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

apple intentionally crippled the X3100?

asphyxiafeeling

asphyxiafeeling

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 31, 2008
199
0
Cali baby!
i found this while searching intel GPUs-

http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91514

the second post in that thread says something about apple limiting the amount of RAM the X3100 can use to 144MB.

why would they do that? is it just the poor drivers they use, or did apple do this on purpose for some reason? is that why the X3100 in windows is so much better?

i realize that thread could be bogus but it was bothering me so i decided to ask MR!
 
asphyxiafeeling said:
i found this while searching intel GPUs-

http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91514

the second post in that thread says something about apple limiting the amount of RAM the X3100 can use to 144MB.

why would they do that? is it just the poor drivers they use, or did apple do this on purpose for some reason? is that why the X3100 in windows is so much better?

i realize that thread could be bogus but it was bothering me so i decided to ask MR!
Click to expand...

Why would an X3100 ever need more than 144MB of video ram?
 
i see!

thank you guys for explaining. it clears things up. i had forgotten system RAM and video RAM were different in terms of performance.

at first i thought that limiting the usable ram to 144mb was crippling the machine.

if it doesn't make a difference, why does the X3100 behave better in windows? is that just apple's poor drivers VS intel's?
 
asphyxiafeeling said:
i see!

thank you guys for explaining. it clears things up. i had forgotten system RAM and video RAM were different in terms of performance.

at first i thought that limiting the usable ram to 144mb was crippling the machine.

if it doesn't make a difference, why does the X3100 behave better in windows? is that just apple's poor drivers VS intel's?
Click to expand...

I would think intel publishes both drivers. Obviously, intel has a greater incentive to work on the windows drivers than than the os x driver.
 
asphyxiafeeling said:
i found this while searching intel GPUs-

http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91514

the second post in that thread says something about apple limiting the amount of RAM the X3100 can use to 144MB.

why would they do that? is it just the poor drivers they use, or did apple do this on purpose for some reason? is that why the X3100 in windows is so much better?

i realize that thread could be bogus but it was bothering me so i decided to ask MR!
Click to expand...

Here's what Apple has to say about integrated video on Intel-based Macs.

The GMA 950 allocates a base amount of 80 MB for video and boot processes at startup. The GMA X3100 allocates a base amount of 160 MB for video and boot processes at startup.

The story doesn't end there however. The "rest of the story" that most everyone seems to miss is that: "Depending on the application or task being accomplished, Mac OS X may make additional main memory available to the graphics processor for texture use beyond the base amount mentioned above. The most common types of applications that request more system memory to be used as graphics memory are 3D and graphics-intense applications. The most common task would be video mirroring or extended desktop."
 
Eidorian said:
Apple's GMA X3100 isn't as refined as Intel's over on the Windows side. Not that the video card is spectacular to begin with.
Click to expand...

haha, that's gotta be the like, 10th post i've seen from you saying the Intel GMA X3100 isn't good. (you always seem to say something like that when people ask about gaming on macbooks, in fact right when i posted this thread i thought, "oh that Eidorian is probably going to say something") :p

as far as integrated solutions go, the X3100 is actually ok. is it crap compared to a 8600M? of course. but i mean, it should be able handle light gaming fine.

world of warcraft? yes.
EA's anticipated upcoming game Spore? yes (says EA).
starcraft 2? i am 100% certain it'll work fine on it when released.

the upcoming X4500 is going to be even better! and then in the future... from what i've read, in a few years Intel may have integrated graphics cards that are better then dedicated ones!


localoid said:
Here's what Apple has to say about integrated video on Intel-based Macs.

The GMA 950 allocates a base amount of 80 MB for video and boot processes at startup. The GMA X3100 allocates a base amount of 160 MB for video and boot processes at startup.

The story doesn't end there however. The "rest of the story" that most everyone seems to miss is that: "Depending on the application or task being accomplished, Mac OS X may make additional main memory available to the graphics processor for texture use beyond the base amount mentioned above. The most common types of applications that request more system memory to be used as graphics memory are 3D and graphics-intense applications. The most common task would be video mirroring or extended desktop."
Click to expand...

thanks! that clears things up further.

