good'.


I think you missed the point.

Before the Intel switch (ie, all throughout the PowerPC era), Apple NEVER used integrated GPU solutions in any of their machines. After the switch, cheap integrated GPU solutions became the norm for low-end laptops/mini.

Tallest Skil
Oct 12, 2008, 02:42 AM
AMD owns ATI!!!!

Which has never stopped them from insuring compatibility and feature support. Ever. So what? The first MacBook Pro used an Intel chipset and the X1600 from ATI. Ownership means nothing.

MasterNile
Oct 12, 2008, 02:44 AM
Which has never stopped them from insuring compatibility and feature support. Ever. So what? The first MacBook Pro used an Intel chipset and the X1600 from ATI. Ownership means nothing.

That's what I was thinking, which is why I didn't get his point, glad I'm not the only one.

richmlow
Oct 12, 2008, 02:50 AM
The first generation MacBook (Intel) is faster than the last generation iBook G4 (PowerPC) in GENERAL computing because of the CPU. The first generation MacBook (Intel with integrated graphics) is not faster than the last generation iBook G4 (ATI with dedicated graphics) when it comes to playing 3D-games.

By the way, if I want "pretty good" or "good enough"...I would go the way of Microsoft. That is their philosophy...."it doesn't have to be great...just good enough."


I don't think he did miss the point - he was merely stating that no product can exist without price sensitivity to the market. The cost of parts (CPU) going into the MacBook were substantially more expensive, and thus cost had to get cut somewhere else in order for the product to remain at a relatively similar price point.

Putting your matter-of-principal aside (that you think that all macs should have a dedicated GPU because, well, it's Apple), the fact remains that the integrated GPU in the MacBook was still a dramatic improvement over the dedicated radeon that preceded it. We've got a 1st gen MacBook at home, as well as a 1.33ghz iBook, and lemme tell you, the difference is night and day.

So, considering the following:

1st gen Macbook faster than iBook/PowerBook
1st gen Macbook graphics more powerful than iBook/Powerbook
1st gen Macbook cpu 5 or 6 times as expensive as the preceding PPC cpu

How can you argue that they cut corners? Sure it's a different configuration, with a shift in the approach to a core part, but if they're improving the function significantly overall while hitting the same price-point (more or less) and keeping the machine accessible to their market, then what's the problem? For the price of a Macbook I don't expect perfection - I expect 'pretty good'.

Timichango
Oct 12, 2008, 03:04 AM
The first generation MacBook (Intel) is faster than the last generation iBook G4 (PowerPC) in GENERAL computing because of the CPU. The first generation MacBook (Intel with integrated graphics) is not faster than the last generation iBook G4 (ATI with dedicated graphics) when it comes to playing 3D-games.


Quake 3 (old, I know, but still perfectly adequate for this comparison) runs like crap on my iBook's Radeon. Runs great on my gf's MacBook. Same thing with Homeworld 2 on high. The mobile radeon 9000 just wasn't in the same league, in my experience.


By the way, if I want "pretty good" or "good enough"...I would go the way of Microsoft. That is their philosophy...."it doesn't have to be great...just good enough."

I bought an iBook at the beginning of 2006 for around $1200 bucks. It replaced a $2000 VAIO that I had bought in 2003. When I bought it, I did so because it was cheap, small, and 'pretty good', and I wouldn't cry too much if it got stolen while I was travelling, and working in the bush. The iBook has been the best computer I've ever owned, and the VAIO that preceded it was the worst: the iBook has crashed ONCE in the entire time that I've been using it (including 2-years of design and development work), and the VAIO couldn't run for more than an hour without overheating and shutting down, weighed 10 pounds, and LITERALLY smelled like canned tuna whenever it got hot.

This says to me that Apple's 'pretty good' is a lot better than a lot of companies' 'high-end'. Or at least that was the case at that point.

I hate to tell you this, but the fact that Apple has two lines of notebooks is, by definition, a concession to the fact that in order to hit certain price points, they need to cut some corners, and make a line of "pretty good" notebooks. For those that see the value and have the money, they also make "freaking great" notebooks. You can't have something for nothing... You want better? Pay up to the next level and get an MBP.

Or settle for a cheap HP or Dell (or VAIO), and get "stinky and broken" instead.

aafuss1
Oct 12, 2008, 03:08 AM
The mini should also get a MCP79 chipset solution.

Sony offers laptops with both intergrated/discrete graphocs-whether Apple will, remains to be seen.

SLI isn't seen on any Mac-even Mac pros.

John Jacob
Oct 12, 2008, 03:17 AM
So to sum up all the rumours, then - on Tuesday :apple: will unveil a new all-Aluminium MacBook with NVIDIA integrated graphics and Blu-Ray that costs a measly $800. :D

MasterNile
Oct 12, 2008, 03:23 AM
So to sum up all the rumours, then - on Tuesday :apple: will unveil a new all-Aluminium MacBook with NVIDIA integrated graphics and Blu-Ray that costs a measly $800. :D

lol well doubt all that will be in the $800 MB, but also the rumors say the MB/MBPs will have Blu-Ray support not Blu-Ray drives, which means to me that perhaps 10.5.6 will be released Tues.

jdaco6
Oct 12, 2008, 03:23 AM
That's what I was thinking, which is why I didn't get his point, glad I'm not the only one.

