Apple Dropping NVIDIA for Future Macs?

[edddeduck]

Mate, if you throw a GPU on a machine that has access to DDR3 compared to DDR2 clocked at 667Mhz - what do you think the result is going to be?

Depends on the GPU and where the bottleneck is.

In the case of the old and new MacBooks I am fairly certain the GPU has a bigger effect than the speed of the RAM it can access. Although this is not testable as I cannot build my own hardware.

The problem with the GMA cards is not the speed of the VRAM/RAM but the features it can execute in hardware. The NV card has better hardware in the GPU so even if it had slower RAM it would still be a LOT faster.

Edwin

 

[Theclamshell]

Mate, if you throw a GPU on a machine that has access to DDR3 compared to DDR2 clocked at 667Mhz - what do you think the result is going to be?

What about the new whitebook, it has DDR2 at 800 and the 9400M

and the old has DDR2 at 667 are you telling us that 133MHz of ram speed can make that much of a difference?

 

[Sun Baked]

What about the new whitebook, it has DDR2 at 800 and the 9400M

and the old has DDR2 at 667 are you telling us that 133MHz of ram speed can make that much of a difference?

Helps a bit when the integrated GPU is using system RAM, a 20% boost in a bottleneck area is worth something.

 

[candykane]

look what the Ion standaard is doing.
smal cpu massive GPU power. GPU power is the futere, all the major big foto/video apps are going for support of the GPU, because tha calculating powere is wai better of any cpu.
Im just thinking Apple is playing a game to force out a better contract.
come on guy's you all know Apple's track record for there 1st generation of any thing it can be CRAP! we all know it every fist generation has bug bug and more bugs. ranging from iphones powermacs imacs ect ect i had a fisrt generation G5 imac is tended to die on me with no reson then wold work perfect for weeks then not even boot. im not going to start about my Ipnon G3 first 6 monts where realy bas crashes of apps or the compleet phone ect ect
i know of a powermac G5 powersuply failure, or about faulty baterys in the mac bok pro's e its a endles list apple blames some one else .

there going to stick ith nvidea there is nothing else that gets close for power vs consumtion

 

[diamond.g]

Helps a bit when the integrated GPU is using system RAM, a 20% boost in a bottleneck area is worth something.

Integrated GPUs are shader limited well before they become bandwidth (fillrate) limited.

 

[twoodcc]

hmm. i thought nvidia was better than intel?

 

[macintoshtoffy]

Integrated GPUs are shader limited well before they become bandwidth (fillrate) limited.

Try using an Intel 810 on 133Mhz memory and tell me its all about the shaders.

 

[diamond.g]

Try using an Intel 810 on 133Mhz memory and tell me its all about the shaders.

Touché. In that case bandwidth is the least of your concerns.

 

[bigwig]

I'll go on record to say that Larrabee will suck.

But you don't say why it will suck: because Larrabee is based on a general-purpose x86 processor. General-purpose processors are terrible at graphics, that's why GPUs are special-purpose vector processors. If Larrabee is even close to acceptable, it's because Intel spent big dollars on it, not because it's a good design (rather like x86 itself).

 

[diamond.g]

But you don't say why it will suck: because Larrabee is based on a general-purpose x86 processor. General-purpose processors are terrible at graphics, that's why GPUs are special-purpose vector processors. If Larrabee is even close to acceptable, it's because Intel spent big dollars on it, not because it's a good design (rather like x86 itself).

Larrabee isn't built for graphics (contrary to what they say) it is built for GPGPU (OpenCL). Besides Intel swears it will be good for realtime Ray tracing (giggle).

 

[macintoshtoffy]

But you don't say why it will suck: because Larrabee is based on a general-purpose x86 processor. General-purpose processors are terrible at graphics, that's why GPUs are special-purpose vector processors. If Larrabee is even close to acceptable, it's because Intel spent big dollars on it, not because it's a good design (rather like x86 itself).

I don't know how on earth you can come out stating things like that when there has been little to no official information given out on the exact nature of it. The only thing one knows about it is the rumour that it uses the old P75 architectural design - but from then onwards, what ISA they'll use, what modifications they've done - its all a secret.

Stop trying to behave as though you have some sort of 'insider secret' which gives you a free pass to abuse anyone whom you disagree with. There is no definites, its all speculation. Your speculation is of no higher reliability than the next person.

 

[bigwig]

The only thing one knows about it is the rumour that it uses the old P75 architectural design - but from then onwards, what ISA they'll use, what modifications they've done - its all a secret.

Google "larrabee x86". It's pretty clear that:

1) Larrabee is an array of x86 cores, minus MMX and SSE, plus Larrabee-specific instructions
2) Larrabee is based on the Pentium 54C
3) Larrabee includes little or no specialized graphics hardware
4) It does z-buffering and clipping in software
5) The theory is that it can run 2, maybe 3 GHz.
6) Whether that results in performance as good as a 600 MHz regular GPU is anybody's guess
7) If it is running clock speed speeds that high, my bet is that it's both monstrously hot and a big power hog

Stop trying to behave as though you have some sort of 'insider secret' which gives you a free pass to abuse anyone whom you disagree with.

Abuse? What, pray tell, is remotely abusive about my post?

 

[iMacmatician]

7) If it is running clock speed speeds that high, my bet is that it's both monstrously hot and a big power hog

Fudzilla says about 300 W.

 

[Eidorian]

Fudzilla says about 300 W.

Wasn't that for the massive one though?

 

[iMacmatician]

Wasn't that for the massive one though?

I think so.

 

[macintoshtoffy]

Google "larrabee x86". It's pretty clear that:

1) Larrabee is an array of x86 cores, minus MMX and SSE, plus Larrabee-specific instructions
2) Larrabee is based on the Pentium 54C
3) Larrabee includes little or no specialized graphics hardware
4) It does z-buffering and clipping in software
5) The theory is that it can run 2, maybe 3 GHz.
6) Whether that results in performance as good as a 600 MHz regular GPU is anybody's guess
7) If it is running clock speed speeds that high, my bet is that it's both monstrously hot and a big power hog

Which is nothing less than speculation - and what is it based on? all you're basing your assumption on is speculated information which is based on hypothetical's - "if I had 512cores, what would I do".

Nothing wrong with stating, "from what I have heard" or "from what I understand" but what you are doing is nothing short of, "these are the facts, don't challenge them" by the tone of your post.

Abuse? What, pray tell, is remotely abusive about my post?

Read the tone of the post.

 

[bigwig]

Which is nothing less than speculation - and what is it based on? all you're basing your assumption on is speculated information which is based on hypothetical's

None of my first 4 items are speculation. Larrabee's specs may have changed, but that's how it was originally supposed to be built. Numbers 5, 6, and 7 contain clear hedge words, like "theory", "guess", and "bet".

Read the tone of the post.

I'll admit to abusing Intel, but they usually deserve it. There's not a hint of abuse of the person I replied to, and if you think there is you need your abuse meter recalibrated.