of course this is the future. apple only supported the integrated spec from the beginning to cut costs and because of their partnership with intel. ati is on amd's side, nvidia is neutral. it will be a great partnership.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Migrating to NVIDIA Chipsets in new MacBooks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think you've missed the great partnership ATI and Intel have when it comes to video cards and chipsets.
Apple didn't seem to have trouble offering a dedicated GPU solution during the PowerPC iBook days. Of course, they didn't have a choice as there were no integrated GPU solutions to be used in conjunction with PowerPC.
As soon as Apple switched to Intel....they immediately take the low road and start putting in integrated GPU's in the lower-end laptops/mini. One day, they are saying how poorly integrated graphics solutions are...and after the switch, there is no further mention of the drawbacks of integrated GPU's.
If I want an integrated GPU solution, I wouldn't be buying a Macintosh....I'd just go get a cheap PC.
As soon as Apple switched to Intel....they immediately take the low road and start putting in integrated GPU's in the lower-end laptops/mini. One day, they are saying how poorly integrated graphics solutions are...and after the switch, there is no further mention of the drawbacks of integrated GPU's.
If I want an integrated GPU solution, I wouldn't be buying a Macintosh....I'd just go get a cheap PC.
A 9600M GT would be kind of disappointing. It is an improvement over the 8600M GT, but really not that much considering the MBP already used the GDDR3 version and the 9600M GT still only has 32 Stream Processor, just clocked higher. I was hoping for a 9700M GT.
Apple really should incorporate an ATI Mobility Radeon 4670. Especially with all this talk of OpenCL. Only ATI's HD3xxx and HD4xxx series and nVidia GT2xx series supports 64-bit double precision floats. nVidia's 8xxx and 9xxx series only do 32-bit floats, so while they may be fast in games, they would be more limited in GPGPU applications. Although it may not show through in games due to driver limitations in exploiting ATI's 5-way architecture, the 4670's 320 Stream Processors really should show their power in GPGPU applications over the higher clocked 32 Stream Processors in most of nVidia's mainstream mobile lineup. The Mobility Radeon 4xxx series is supposed to launch before the year is out and I can think of no bigger event for ATI to gain momentum than to be in Apple's MBP and take part in the upcoming Apple event.
And in terms of switching between integrated and discrete graphics cards, Intel's Montevina also supports this feature if OEMs decide to use it. Intel's implementation is also GPU agnostic between ATI and nVidia GPUs, which is beneficial to avoid locking into one vendor.
EDIT: In terms of switching between integrated and discrete graphics card, I mean the feature that nVidia calls Hybrid Power where the discrete GPU can be shut off to save power and the screen is fed by the IGP. Montevina supports this feature and can work between Intel IGPs and ATI GPUs or Intel IGPs and nVidia GPUs. Intel doesn't support Hybrid SLI of course, but I don't think it matters anyways since Hybrid SLI or what nVidia calls GeForce Boost won't work with anything higher than a GeForce 9500M G anyways. Only Hybrid Power works with mainstream or high-end GPUs, which Montevina supports.
Apple really should incorporate an ATI Mobility Radeon 4670. Especially with all this talk of OpenCL. Only ATI's HD3xxx and HD4xxx series and nVidia GT2xx series supports 64-bit double precision floats. nVidia's 8xxx and 9xxx series only do 32-bit floats, so while they may be fast in games, they would be more limited in GPGPU applications. Although it may not show through in games due to driver limitations in exploiting ATI's 5-way architecture, the 4670's 320 Stream Processors really should show their power in GPGPU applications over the higher clocked 32 Stream Processors in most of nVidia's mainstream mobile lineup. The Mobility Radeon 4xxx series is supposed to launch before the year is out and I can think of no bigger event for ATI to gain momentum than to be in Apple's MBP and take part in the upcoming Apple event.
And in terms of switching between integrated and discrete graphics cards, Intel's Montevina also supports this feature if OEMs decide to use it. Intel's implementation is also GPU agnostic between ATI and nVidia GPUs, which is beneficial to avoid locking into one vendor.