Sorry Guys, should have elaborated! I meant that AMD seems to be keeping a tighter rain on ATI these days, as they see it as the major selling point when you go with AMD. I know before it has not made a difference but I think moving into the future AMD exculsivity could very much be the case... :eek:

MasterNile
Oct 12, 2008, 03:27 AM
Sorry Guys, should have elaborated! I meant that AMD seems to be keeping a tighter rain on ATI these days, as they see it as the major selling point when you go with AMD. I know before it has not made a difference but I think moving into the future AMD exculsivity could very much be the case... :eek:

I think that would be a bad move unless Nvidia continues to completely mess up or ATI comes out with GPUs that completely and unarguably blow Nvidia out of the water

DaveTheGrey
Oct 12, 2008, 03:36 AM
great news, finally we will get away from these integrated gma graphics!

Admonitor
Oct 12, 2008, 03:40 AM
I still think that with so many SKUs planned, we still may be seeing discrete over dedicated in some of the 13" models, whatever they may be categorised as.

OS X Dude
Oct 12, 2008, 03:42 AM
As lovely as it'd be to have one of these new Macs, I can't justify it. My C2D from 2006 is still lightning fast and i'm going to stick a 200GB 7200rpm drive and 2GB RAM in it, and with 10.6 it can only get better. It's clean and runs a treat. If it ain't broke, don't fix it i suppose.

Anyhoo, anyone got any performance specs for the 9400M? And would it be significantly better than the GMA, as in could I play new games at medium-maybe high resolution?

Yixian
Oct 12, 2008, 03:45 AM
Why are people talking about the 9600M GT? It says "9600M". I contacted the author of yesterdays article about NVIDIA chipsets and he replied saying that probably Apple would use a newer refresh of the 9600M line in the new MacBook Pros, particularly one that is 55nm.

The 9600 GT is 6 months old, 65nm and not much of an improvement over the 8600M GT given how long it's taken to refresh the MBPs tbh.

Currently there is a 55nm, 96**M card that is a more substantial improvement over the 8600M GT - the 9650M GT. It would be incomprehensibly stupid for Apple to put a 9600M GT in over a 9650M GT when it's smaller, runs at the same temp and requires the same power draw.

And there's always a chance of a new iteration, one that might be announced by NVIDIA at that event on the 15th.

Thoughts?

richmlow
Oct 12, 2008, 03:50 AM
Without getting into an argument, let me just say that your experience with the MacBook vs. iBook (in relation to graphics performance) differs from my experience.



Quake 3 (old, I know, but still perfectly adequate for this comparison) runs like crap on my iBook's Radeon. Runs great on my gf's MacBook. Same thing with Homeworld 2 on high. The mobile radeon 9000 just wasn't in the same league, in my experience.




I bought an iBook at the beginning of 2006 for around $1200 bucks. It replaced a $2000 VAIO that I had bought in 2003. When I bought it, I did so because it was cheap, small, and 'pretty good', and I wouldn't cry too much if it got stolen while I was travelling, and working in the bush. The iBook has been the best computer I've ever owned, and the VAIO that preceded it was the worst: the iBook has crashed ONCE in the entire time that I've been using it (including 2-years of design and development work), and the VAIO couldn't run for more than an hour without overheating and shutting down, weighed 10 pounds, and LITERALLY smelled like canned tuna whenever it got hot.

This says to me that Apple's 'pretty good' is a lot better than a lot of companies' 'high-end'. Or at least that was the case at that point.

I hate to tell you this, but the fact that Apple has two lines of notebooks is, by definition, a concession to the fact that in order to hit certain price points, they need to cut some corners, and make a line of "pretty good" notebooks. For those that see the value and have the money, they also make "freaking great" notebooks. You can't have something for nothing... You want better? Pay up to the next level and get an MBP.

Or settle for a cheap HP or Dell (or VAIO), and get "stinky and broken" instead.

makowb
Oct 12, 2008, 03:53 AM
In the same boat, want to buy RAM now due to poor AU$ and current cheap prices.

My guess is that we'll see DDR2-800Mhz being utilised in these new laptops (currently DDR2-667Mhz).
Early adopters will be finding out about compatibility for us. Lets hope the Nvidia chipsets are more forgiving of RAM.

This will not happen. Apple is switching to nVidia not just because of intel's crappy graphics but because of intel's poor power management. Yes intel's new chipset offers DDR3 too, but nVidia's chipset sucks up less power in general.

Anyways, the point of the matter is while DDR3 has a slower latency, it has a faster clock speed to make up for it, as well as sucking up less power. DDR2 800 is a slight difference over DDR2-667 w/ a marginal increase in clock speed (800 vs the 1066 DDR3 gets).

The mini should also get a MCP79 chipset solution.

Sony offers laptops with both intergrated/discrete graphocs-whether Apple will, remains to be seen.

