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

Skype Frame Rates: Plastic vs. Aluminum MacBook

ThomasJL

ThomasJL

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 16, 2008
1,607
3,544
Will there be any difference, whatsoever, in terms of frames per second when using Skype on a plastic MacBook with the Intel X3100 GMA versus the aluminum MacBook with the Nvidia integrated graphics?

(The reason I ask is this: I am planning on getting two of the exact same computers for myself and my dad so we can video chat with Skype. We'll both be using a top-of-the-line Logitech QuickCam Vision Pro webcam, and we'll both be using a fiber optic Internet connection. My biggest concern in purchasing a computer is running Skype at the highest frames per second rate possible.)

Thanks for any and all feedback. :)
 
silverblack

silverblack

macrumors 68030
Nov 27, 2007
2,680
840
You may want to first look into the highest resolution and transfer rate that Skype is limited to offer. I have a feeling that would be your limiting factor, or the internet connection (even fiber optics), not the laptop itself.
 
S

snaky69

macrumors 603
Mar 14, 2008
5,908
488
ThomasJL said:
Will there be any difference, whatsoever, in terms of frames per second when using Skype on a plastic MacBook with the Intel X3100 GMA versus the aluminum MacBook with the Nvidia integrated graphics?

(The reason I ask is this: I am planning on getting two of the exact same computers for myself and my dad so we can video chat with Skype. We'll both be using a top-of-the-line Logitech QuickCam Vision Pro webcam, and we'll both be using a fiber optic Internet connection. My biggest concern in purchasing a computer is running Skype at the highest frames per second rate possible.)

Thanks for any and all feedback. :)
Click to expand...

Your limiting factor here is the speed of the internet connection, not the video hardware.
 
ThomasJL

ThomasJL

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 16, 2008
1,607
3,544
silverblack said:
You may want to first look into the highest resolution and transfer rate that Skype is limited to offer. I have a feeling that would be your limiting factor, or the internet connection (even fiber optics), not the laptop itself.
Click to expand...

On Skype's download page for OS X, it reads, "Your video conversations are now set at a whopping 640 x 480 pixels by default with up to 25 frames per second."

My #1 concern is having the absolute sharpest video quality with as little pixelation as possible. In regards to this concern, will the new aluminum MacBooks with the Nvidia integrated graphics offer any advantage, whatsoever, to the old plastic MacBooks with the Intel integrated graphics?
 
silverblack

silverblack

macrumors 68030
Nov 27, 2007
2,680
840
Think about a DVD movie, which has a slightly better resolution, and similar frame rate. I'd say the graphic capability of most recent laptops can handle that without problem.

Of course, it's not just the graphics, because the signal needs to be encoded into or decoded form data, which is a processing task.

I still think your internet connection will be the determining factor, especially if you are chatting with someone oversea, rather than the laptop.
 
cellocello

cellocello

macrumors 68000
Jul 31, 2008
1,982
0
Toronto, ON
ThomasJL said:
On Skype's download page for OS X, it reads, "Your video conversations are now set at a whopping 640 x 480 pixels by default with up to 25 frames per second."

My #1 concern is having the absolute sharpest video quality with as little pixelation as possible. In regards to this concern, will the new aluminum MacBooks with the Nvidia integrated graphics offer any advantage, whatsoever, to the old plastic MacBooks with the Intel integrated graphics?
Click to expand...

No. What you're seeking ("having the absolute sharpest video quality with as little pixelation as possible") is 100% reliant on the internet connection.
 
R

rd261

macrumors regular
Sep 24, 2007
136
8
Chatting with skype does not require a high end graphic card. As long as your internet connection is fast, then you should be fine with both computers. I video chat with ichat from time to time in my last gen. black macbook and is sharp and smooth, so I guess the same will apply for skype. By the way, I have internet by cable at 6 mbps.
 
ThomasJL

ThomasJL

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 16, 2008
1,607
3,544
Thanks for all the replies, guys. I appreciate it. :)

So, if the two chatters had the exact same computers, the exact same broadband Internet connection, and the exact same top-of-the-line Logitech webcams, will a better graphics card even make a tiny difference in picture quality?
 
B

beg_ne

macrumors 6502
Jul 3, 2003
452
0
ThomasJL said:
On Skype's download page for OS X, it reads, "Your video conversations are now set at a whopping 640 x 480 pixels by default with up to 25 frames per second."

My #1 concern is having the absolute sharpest video quality with as little pixelation as possible. In regards to this concern, will the new aluminum MacBooks with the Nvidia integrated graphics offer any advantage, whatsoever, to the old plastic MacBooks with the Intel integrated graphics?
Click to expand...

The hardware makes no difference at all. My mom has a new Macbook but the video is pretty crappy because of the less than awesome internet connection in Montana. I have a 1st gen low end Macbook and my video image is much better because I'm on a solid connection.
 
B

beg_ne

macrumors 6502
Jul 3, 2003
452
0
Also I don't know that I would waste any money on the Logitech cam, you're up to the mercy of the crap drivers and software they tend to put out. Plus their site is basically BS regarding the video quality:

HD video: QuickCam Vision Pro is a high-performance webcam capable of delivering 720p high-quality images* up to 1600 X 1200 pixels.
Click to expand...

You'll notice their wording of high-quality "images" with the *. Which reads:

* Capture VGA video with Photo Booth and QuickTime PRO, or capture up to 2-megapixel images – including 720p – with UVC based applications like BTV PRO.
Click to expand...

So in most apps you won't gain any resolution on the iSight, if there is even any difference. also the "BTV PRO" program they reference is a fricken' pre-OS X app that hasn't been updated in about 7 years.

http://www.bensoftware.com/btv/dlindex.html

"The latest version of BTV Pro is 5.4.1, released 7 May 2002"

Regarding the difference between the Plastic MB and the Unibody MB, as I mentioned in my previous post there was no difference as far as that goes, but I guess in the future perhaps Skype might make use of the video card to improve something, but I really doubt they are doing anything now. Not to mention that Skype hasn't had any updates forever so who knows if they'll ever give Mac users anything new.
 
likemyorbs

likemyorbs

macrumors 68000
Jul 20, 2008
1,956
5
NJ
im still not getting why the OP isnt using the built in i-sight which is awesome. people used to pay a pretty penny for isights
 
ThomasJL

ThomasJL

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 16, 2008
1,607
3,544
likemyorbs said:
im still not getting why the OP isnt using the built in i-sight which is awesome. people used to pay a pretty penny for isights
Click to expand...

I've done a side-by-side comparison, and Logitech's top-of-the-line QuickCam Vision Pro (which, by the way, is Mac only) has a much better picture than the built in iSight. Higher resolution, much better sharpness, clarity, and color. It has a glass lens made by Carl Zeiss, and it's autofocus. You can view more info about this webcam here:

http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/webcam_communications/webcams/devices/4528&cl=us,en

The aluminum external iSight, on the other hand, has a lower picture quality than the built-in iSight on any MacBook. It shouldn't surprise, as the technology on the external iSight is literally a couple of years older than the built-in iSight on the very first MacBook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom