Interesting info on the GMA950

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by Dont Hurt Me, Oct 12, 2006.

  1. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #1
    Being so bothered that Apple and many others are using this chipset I did searching to see if I could nail down what the thing really costs? If you have more info to add please do because it seems to be pretty hard to find .But did find this older article from 5 months ago http://xtreview.com/review82.htm and they nail the price then at $4 in lots of 1,000. We all know apple buys millions of these things. I just want to make it clear for us Mac Consumers what this thing is costing and question why we cant get a decent GPU in most of Apples offerings. GMA950 is a less then $4 chip. Thats pretty much says it all.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Xenesis macrumors regular

    Xenesis

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Location:
    Australia
    #2
    You know, I have to say that your crusade against Apple's video cards is getting pretty dull. We know they're generally weedy. That's how it's been for 7 years at least.

    You're not telling us anything new. :rolleyes:
     
  3. Dont Hurt Me thread starter macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #3
    Just making a point, you have up to $1500 machines that have a $4 Gpu in them and then we have the fan club telling everyone how great they are. I still dont understand why they even bother with modern CPU's like Core 2 if they are resorting to this kind of stuff with the Gpu's. Integrated graphics may be better in the next generation but the current one is a disappointment. I guess like they say there is a sucker born everyday.:p No comments? I just thought it would be nice to really know what this thing sold for. I can find $4 in my couch if I remove the cushions.:D
     
  4. Spock macrumors 68000

    Spock

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Vulcan
    #4
    You have a $4 GPU in a low cost MacBook. It would bother me a little if it were a $2400 MacBook Pro but its not, if You dont like GMA so much get a iMac or Mac Pro or MacBook Pro.
     
  5. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
  6. jhu macrumors 6502a

    jhu

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    #6
    $1099 is low cost? then again, people who buy macs tend not to care about cost as much. a black macbook costs $1499. the white macbook with the same specs costs $1349. and yet people still pay the extra $150 for black plastic.
     
  7. ChickenSwartz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    #7

    yeah that's awesome. apple is brillant. in their deffence, they will sell less black thus get less of a bulk discount, so it is a bit more expensive, but not $150
     
  8. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #8
    Well that's because your ignorant, and *believe* that every computer buyer is just like you and uses the computers for the exact same reasons and therefore has the exact same hardware expectations.

    The GMA950 is outstanding at 2D and Video acceleration: not everybody is Gamer. In fact, the majority of computers sold never see a game more advanced than solitaire and marble blast in their entire operational lives.

    Safari, Pages, Mail, iTunes, Photoshop, InDesign, Keynote, and even Final Cut Pro all use exactly 0% of the 3D GPU and 100% of the processor. So there, that is why people bother with faster CPUs and *slower* video cards.

    So if a card is amazing at 2D and Video acceleration (honestly now, how much faster do you need a 30fps movie to play other than 30fps), then it makes perfect sense that those two aspects combined, minus 3D video is an inexpensive way to satisfy the needs of 80% of the computer buying public.

    It really isn't that hard to understand.

    Enough BS!

    Musicians, Lawyers, Web Designers, Grandma, and Dick Cheney's Secretary have absolutely no use for a 3D video card, so why should they have to pay for one? If you want it, pay for it! Buy the machine with the 3D card you desire.
     
  9. jamesi macrumors 6502a

    jamesi

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Location:
    Davis CA
    #9
    i think he either was or still is a pc gamer, b/c i certainly think that regarding the video cards in apples machines as "weedy" is being to generous.
     
  10. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #10
    Good grief, calm down. You seem to get off on lashing out at other people who disagree with you. :rolleyes:

    I don't think any of us are in a position to decide what other people need in a computer. You don't know whether or not grandma needs decent 3d performance.

    Not to say that a machine such as the mini should have a high-end graphics chip that's capable of rendering UT at max settings. Maybe something that supports modern 3d features that the 950 offloads onto the CPU would be more appropriate. As I understand it, the next generation integrated chips will be a significant step forward and will still cost next to nothing.

    As a side note, I'm still thinking about buying a mini. I'm pretty sure it's enough computer for me. As long as it'll play HD video decently and can handle X-Plane at least a little better than a 1.33 ghz 12" PB, I'll be happy.
     
  11. keysersoze macrumors 68000

    keysersoze

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    NH
    #11
    You can get a pretty decent HP laptop with a nVidia go7400 for under $900. Granted it's still a PC, but I can understand why Mac fans get pissed when they pay more for something that is lacking in the graphics department.
     