SLI isn't seen on any Mac-even Mac pros.

SLI with laptops isn't the same as with desktops at all. SLI with desktops is to increase video performance wheras with laptops it has nothing to do with performance and everything to do with power savings. It switches from the dedicated card to the integrated whenever it is doing things that don't require as much graphic intensive processing. IE browsing firefox vs using photoshop.

wheelhot
Oct 12, 2008, 04:01 AM
MB battery life is longer then the MBP due to it uses integrated GPU, MB is aimed towards student, student usually will prefer longer battery life notebooks, my fren starts not to like his M1530 because its battery life is short, he don't do much GPU intensive stuffs, but because his laptop uses a dedicated GPU its draining his notebook battery life.

He prefer his notebook to last longer.

lastochka
Oct 12, 2008, 04:02 AM
This really sucks. While the fanboiz and uneducated Joe Public may be raiving about the shift, the fact is that nVidia's chipsets have had terrible track record as far as reliability is concerned, in particular in the peripherials/IO department. I'm not talking about the recently exposed GPU problems due to manufacturing process. There have been countless hardware bugs and glitches in practically every revision of their south bridge (SATA, USB et al).

It is also very naive to believe that nVidia is somehow magically can outperform Intel's modern solutions in terms of performance vs. power consumption. While integration of both bridges onto one piece of silicon is likely to make power consumprion more efficient, the more powerful GPU would negate that. Furthermore we are talking about integrated graphics here, and whatever is inegrated into the chipsed will never deliver enough processing power compared to discrete slutions because of thermal limitations (unless nVidia somehow found a way to bend the contemporary laws of physics).

While I agree that utilization of GPGPU computing today would be a major step forward and a real blow to the competition (requiring tight integration of software and hardware) it would be a huge mistake in the long run to choose nVidia. I was hoping to get a MacBook Air next week, but it looks like it's going one of the Vaios :(

MattInOz
Oct 12, 2008, 04:12 AM
Why are so many people in love with ATI?

We've stopped buying Macs with ATI graphic chips as their support for OpenGL is flaky and brakes under most Professional CAD or rendering software.
Even Coverflow can send the screen nuts under the wrong conditions.

MattInOz
Oct 12, 2008, 04:32 AM
I always thought it was odd to go with nVidia for one generation of laptops (and possibly iMacs now as well), and then have to turn back to Intel next year with the mobile nehalem chips arrive.

nVidia doesnt have and probably will never get a license for them to be able to make chipsets for the Nehalem-based chips. So when the mobile versions come out, Apple pretty much has to go back to an Intel-based chipset and their craptacular integrated graphics.

Now maybe Apple is doing this to send a message to Intel - get off your ****ing ass and make integrated graphics not suck. Intel's huge attempt to get into graphics (Larabee) wont arrive until at least 2010 for laptops - discrete and integrated. Maybe Intel gets their act together for the mobile 5-series chipset and makes the integrated video at least as good as the 9300M we'll see in the new MacBooks. We can only hope.

Isn't the issue with nVidia/Intel Dispute over QuickPath Licensing and and a trade for SLI. None of the Mobile Nehalem uses QuickPath, they use DMI which nVidia chipset already support.

Apple would only need to go to Intel for Mac Pro's and Xserve. Apple are free to go where they get the best for the price they are building for.

This is why Intel wanted a deal with Apple in the first place, Apple have the ability and resources to show case and move to the best tech on offer. They still get the Processor sales

iCantwait
Oct 12, 2008, 05:05 AM
Bring on guitar hero 3 for my MacBook!!!

Bitslong
Oct 12, 2008, 05:08 AM
This will not happen. Apple is switching to nVidia not just because of intel's crappy graphics but because of intel's poor power management. Yes intel's new chipset offers DDR3 too, but nVidia's chipset sucks up less power in general.

Anyways, the point of the matter is while DDR3 has a slower latency, it has a faster clock speed to make up for it, as well as sucking up less power. DDR2 800 is a slight difference over DDR2-667 w/ a marginal increase in clock speed (800 vs the 1066 DDR3 gets).



SLI with laptops isn't the same as with desktops at all. SLI with desktops is to increase video performance wheras with laptops it has nothing to do with performance and everything to do with power savings. It switches from the dedicated card to the integrated whenever it is doing things that don't require as much graphic intensive processing. IE browsing firefox vs using photoshop.

Fair point re DDR3, and I'm not arguing against it - i'd like to up-spec to 4GB through channels other than Apple for obvious reasons. [Edit removed, found 4GB DDR3 SoDimms plentiful in US, just not Aus :( ]
Do you think that DDR3 will be used across the whole range?
I imagine that the default RAM configs will stay at 2GB or is this not normally the case (to stay at current, reasonable configurations) on an update such as this?

nick9191
Oct 12, 2008, 05:17 AM
Perhaps this might stop the OMG Santa Rosa, OMG Montevina threads.