EDIT: In terms of switching between integrated and discrete graphics card, I mean the feature that nVidia calls Hybrid Power where the discrete GPU can be shut off to save power and the screen is fed by the IGP. Montevina supports this feature and can work between Intel IGPs and ATI GPUs or Intel IGPs and nVidia GPUs. Intel doesn't support Hybrid SLI of course, but I don't think it matters anyways since Hybrid SLI or what nVidia calls GeForce Boost won't work with anything higher than a GeForce 9500M G anyways. Only Hybrid Power works with mainstream or high-end GPUs, which Montevina supports.
Ah I see, so just kind of the principle of the matter, "If I'm paying $1000 I should have better than a integrated GPU," I agree but have only had Intel Macs so I guess it's just easier for me to accept than some of the people that used to have PowerPCs with dedicated GPUs, and the only reason I want a dedicated GPU is for games anyway which I probably shouldn't be wasting my time on since I have a tendency to get lazy once I get addicted to a game.
Because by the end of the iBook, the Freescale G4 PPC chip that was going in the laptop was $50. The Intel chip that goes in the current MB is $200-300 depending on which model. So you can see why not only did Apple bump the price $100, but also went for the cheaper integrated GPU.
Yes, in large part, it is mainly on principle of which I feel pretty strongly about.
All of my Macs have dedicated GPU solutions in them:
Mac Mini PowerPC G4 (ATI 9200, 64MB VRAM)
Titanium PowerBook G4 (ATI 9000, 64MB VRAM)
All of my future Macs (if any) will also have dedicated GPU's. Actually, even though I've always been a die-hard Apple fan, I've been thinking of just getting a cheap PC as my next computer.
All of my Macs have dedicated GPU solutions in them:
Mac Mini PowerPC G4 (ATI 9200, 64MB VRAM)
Titanium PowerBook G4 (ATI 9000, 64MB VRAM)
All of my future Macs (if any) will also have dedicated GPU's. Actually, even though I've always been a die-hard Apple fan, I've been thinking of just getting a cheap PC as my next computer.
I think you missed the point.
Before the Intel switch (ie, all throughout the PowerPC era), Apple NEVER used integrated GPU solutions in any of their machines. After the switch, cheap integrated GPU solutions became the norm for low-end laptops/mini.
Before the Intel switch (ie, all throughout the PowerPC era), Apple NEVER used integrated GPU solutions in any of their machines. After the switch, cheap integrated GPU solutions became the norm for low-end laptops/mini.
I'm excited. I hope they also use the PureVideo HD, to enable *cough* Blu-ray 1080p decoding without pegging the GPU. This would mean 30" display support on the MBs and definitely HDCP. Maybe it may mean they will sell the computers with a DVI to HDMI adapter that allows 5.1 surround sound through the DVI with the adapter (like they have on the desktop cards).
Crysis is so overrated. Sure I only played it for few hours, but that was all I needed to know that it wasn't a game I should buy. Maybe the full game is better than the beta, but I still don't people should quantify GPU performance with a video game.
Crysis is so overrated. Sure I only played it for few hours, but that was all I needed to know that it wasn't a game I should buy. Maybe the full game is better than the beta, but I still don't people should quantify GPU performance with a video game.
Ovverated? Yes
Machine Killer? Yes
running Crysis on your rig is like christening it
of course, this means CoD4 will run on it too, as well as most other games...
Every major IHV supports switching between the dedicated GPU and discrete. ATI have been doing it for over a year now. I don't understand why people suddenly thinks it is all the rage but it would definitely benefit the MacBook Pro but add to the cost.
The Radeon HD 4670 would be one fantastic card to get in the MacBook Pro (sorry for slightly derailing the thread). Cool running and performing like the Radeon HD 3850 / 3870. It would even be faster than the Geforce 8800 GS...oh, I mean the renamed Geforce 9600 GSO that is in the high-end iMac.
Not to mention it is the better when it comes to power consumption being made on a now mature 55nm process.
The MacBook should get the ATI RV730. That is one nice and sweet performing dedicated GPU for its size and power usage. The Geforce 8300 and 8200 are embarrassing compared to it.
Unfortunately (if the Nvidia rumors hold true), ATI GPU solutions will not make it into the MacBook/MacBook Pro redesign.
I don't think he did miss the point - he was merely stating that no product can exist without price sensitivity to the market. The cost of parts (CPU) going into the MacBook were substantially more expensive, and thus cost had to get cut somewhere else in order for the product to remain at a relatively similar price point.
