How will the intel integrated graphics chips stack up against current ibooks?

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by Megatron, Dec 19, 2005.

  1. Megatron macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    #1
    I read in another thread that as the budget consumer laptop, the new ibooks might use the intel integrated graphics chip sets (915 I think?)

    How will this stack up against the current radeon 9550 in the current rev ibook?
     
  2. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
  3. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #3
    I really hope Apple doesn't due integrated graphics chips. That'd kill the sale right there.
     
  4. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #4
    Ya, what he said. Never, EVER buy a computer with integrated graphics- they just steal away your computers processing power.

    Its like putting a 4 cylinder engine in a Ferrari. :rolleyes:
     
  5. amholl macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Location:
    Boston
    #5
    Lets just say it makes the 9550 look like a 7800 comparatively.....
    Anyways, Madden 05, which runs smoothly on my moms dell w/ a 2.8 GHz P4 and a GF5700FX, ran like Sh*T. And i mean Sh*t, not crap.
     
  6. fartheststar macrumors 6502a

    fartheststar

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #6
    If they do offer this config and don't offer a graphics card upgrade, that's bad.
     
  7. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #7
    Hopefully we'll see 64 MB's on the iBook, 128 MB on the low end PowerBooks and 256 MB on the high end ones.
     
  8. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #8
    That sounds about right.

    Steve is too smart to put any integrated graphics crap in a Mac (I hope). :)
     
  9. fartheststar macrumors 6502a

    fartheststar

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #9
    We all "hope". I also hope firewire is not dead.
     
  10. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #10
    True. :)
     
  11. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #11
    I bet the iBooks will cut corners and include it on the motherboard. It will be designed to be very small and inexpensive. The powerbooks will have the real stuff. To be honest, having it on the motherboard won't make a difference for some buyers. It didn't see that bad running some older games.
     
  12. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #12
    Well I guess thats true. But if you plan on doing anything besides playing solitaire- avoid integrated graphics. :) ;)
     
  13. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #13
    From what I've heard the 915 chipset can run Battlefield 1942 for Windows. No fancy shaders but it can run it.
     
  14. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #14
    I hope that we see a real embedded GPU in the Intel portables, no integrated crap for me please. At least make a real GPU optional.
     
  15. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #15
    There's a difference between having integrated graphics and having the GPU on the logic/motherboard. iMacs, eMacs, laptops, and some PowerMacs have a GPU on the logic board, but do not have integrated graphics.
     
  16. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #16
    I'll trade you a 256MB Radeon 9200 for a 128MB Radeon 9800... :p
     
  17. illegalprelude macrumors 68000

    illegalprelude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    #17
    to give a great example. My parents have a HP Athelon 2800+ with 1GB Ram, Windows XP but intergrated Graphics card.

    What they say u need is
    I easily have all those requirments but what im missing is the graphics card, I just have an onboard 64mb and the game, on the min. min min setting runs choppy as all hell. it just cannot be played.
     
  18. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #18
    Integrated graphics has come a long way recently but it's still far from a good GPU replacement.
     
  19. Project macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2005
    #19
    Surely Apple wont be that cheap to save a few measly dollars. It isnt like a 32mb or 64mb graphics card is going to push the productions costs of an Intel iBook up is it?

    iBook - 64mb

    Powerbook - 128/256mb

    Apple should not forget we already pay a premium for the iBook and thus should not take the piss by making it a garbage laptop. Or, if they want to go down that route then introduce a real budget line of notebooks. Integrated graphics, no bluetooth, small harddrive, no firewire, no video out. Must include wireless though! Go directly against the lower priced laptops that sell a bucketload. Make it good enough to do your basic tasks, and run the iLife suite well. Bundle iWork and with OSX you are good to go. $600. Then keep the iBook pretty much as it is now. A consumer line with the various niceties that separate it from being a basic system, ie the bluetooth, video out, firewire, video card, nice build etc. Make it 6oGb standard. Keep the same price.

    I think Apples notebook product line doesnt reach out to every market there, and while its like that, it wont be seen as competitive. There may be concerns about keeping Apples prestige as a brand, but honestly Jobs through that out of the Window with the Mini and Shuffle. He wants in for real this time.

    While theyre aT it, make a sexy display cheap enough for a broke student like me to buy! :D
     
  20. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #20
    Ok it was probably my post in the forums that your refering to. And yes it is my prediction that the ibook will use intel 915 chipset.

    Developer Intel macs already use them. They're cheap to produce, fully support Intel OSX and are ready to go now.

    They offer a clear distinct advantage to the the powerbook which will have seperate gfx card. The distinction between budget/educational & pro has to put back in place. That line has gone fuzzy of late and apple will re-address this.

    Why would Apple not use it in the ibook? Seriously! What makes you think that they wouldn't be happy with the power the 915 chipset brings. It runs a good share of 3D games on windows and as there aren't exactly a huge number of Intel Mac games out there for at least a year, its a non issue on Intel iBooks.

    As long as they run hte full iLife suite of apps and stuff like Office, and surf the net, then Apple are going to be happy to go with it. It's proven technology with them as it stands and it can run pretty much all the apps out there currently anyway.

    If you want to run more intensive 3D applications and FC-Studio 2 then Apple will encourage you to go and buy the more powerful Intel Powerbook.

    At last a clear distinct pro/consumer division and justification in that price difference.

    I'm not debating that onboard graphics are worse than standalone graphics cards, but come on guy's. Apples loyalties are NOT to the consumer, but to its Shareholders at the end of the day.

    If they can release an ibook which we all know the processor is going to be more expensive than the G4, then it has to cut a few corners here and there. If there's already discussions about Firewire being dropped, then do you honestly think theyre going to add a more powerful graphics card onto the ibook than they need to?


    Project- you say surely apple isn't that cheap to save a few dollars... Well a few dollars times a few hundred thousand units is a good saving. They already started using cheaper click wheels in the ipods to save a few dollars, they didn't have to did they?

    The iBook will do it's job, no more, no less.
     
  21. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #21
    I was about to post something similar :D I've yet to understand why people insist on measuring the GPUs that Apple use in terms of Video RAM. What is much more imporatant (once VRAM hits a sensible size) is the capabilities of the GPU itself. I'd much rather have a modern, powerful GPU with 128Mb of VRAM (or even 64) in my next powerbook than another Radeon Mobility 9700 with 256.
     
  22. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #22

    I agree with you and can see where you're coming from but admittedly it's much easier to use a single measurement to compare processing units. It's similar to measuring CPUs solely by their clock speed, sure it's a factor involved in performance but it's not the only one. Having said that, VRAM is still a pretty good indicator when comparing two modern GPUs IMO.
     
  23. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #23
    With no FireWire how would you capture video to iMovie?

    You guys speak of integrated graphics as of something "not bad", but you seem to forget about Quartz Exteme and CoreImage! What about them? OSX has pretty heavy interface to me rendered by CPU.

    Developer intelPowerMacs have inegr. graph. cuz it made them cheap (999$ right? - thats for PowerMac!) Seriously, developers dont play games/ or use mulimedia apps (Motion etc.)
     
  24. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #24
    Measuring gpus buy their VRAM size is like measuring computers but their RAM sizes with no mention of CPU type/speed, HD size/type/speed etc
     
  25. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #25

    Well, kinda. It's not quite that bad though because a GPU isn't as complicated as a computer, it's a component of a computer. Therefore, we can get away with simplifying things a bit by measuring them by VRAM. I'm not by any means saying it's a good way of measuring performance, but it's a good compromise IMO. :)
     

Share This Page