With Nvidias track record I'm just hoping these things don't blow up.

winterspan
Oct 12, 2008, 05:25 AM
Isn't the issue with nVidia/Intel Dispute over QuickPath Licensing and and a trade for SLI. None of the Mobile Nehalem uses QuickPath, they use DMI which nVidia chipset already support.
Apple would only need to go to Intel for Mac Pro's and Xserve. Apple are free to go where they get the best for the price they are building for.
This is why Intel wanted a deal with Apple in the first place, Apple have the ability and resources to show case and move to the best tech on offer. They still get the Processor sales

You are absolutely right. I completely forgot that the notebooks will not be using quickpath, although I wasn't sure if nVidia had the proper licensing/hardware to support the CPU interface whatever it was (DMA). So it seems they can develop a longer term relationship with nVidia then.... Perhaps this is just intended to put pressure on Intel to improve their GMA and/or move up Larabee derivatives..


This really sucks. While the fanboiz and uneducated Joe Public may be raiving about the shift, the fact is that nVidia's chipsets have had terrible track record as far as reliability is concerned, in particular in the peripherials/IO department. I'm not talking about the recently exposed GPU problems due to manufacturing process. There have been countless hardware bugs and glitches in practically every revision of their south bridge (SATA, USB et al).


I don't have enough knowledge off-hand to comment about that, other than the fact that I have known a few people with nVidia motherboards that don't seem to have many problems... but I'll take your word.


It is also very naive to believe that nVidia is somehow magically can outperform Intel's modern solutions in terms of performance vs. power consumption. While integration of both bridges onto one piece of silicon is likely to make power consumprion more efficient, the more powerful GPU would negate that. Furthermore we are talking about integrated graphics here, and whatever is inegrated into the chipsed will never deliver enough processing power compared to discrete slutions because of thermal limitations (unless nVidia somehow found a way to bend the contemporary laws of physics).

While I agree that utilization of GPGPU computing today would be a major step forward and a real blow to the competition (requiring tight integration of software and hardware) it would be a huge mistake in the long run to choose nVidia. I was hoping to get a MacBook Air next week, but it looks like it's going one of the Vaios :(

I don't think it's "magic", I think they have better technology.. Also, some of your statements don't "match up". First you said you don't believe nVidia can outperform them on "performance vs. power consumption" (efficiency) and then you say that even if the single-chip solution is more efficient than Intel's northbridge+soutbridge, the extra performance of the IGP would "negate" it. Well, it may negate the overall power savings, but the performance/power consumption can still be higher than Intel's GM45.

And I don't understand what you mean by " will never deliver enough processing power compared to discrete". what is [I]enough? It doesn't have to rival a high-end discrete card, it just has to be better than Intel's GMA.

winterspan
Oct 12, 2008, 05:26 AM
Perhaps this might stop the OMG Santa Rosa, OMG Montevina threads.
With Nvidias track record I'm just hoping these things don't blow up.

Well, considering nVidia's made good graphics chips for over a decade, and only recently had a major manufacturing issue, I think they'll be fine.

vendettabass
Oct 12, 2008, 05:30 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)

one word: hurray!

quatar
Oct 12, 2008, 07:10 AM
Following NVidia's own nomenclature, and the way they differentiate their product ranges places the MCP7A-U as an nForce 750i.

Its was hard to say for sure what the intergrated GPU would be, but i guessed it was an 9300M-G or underclocked 9500M-G. May be 8 stream processors rather than 16 to consume fewer power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_9_Series#9300M_G.7FUNIQ2bad502715e762c3-nowiki-000000B3-QINU.7F3.7FUNIQ2bad502715e762c3-nowiki-000000B4-QINU.7F

And here is a link to the 9400 which is what they are saying it is. I prefer to believe that's not going to be the full spec we see however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_9_Series#GeForce_9200.2F9400_Series

This is all assuming that its a 9000-series Geforce. But as others have said - doesnt make much sense to use 8000 series chip. Too old and performance of 8000 is comprable to the new intel GMA-4500.

FSB clock speed. Previously the expected intel would have been 1033Mhz, the new NForce7xxi series is poorly documented, but says "1333 MHz FSB". Its unclear whether a mobile solution would need to be underclocked to 1033Mhz also like the intel, (but that would be a sensible choice again to reduce power consumption).

I hope to see Anandtech articles or reviews of this GPU in the MacBook when it comes out.

marbles
Oct 12, 2008, 07:10 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)

one word: hurray!

Great news about speedier graphics but , slightly off topic , why is it that when someone posts from a telephone does it appear in the post they make ? , thanks

altair7
Oct 12, 2008, 07:49 AM
The Macbook (as opposed to the Macbook Pro) will still have integrated graphics and it should. That's a big factor in Apple being able to reduce the price.
No please do not make me keep using this monstrous 15" laptop. Some of us want a smaller laptop that can still run some games. I personally hope for a 12" but being able to get the 13.3" would at least be a step in the right direction. I'll be able to finally get rid of this thing (15" MBP)!

dennisje182
Oct 12, 2008, 08:27 AM
hey there,
I'm working a lot with 3d CAD programs like Solidworks. I'm not really known with this whole grapics card talking (don't know a lot about it). Now I was just wondering if these NVIDIA chipsets in Macbooks will help working with Solidworks (modelling and rendering). Because i always thought rendering was almost completely counting on CPU. Anybody knows??

tnx

mpb2000
Oct 12, 2008, 08:30 AM
This will not happen. Apple is switching to nVidia not just because of intel's crappy graphics but because of intel's poor power management. Yes intel's new chipset offers DDR3 too, but nVidia's chipset sucks up less power in general.