Putting your matter-of-principal aside (that you think that all macs should have a dedicated GPU because, well, it's Apple), the fact remains that the integrated GPU in the MacBook was still a dramatic improvement over the dedicated radeon that preceded it. We've got a 1st gen MacBook at home, as well as a 1.33ghz iBook, and lemme tell you, the difference is night and day.
So, considering the following:
1st gen Macbook faster than iBook/PowerBook
1st gen Macbook graphics more powerful than iBook/Powerbook
1st gen Macbook cpu 5 or 6 times as expensive as the preceding PPC cpu
How can you argue that they cut corners? Sure it's a different configuration, with a shift in the approach to a core part, but if they're improving the function significantly overall while hitting the same price-point (more or less) and keeping the machine accessible to their market, then what's the problem? For the price of a Macbook I don't expect perfection - I expect 'pretty good'.
Putting your matter-of-principal aside (that you think that all macs should have a dedicated GPU because, well, it's Apple), the fact remains that the integrated GPU in the MacBook was still a dramatic improvement over the dedicated radeon that preceded it. We've got a 1st gen MacBook at home, as well as a 1.33ghz iBook, and lemme tell you, the difference is night and day.
So, considering the following:
1st gen Macbook faster than iBook/PowerBook
1st gen Macbook graphics more powerful than iBook/Powerbook
1st gen Macbook cpu 5 or 6 times as expensive as the preceding PPC cpu
How can you argue that they cut corners? Sure it's a different configuration, with a shift in the approach to a core part, but if they're improving the function significantly overall while hitting the same price-point (more or less) and keeping the machine accessible to their market, then what's the problem? For the price of a Macbook I don't expect perfection - I expect 'pretty good'.
Which has never stopped them from insuring compatibility and feature support. Ever. So what? The first MacBook Pro used an Intel chipset and the X1600 from ATI. Ownership means nothing.
That's what I was thinking, which is why I didn't get his point, glad I'm not the only one.
The first generation MacBook (Intel) is faster than the last generation iBook G4 (PowerPC) in GENERAL computing because of the CPU. The first generation MacBook (Intel with integrated graphics) is not faster than the last generation iBook G4 (ATI with dedicated graphics) when it comes to playing 3D-games.
By the way, if I want "pretty good" or "good enough"...I would go the way of Microsoft. That is their philosophy...."it doesn't have to be great...just good enough."
By the way, if I want "pretty good" or "good enough"...I would go the way of Microsoft. That is their philosophy...."it doesn't have to be great...just good enough."
Quake 3 (old, I know, but still perfectly adequate for this comparison) runs like crap on my iBook's Radeon. Runs great on my gf's MacBook. Same thing with Homeworld 2 on high. The mobile radeon 9000 just wasn't in the same league, in my experience.
I bought an iBook at the beginning of 2006 for around $1200 bucks. It replaced a $2000 VAIO that I had bought in 2003. When I bought it, I did so because it was cheap, small, and 'pretty good', and I wouldn't cry too much if it got stolen while I was travelling, and working in the bush. The iBook has been the best computer I've ever owned, and the VAIO that preceded it was the worst: the iBook has crashed ONCE in the entire time that I've been using it (including 2-years of design and development work), and the VAIO couldn't run for more than an hour without overheating and shutting down, weighed 10 pounds, and LITERALLY smelled like canned tuna whenever it got hot.
This says to me that Apple's 'pretty good' is a lot better than a lot of companies' 'high-end'. Or at least that was the case at that point.
I hate to tell you this, but the fact that Apple has two lines of notebooks is, by definition, a concession to the fact that in order to hit certain price points, they need to cut some corners, and make a line of "pretty good" notebooks. For those that see the value and have the money, they also make "freaking great" notebooks. You can't have something for nothing... You want better? Pay up to the next level and get an MBP.
Or settle for a cheap HP or Dell (or VAIO), and get "stinky and broken" instead.
The mini should also get a MCP79 chipset solution.
Sony offers laptops with both intergrated/discrete graphocs-whether Apple will, remains to be seen.
SLI isn't seen on any Mac-even Mac pros.
Sony offers laptops with both intergrated/discrete graphocs-whether Apple will, remains to be seen.
SLI isn't seen on any Mac-even Mac pros.