  12. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #12
    $4 for the gpu, I would like to think that Apple could at least afford to put a $5 one in the Mac Mini and base iMac. ;) :D
     
  13. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #13
    No, it's people disagreeing with common sense.

    No, but Apple is, so thus the inexpensive Macs do not have them.
     
  14. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #14
    It's all a matter of opinion. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect hardware that's a little more capable than that of the current $4 chip.

    Besides, it's still no reason to be rude. Sort of like the way you've been towards me previously. :rolleyes:
     
  15. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #15
    For one, this was the OP's own primary research, and that tiny clipping hardly explains how they arrived at the $4 mark when the other chips were $38 and $42. So, if I were to choose any situation as which is most likely, I would say that the $4 is a typo, and they really meant $40.

    Secondly, it's not a matter of my opinion that the situations I mentioned make no use of 3D acceleration - they don't! If everybody needed 3D acceleration, nobody would be buying computers with GMA chips, however today these are sold in the most quantity.

    I don't even remember seeing you anywhere other than this thread, so don't feel singled out by my factual scrutiny and raising doubts - this is what I always do. I want to make sure I'm following what's going on, and that other people's statements are correct.
     
  16. jhu macrumors 6502a

    jhu

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    #16
    the price of $4 for the gma950 comes from the fact that 945P chipset($38) does not include an integrated graphics processor whereas the 945G chipset ($42) does include the gma950.
     
  17. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #17
    It's pretty obvious how they arrived at the $4 figure. The 945G, which includes the GMA 950, is the counterpart to the 945P, which doesn't include the GMA 950. The difference in price between the two, according to the clipping, is $4. This is of course dependent upon the accuracy of these listed figures.

    :confused: Well of course not. This should be patently obvious to anybody. The system resources that any particular program uses isn't up for debate.

    What is a matter of opinion is whether or not the 950 is a good choice for the current mini. It seems odd that Apple would include substantial upgrades to other components, namely the processor, but include a graphics system that is hardly any better, if at all in terms of performance, than the 9200 in the G4. Nobody's asking for a TOTL chip, only something that would provide a more significant performance boost.
     
  18. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    I'm not sure I'm understanding your assessment that the 950 isn't good enough for the lowest end Mac when it clearly is outstanding for all the tasks the Mini is designed for. Sure, better is always better, but having a lesser option that still performs very well doesn't make it suddenly horrible.

    Some of you speak as if it has a Rage 128 or something.
     
  19. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #19
    Basically what it boils down to is this: the only significant upgrade that I can see in the Intel mini, in terms of the graphics subsystem, is the inclusion of CoreImage support. Beyond that, the performance differences between new and old are pretty negligible.
     
  20. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #20
    I would have to disagree at least in the case of the $599 model, which now has dual-core processors at 1.66ghz rather than a single-core at 1.5ghz at the same price. That's quite an upgrade.
     
  21. Anonymous Freak macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #21
    Because for most consumers, it just doesn't matter.

    I use a MacBook Pro. Ordered it the day they were announced. It has an ATI X1600 GPU in it.

    I have used that GPU to do things that a GMA950 wouldn't have been adequate for exactly twice. Both while playing a game in Windows via Boot Camp. (Quake 4 demo.)

    Yet I use 100% of both CPUs daily. I would have been willing to go with a GMA950 in my MacBook Pro over an ATI chip to both save $150-ish and for the battery savings. Obviously, on such a high-end machine, a dedicated graphics chip should be standard, but I would have liked to have the option of having the GMA. (I even have the higher-end 256 MB ATI, simply because it was what came with the processor-speed-upgraded MBP.)

    Oh, I thought of a third time I have used the GPU. To run one of ATI's demos. Just because.
     
  22. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #22
  23. Sesshi macrumors G3

    Sesshi

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Location:
    One Nation Under Gordon
    #23
    Some notebooks in the Macbooks price range do use other more powerful GPUs but many still use the GMA950. It's not unique. So what if it costs $4?

    ...but it's a shame better laptop engineering doesn't cost $4, eh? :p
     
  24. neonblue2 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Port Pirie, South Australia
    #24
    You do realise the GMA950 does it's job, don't you? And not only is it better than the 9200 it replaced, it's also cheaper as you point out, and, the Intel Mini's price went down $A50 when it came out so the saving was passed on to the end user.
     
  25. Evangelion macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    #25
    It also has resistors and wires that cost few pennies each. Oh the humanity!
     

Share This Page