So are you saying just because the chipset supports DDR3, all Apple is going to just put DDR3 in everything? Doesn't seem like the benefits justify that kind of price increase. Maybe on the higher end machines, but on all of them?

TheoT
Oct 12, 2008, 08:40 AM
Can I install MS Vista on a totally NVIDIA based MB Pro?

Tallest Skil
Oct 12, 2008, 08:44 AM
No. It won't work. You'd need to put on nVidia's operating system.

Of course it will work. The chipset is meaningless.

Eidorian
Oct 12, 2008, 09:27 AM
Why are so many people in love with ATI?

We've stopped buying Macs with ATI graphic chips as their support for OpenGL is flaky and brakes under most Professional CAD or rendering software.
Even Coverflow can send the screen nuts under the wrong conditions.I'm rather fond of the new HD48xx Series video cards which offer the best performance per watt for a video card right now.

Not to mention Crossfire support on the P45 chipset.

Kilamite
Oct 12, 2008, 09:31 AM
Does anyone have an idea of what the NVIDIA integrated graphics will be like performance wise against the 8600M?

While they are integrated, I'm interested to see how much juice can be squeezed out of it and how much it'll cope with games.

iMacmatician
Oct 12, 2008, 09:38 AM
Thoughts?It all depends on power consumption and price.

MB battery life is longer then the MBP due to it uses integrated GPU, MB is aimed towards student, student usually will prefer longer battery life notebooks, my fren starts not to like his M1530 because its battery life is short, he don't do much GPU intensive stuffs, but because his laptop uses a dedicated GPU its draining his notebook battery life.How does a GPU that is not used much drain the battery a lot? In fact, I'm not sure what takes more power: Integrated GPU at ≈50% usage or discrete GPU at ≈10% usage.

And is the OPTION of a more powerful GPU too much to ask, Apple? Or maybe the ability to switch between integrated and discrete?

mckyvlle
Oct 12, 2008, 09:56 AM
First thoughts when hearing rumours of the new MacBooks using NV MCP79: *4W35SUM*! :D

Though I do find it a bit difficult to justify replacing my barely a year old late-November 2007 MacBook. Besides, looking at the 'leaked' photos, there seems to be some weird design decisions that Apple made:
No FireWire? Hmm...
IR receiver on the left hand side? That's not going to work...
Still two USB ports?! omgwtfbbq!
Another proprietary display connector? *sob*sob*

Maybe, just maybe if that MCP79 with a dedicated graphics processor is really that good, and a higher resolution 13.3'' screen, possibly matte, might move my heart. But for now, breathe and calm down. :)

Kilamite
Oct 12, 2008, 10:05 AM
Though I do find it a bit difficult to justify replacing my barely a year old late-November 2007 MacBook. Besides, looking at the 'leaked' photos, there seems to be some weird design decisions that Apple made:

1. No FireWire? Hmm...
2. IR receiver on the left hand side? That's not going to work...
3. Still two USB ports?! omgwtfbbq!
4. Another proprietary display connector? *sob*sob*

1. It looks like there is only FireWire 800, no FireWire 400. They better include FireWire, I've got a few devices and a mixer that need it

2. You'd be surprised how good the IR receiver is - I can have the remote round the side of my MacBook Pro and it still works.

3. Yeah, only two USB ports sucks. But then again, at my desk, I have wireless keyboard and mouse, and a USB hub.

4. Another adapter to carry around!

sapota
Oct 12, 2008, 10:07 AM
sweet sweeet sweeeeeet. For the casual user, it would now make even more sense to go with a macbook instead of the pro. esp if the entry price on the macbook is ~$1000US. Unless you can find a refurb previous gen MBP for close to that price.

Now it looks like the refresh to the iMacs might also be using nvidia chipset. & if the entry price of the iMac 20inch is also ~$1000, then it might make sense to buy an iMac with potential 9800MGT?? & a macbook with 9300M card for close to the price of a MBP.

costabunny
Oct 12, 2008, 10:09 AM
well I am waiting to see if they vamp up the chipset (and looks like they may do that very well) then Ill have to jump into the macbook camp :) (My Air is great but Id love a gaming capable portable for when I am offsite) :)

mckyvlle
Oct 12, 2008, 10:18 AM
1. It looks like there is only FireWire 800, no FireWire 400. They better include FireWire, I've got a few devices and a mixer that need it

2. You'd be surprised how good the IR receiver is - I can have the remote round the side of my MacBook Pro and it still works.