Muncher said:
I would think intel publishes both drivers. Obviously, intel has a greater incentive to work on the windows drivers than than the os x driver.
Click to expand...

i thought that myself. however, i've read several times that apple writes their own drivers for them. hmm...
 
asphyxiafeeling said:
haha, that's gotta be the like, 10th post i've seen from you saying the Intel GMA X3100 isn't good. (you always seem to say something like that when people ask about gaming on macbooks, in fact right when i posted this thread i thought, "oh that Eidorian is probably going to say something") :p
Click to expand...
I get around. This is especially true when it comes to video cards or processors.

The amount of RAM isn't a significant performance bottleneck when it comes to integrated graphics. You're going to run into a lot more problems with the lack of plentiful shaders or memory bandwidth.
 
Wouldn't put it past them. Putting a combo drive on a $1300 machine, it wouldn't surprise me.

How much of a performance boost do you get in Windows? I'm considering buying PC versions of all the games I own.
 
Eidorian said:
I get around. This is especially true when it comes to video cards or processors.

The amount of RAM isn't a significant performance bottleneck when it comes to integrated graphics. You're going to run into a lot more problems with the lack of plentiful shaders or memory bandwidth.
Click to expand...

yes, of course. i meant no offense! :)
 
Beric said:
Wouldn't put it past them. Putting a combo drive on a $1300 machine, it wouldn't surprise me.

How much of a performance boost do you get in Windows? I'm considering buying PC versions of all the games I own.
Click to expand...
You're better off building a cheap PC then going Boot Camp on a Macbook.

I'd much rather have my old Radeon 9600 then the GMA X3100.

asphyxiafeeling said:
yes, of course. i meant no offense! :)
Click to expand...
None was taken.
 
Eidorian said:
You're better off building a cheap PC then going Boot Camp on a Macbook.
I'd much rather have my old Radeon 9600 then the GMA X3100.

None was taken.
Click to expand...

Very true.

You can make one for ~900-1300$ maybe less if you can find some good sales or "sweet spot" parts.

And then almost all computer games will run perfectly, no hassle.

If you're serious about gaming, Mac is not the place to be (yet...hopefully).
 
well, I was implying slightly more powerful components...and not those gimped out-of-the-box ones from Best Buy :(
 
Jak3 said:
well, I was implying slightly more powerful components...and not those gimped out-of-the-box ones from Best Buy :(
Click to expand...

me too. i get all my parts at newegg.com

you can buy a powerful computer for 500. this config i showed without monitor and upper end parts costs less than 600. you could easily save money on the graphics card to get it down to 500. also could save on the hd too if you wanted or psu or any of it.

also, this price config is a couple weeks old. probably cheaper now
 

Attachments

  • screenshot_02.jpg
    screenshot_02.jpg
    322.7 KB · Views: 156
well, you should never include bargains in an estimate, because who's to say you will get that bargain.

I prefer setting high price points and then wowing myself when I'm underbudget rather than go "overbudget":cool:
 
Jak3 said:
well, you should never include bargains in an estimate, because who's to say you will get that bargain.

I prefer setting high price points and then wowing myself when I'm underbudget rather than go "overbudget":cool:
Click to expand...

ooook. point is you dont need to spend 900-1300 to get a good computer

notice how 2 items had rebates for a total of 50 bucks.

also note you have a near top of line video card and a great processor and a good psu and decent amt of ram and a larger than standard hd


my config was to prove a point that you can build a high quality computer for relatively cheap lol
 
Well, the LCD is brand new (got it last weekend)

and the PC itself, some parts I bought last year, but wasn't able to get the rest until about feb of this year.

The Mobo is top of the line (one of the parts I got last year, ASUS Striker Extreme) which adds to the cost as well, PSU is 800W SLI certified and the case is bigger than normal because I hate small cases and the 8800GT is 1gig, not 512MB
 
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
Back