3. Yeah, only two USB ports sucks. But then again, at my desk, I have wireless keyboard and mouse, and a USB hub.

4. Another adapter to carry around!

Ah! Just to clarify, I am looking at the MacBook, not Pro. The new case photos shows that there are no FireWire ports (even FW400) on the new MacBooks.

I take back what I said about having the IR receiver on the side. :o Just tried with my Apple Remote, it indeed does work even round the MacBook's corner! I thought IR works on line-of-sight only. Perhaps it still works with the reflection of IR light off objects.

Kilamite
Oct 12, 2008, 10:21 AM
Ah! Just to clarify, I am looking at the MacBook, not Pro. The new case photos shows that there are no FireWire ports (even FW400) on the new MacBooks.

Looks like it has FireWire 800 to me - port down from the MagSafe. Unless it is a GigaBit ethernet port. However, I'd assume Apple would provide a USB-Ethernet adapter, rather than throwing away a FireWire port.

http://down.wally.in:8081/ftp/pic/161931.jpg

mckyvlle
Oct 12, 2008, 10:32 AM
Looks like it has FireWire 800 to me - port down from the MagSafe. Unless it is a GigaBit ethernet port. However, I'd assume Apple would provide a USB-Ethernet adapter, rather than throwing away a FireWire port.

http://down.wally.in:8081/ftp/pic/161931.jpg

That's insightful! Almost everyone on the other thread is saying that port is Ethernet, leaving no FireWire for MacBooks. Like so: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6393333&postcount=328

Of course! Since Apple has done away with Ethernet on the MacBook Air, they could always sell us another cable to get Ethernet back.

Kilamite
Oct 12, 2008, 10:38 AM
That's insightful! Almost everyone on the other thread is saying that port is Ethernet, leaving no FireWire for MacBooks. Like so: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6393333&postcount=328

Of course! Since Apple has done away with Ethernet on the MacBook Air, they could always sell us another cable to get Ethernet back.

Although, by quickly comparing the MacBook and MacBook Pro, the MacBook appears slightly thinner (looking at the space around the USB ports) so maybe it looks like an Ethernet port in relation to the MacBook Pro?

Wishful thinking though! I was so going to buy a MacBook, but if it doesn't have FireWire..

pgifford
Oct 12, 2008, 11:31 AM
Looks like there are differing views on NVIDIA. I'm anxious to see how performance will be improved. Is this just a step towards Snow Leopard? By the time that's released next year, they should have any NVIDIA bug worked out.

commander.data
Oct 12, 2008, 11:35 AM
So are you saying just because the chipset supports DDR3, all Apple is going to just put DDR3 in everything? Doesn't seem like the benefits justify that kind of price increase. Maybe on the higher end machines, but on all of them?
I actually hope Apple puts DDR3-1066 in everything. It seems PC makers are sticking to DDR2-800 with Montevina so going DDR3-1066 will certainly set themselves apart. The lower power consumption will be a help too.

In terms of price, I don't think it's as much of an issue since Apple seems to get preferential treatment from Samsung probably because of the volumes of flash memory they buy. I'm pretty sure all Apple discrete graphics cards since switching to Mac have used GDDR3, at a time when most PC makers stick to cheaper DDR2. Which is why the 8600M GT in the MBP is actually faster than it looks since it uses higher-clocked GDDR3 while most PC implementations use DDR2 with the 8600M GT. Even the lowly HD2400XT used in the iMac uses faster GDDR3 instead of DDR2. I've checked that the GDDR3 in my Mobility X1600 in my MBP is from Samsung, so it wouldn't surprise me if Apple gets better memory prices.

Admonitor
Oct 12, 2008, 12:14 PM
Does anyone have an idea of what the NVIDIA integrated graphics will be like performance wise against the 8600M?

While they are integrated, I'm interested to see how much juice can be squeezed out of it and how much it'll cope with games.

Likewise. I'm not expecting anything amazing, but I am definitely interested in seeing what the 9300/9400 is actually capable of doing.

xVeinx
Oct 12, 2008, 12:27 PM
So, it looks as though Apple is going with nvidia due to price point and performance. Hands down, nvidia wins with graphics performance. The hope is that Apple really gets their driver teams to thoroughly test that chipset as nvidia + Intel has been a bit too much of a drama story in the past, with I/O issues, data corruption, etc. The other part is power consumption and heat. The former is likely to be taken care of, but latter might still be there. nvidia chipsets do run hot, at least in their ATX mainboard forms. Does anyone know the rated heat output of this chipset? With any luck, nvidia will have put together a more solid chipset as in their NF4 days, and people will be able to rock out on their macbook (pros) :).

Firefly2002
Oct 12, 2008, 01:14 PM
Sounds awesome and do you think you could run some year old games like TF2 at a decent framerate like 50-60 maybe 70?

ChrisN

What the hell's the point of 70FPS on an LCD display only capable of 60 Hz?

Kilamite
Oct 12, 2008, 01:22 PM
What the hell's the point of 70FPS on an LCD display only capable of 60 Hz?

How do you know hes using a display that is 60Hz? Could be an external monitor.

twoodcc
Oct 12, 2008, 01:40 PM
well, as long as it's better than the current macbook, then i'm happy to see this

cesar
Oct 12, 2008, 02:15 PM
I want a GPS chip .... so CoreLocation could be used in my laptop

PeterQC
Oct 12, 2008, 02:51 PM
Sounds awesome and do you think you could run some year old games like TF2 at a decent framerate like 50-60 maybe 70?

ChrisN

Looking at some branhcmark, the Nvidia 9300m is around 12x faster then Intel's GMA 900, and around 6x faster then Intel's GMA 3100.

Considering people can run TF2 and the like with a GMA 3100, I think you'll be able to play TF2 at least at medium.

marbles
Oct 12, 2008, 02:58 PM
So, it looks as though Apple is going with nvidia due to price point and performance. Hands down, nvidia wins with graphics performance. The hope is that Apple really gets their driver teams to thoroughly test that chipset as nvidia + Intel has been a bit too much of a drama story in the past, with I/O issues, data corruption, etc. The other part is power consumption and heat. The former is likely to be taken care of, but latter might still be there. nvidia chipsets do run hot, at least in their ATX mainboard forms. Does anyone know the rated heat output of this chipset? With any luck, nvidia will have put together a more solid chipset as in their NF4 days, and people will be able to rock out on their macbook (pros) :).

I really hope so too

AidenShaw
Oct 12, 2008, 03:04 PM
What the hell's the point of 70FPS on an LCD display only capable of 60 Hz?

Typically the "FPS" rating of a game is the average for a standard test run.

During difficult scenes the frame rate is much lower - so benching a game at 100 FPS is really much better than 60 FPS. Even though you won't see the difference in the fast scenes, the 100 FPS system can be much better in the slow scenes.

MShock
Oct 12, 2008, 03:39 PM
makes sense why Apple waited so long to update to Centrino 2. A new NVIDIA chipset w/ better performance makes sense. The only caveat I have is that this may damage the Intel relationship if true... but then again, Apple doesn't participate in Centrino programs, so the relationship may not be damaged at all.

MagnusVonMagnum
Oct 12, 2008, 03:41 PM
wow, big diss to Intel :P I can't understand how Apple can do this, considering Apple's big thing has been "our things just work", not "high-performance" - nVidia had that big manufacturing flub with a rather large number of their chips including, as I recall, some that were in MacBook Pros? Intel has been making extremely reliable chips for some time now.

Obviously, you don't understand the need for 3D in the 21st Century or you'd never post something so absurd. What good is reliable if it can't run anything? It sounds like someone finally clued Apple into the fact that they're the laughing stock of the computing world having their #1 selling computer have absolutely no 3D power what-so-ever, which is simply unforgivable in 2008 and has utterly destroyed Apple's once reputation for graphics. It's high time they finally started doing some repairs to that reputation.

Of course, now that they've supposedly improved graphics, my new problem is the apparent lack of a firewire port. I want to use the laptop with Logic Pro and my Roland digital piano workstation and guitar and microphone setup which means I need an interface box to the laptop and I would have preferred it be firewire (PreSonus or something similar), but given the potential savings in money compared to an MBP (would pay for the interface AND the Logic Pro software), I'll have to consider USB instead, I suppose. Given Apple's prior push for all things Firewire, they sure seem to be ditching it as fast as they can these days. It's too bad USB 3.0 isn't ready. That would pretty much make Firewire moot.

bolen
Oct 12, 2008, 03:47 PM
Looks like it has FireWire 800 to me - port down from the MagSafe. Unless it is a GigaBit ethernet port. However, I'd assume Apple would provide a USB-Ethernet adapter, rather than throwing away a FireWire port.

http://down.wally.in:8081/ftp/pic/161931.jpg


Maybe.. but the symbol above the port is the same as the one above the current Ethernet ports.

Eric S.
Oct 12, 2008, 05:19 PM
Ah! Just to clarify, I am looking at the MacBook, not Pro. The new case photos shows that there are no FireWire ports (even FW400) on the new MacBooks.

I wouldn't miss firewire per se but I would very much miss being able to boot in target disk mode.

Jak3
Oct 12, 2008, 07:42 PM
no firewire would suck for a lot of people...I don't see it happening...

of course, we're saying this under the assumption that these pics are 100% legit...

and what of the other side of the macbook? are there any pics of the rights side? any chance of firewire ports being located on that side? :confused:

SubZer0
Oct 12, 2008, 08:06 PM
The shift to NVIDIA's chipset is definitely interesting. I think is provides a much needed incentive for the manufacturers to continue compete. Let's face it, the Intel chipsets in mobile computing has gone essentially uncontested for many years. I realize that many MPB owners are understandably worried about NVIDIA products and their recent track record.

It will be interesting to see what the final configurations are for the MacBook (et al).

At least we can enjoy the many pages of speculation and bickering that is occurring on a minute by minute basis to occupy our time until the "event" on Tuesday.

Enjoy,

Mark

ezekielrage_99
Oct 12, 2008, 08:09 PM
What I am really hoping for with this new chipset is that the user can specify how much RAM they can use for VRAM for the graphics. :cool:

MattInOz
Oct 12, 2008, 08:38 PM
no firewire would suck for a lot of people...I don't see it happening...

of course, we're saying this under the assumption that these pics are 100% legit...

and what of the other side of the macbook? are there any pics of the rights side? any chance of firewire ports being located on that side? :confused:


What's interesting is there was a spec for Firewire 800 (IEEE 1394c-2006) published in mid 2007, but hasn't yet been used in any products for Firewire using an RJ45 connector with auto-negation for either Ethernet or Firewire.

Maybe Intel wasn't keen to add support in the chipset, nVidia might have jumped at it or been cheap enough (cost and power) to have a Firewire/ethernet chip that did support.

Sure would make an interesting option Macbook you get one FW or ethernet. Macbook Pro you get a dedicated FW and a combo port

marvel2
Oct 12, 2008, 11:37 PM
I love the possibility of Nvidia chipsets in in the macbook. Maybe LED backlighting too?

shawmanus
Oct 13, 2008, 02:01 AM
I think it is a risky move. I could not find a single laptop using mcp79 chipset. So apple is essentially doing beta testing for Nvidia. Looking at recent track record of NVidia, I would say it is a bad idea.

I hope it works out. That would force intel to introduce better Integrated GFX.

Nehalem integrated GFX will not be from larabee. It will use something in the range of x4500.

I dont know why Apple did not consider using montevina with low end dedicated gfx. With hybrid gfx support in montevina, apple would have the best of both worlds.

Ideally they should have adopted AMD puma platform for macbook while keeping montevina platform for pro.

rajcic66
Oct 13, 2008, 02:05 AM
I recently bought Ipod classic 80 gb. It's very unfriendly ti user.
How can I turn it to player which recognises music inserted directly from Windows explorer

proc
Oct 13, 2008, 02:21 AM
I recently bought Ipod classic 80 gb. It's very unfriendly ti user.
How can I turn it to player which recognises music inserted directly from Windows explorer

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpg

Tallest Skil
Oct 13, 2008, 02:30 AM
I recently bought Ipod classic 80 gb. It's very unfriendly ti user.
How can I turn it to player which recognises music inserted directly from Windows explorer

picard.jpg

Normally I'd ask you to [timg] your image, but that was far too perfect. First guy, if you're a troll, you fail at failing, and that's not a double negative. If you're genuinely having this problem, you also fail, but just at technology.

iBunny
Oct 13, 2008, 02:47 AM
I could not find a single laptop using mcp79 chipset.

Of course not. The NVidia MCP79 isnt out yet. In fact, it is suppose to Debut with the New Apple Notebooks on 10/14, and be announced to the rest of the PC world on 10/15.

aleksandra.
Oct 13, 2008, 06:08 AM
I recently bought Ipod classic 80 gb. It's very unfriendly ti user.
How can I turn it to player which recognises music inserted directly from Windows explorer

You can't. iTunes is free, use it.

Yvan256
Oct 13, 2008, 10:08 AM
I recently bought Ipod classic 80 gb. It's very unfriendly ti user.
How can I turn it to player which recognises music inserted directly from Windows explorer

1. This thread is about "Apple Migrating to NVIDIA Chipsets in new MacBooks", you should at least have asked in an appropriate thread (i.e. at least iPod-related).
2. You can't really manage music from Windows Explorer (you'll understand why once you start using metadata and doing smart playlists in iTunes).
3. You need to use iTunes (http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/) (which is a free download) to manage music on your iPod. iTunes will also manage the music on your computer.

Manic Mouse
Oct 13, 2008, 01:13 PM
Remember Apple said something about a product transition? I think this is it, all of Apple's computers will be moving to nVidia chipsets.

AidenShaw
Oct 13, 2008, 09:40 PM
Well, so much for the supposed "special" relationship that Apple had with Intel.

From now on, Dell will be selling the latest, fastest chips before Apple gets a chance to even test them.

MagnusVonMagnum
Oct 13, 2008, 10:14 PM
Well, so much for the supposed "special" relationship that Apple had with Intel.

From now on, Dell will be selling the latest, fastest chips before Apple gets a chance to even test them.

I can't believe so many people are UPSET that Apple ditched those crappy Intel integrated graphics. It's unreal. I think some of you really do believe that 3D graphics and OpenGL performance don't mean a thing. In light of BootCamp and Parallels/Fusion, I would think more people would be THRILLED that the #1 selling Mac is FINALLY going to be a usable computer in 2008. It was worthless for all 3D stuff until now that dated after 2004. Apple will no longer be a laughing stock for 3D. But apparently some of you would prefer that status to continue just to keep Intel happy.... LOL.

I mean you do know a 2001 PowerMac is just fine for browsing, right? You don't NEED real power to run a browser. So if that's all you guys do with your Macs, then you shouldn't be concerned about Intel CPUs because you don't NEED them. For those of us that would like to run 3D software and even some 3D games, this is nothing but GOOD news.

Yvan256
Oct 14, 2008, 01:20 PM
NVidia 9400M in the next Mac mini? Bring it on! :cool: