Apple Shifting to Intel Graphics for Future MacBooks and 13-Inch MacBook Pros?

[bossmanjunior]

but if you guys too just one minute to read the articles posted, you'd realize the latest IGPs are actually pretty damn decent.

because thats what i want in a thousand dollar machine, pretty damn decent (sarcasm). computers are supposed to be progressively improved, not just marginally changed. i havent bought a mbp yet because the graphics cards in them (every line including the 15 and 17) are terrible for their pricepoint (see asus laptops). apple has been lagging behind in graphics performance and its time they reasserted their claims as a "media editing beast". right now they are just internet power surfers that have outdated hardware before they are released.

in other words...put the 6570 in the new mbp and have bto options for even better cards, ill take an hour hit in battery life, it will still be better than any other laptops battery life

 

[Yebubbleman]

It's cheaper, much smaller, and more power efficient. How is that not an improvement?

It's not an improvement because the end product stands a fairly decent chance of sucking or being barely equivalent to what we have today in the GeForce 320m.

because thats what i want in a thousand dollar machine, pretty damn decent (sarcasm). computers are supposed to be progressively improved, not just marginally changed. i havent bought a mbp yet because the graphics cards in them (every line including the 15 and 17) are terrible for their pricepoint (see asus laptops). apple has been lagging behind in graphics performance and its time they reasserted their claims as a "media editing beast". right now they are just internet power surfers that have outdated hardware before they are released.

in other words...put the 6570 in the new mbp and have bto options for even better cards, ill take an hour hit in battery life, it will still be better than any other laptops battery life

Is the 6570 out yet? I only see AMD's 6850 and 6870 desktop offerings and nothing else for the 6 series on their site. I'm excited though.

The amount of people bashing Intel graphic cards based on their past reputation made me stop reading this thread after the second page. Yes, they did absolutely suck, but if you guys too just one minute to read the articles posted, you'd realize the latest IGPs are actually pretty damn decent. It's slightly better than a 5450, which is almost on par to a 320M.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/7

Sure, because we want something that is almost on par to the thing it is supposedly replacing. Come on!

I don't think you really understood me. Making the overall computer thicker doesn't solve all their problems. They can't add a dedicated GPU right now because there's no room, in addition to the cooling issues that would arise. There's no space left on the board for another major component like that. They would have to increase the area taken up by the board somehow.

I agree that I don't think it's really necessary, but like I said, I wouldn't be surprised (and certainly would never try to argue that I was sure that Apple would or wouldn't do something like that, they've already shown themselves to be making decisions in a different way than at times in the past, so I am refusing to make any absolute statements about what they will do).

jW

If you make the 13" MacBook Pro thicker you can fit both a larger MLB with a discrete GPU AND an optical drive (see 12" PowerBook G4). Moot point as (a) it won't be made thicker, (b) the optical drive isn't going away this next refresh, and (c) Apple is not going to deem the 13" MacBook Pro a candidate for a discrete GPU.

 

[cathyy]

Unreleased graphics being almost on par with now 2 year old GPUs ? Wow, I'm sooooooo impressed.

How is this any different than any of their other offerings ? Intel has failed to offer competitive GPUs since the i740, 10 years ago. From all the preliminary tests, Sandy Bridges doesn't seem to be any different.

The amount of people defending sub-par graphics in this thread is astounding.

First of all, neither the Nvidia 320M nor the ATI 5450 is even more than a year old. Secondly, I'm not even claiming it's a good graphic card. I mean seriously, it's an integrated graphics card, how much performance are you seriously expecting from an integrated card?

However the newest integrated graphic card is pretty damn decent, compared to how ****** all their previous graphic cards have been. It's actually better than the lowest current generation dedicated cards by both ATI and Nvidia.

And no, I'm not defending sub-par graphics. I'll leave that to the Mac fanboys to do because they'll defend whatever ****** graphic card Steve Jobs decides to put inside and say that it's an excellent choice. I mean honestly? Do you really expect spectecular performance from an integrated card? No one does. That's why most laptops have an option to include a dedicated graphics card for better performance. Do you want better graphics? Tell Steve Jobs to put in decent graphics card then. The Sony Vaio Z is 60% of the MBP 13" weight and yet it has a Nvidia 330M in it, which is twice as powerful as the 320M.

On a side note, do you want to know what other companies use back technology which is basically on par as what we had 2 - 3 years ago? Nvidia. The 8600M GT was renamed to a 9600M GT which was then renamed to a GT 130M when it's basically the same damn thing.

Wanna know what the other company is? Apple. It's the year 2010, and they're introducing brand new Macbook Pros and Macbook Airs with Core 2 Duo CPUs which have been in the market for 3 years already.

 

[KnightWRX]

First of all, neither the Nvidia 320M nor the ATI 5450 is even more than a year old. Secondly, I'm not even claiming it's a good graphic card. I mean seriously, it's an integrated graphics card, how much performance are you seriously expecting from an integrated card?

From something yet to be released that won't be until 2011 ? I expect that it performs better than something released in 2009.

The 320M is an integrated graphics processor too.

There's just nothing to be impressed here. Intel is again shipping lackluster graphics and will keep dragging the industry down.

 

[Yebubbleman]

First of all, neither the Nvidia 320M nor the ATI 5450 is even more than a year old. Secondly, I'm not even claiming it's a good graphic card. I mean seriously, it's an integrated graphics card, how much performance are you seriously expecting from an integrated card?

However the newest integrated graphic card is pretty damn decent, compared to how ****** all their previous graphic cards have been. It's actually better than the lowest current generation dedicated cards by both ATI and Nvidia.

And no, I'm not defending sub-par graphics. I'll leave that to the Mac fanboys to do because they'll defend whatever ****** graphic card Steve Jobs decides to put inside and say that it's an excellent choice. I mean honestly? Do you really expect spectecular performance from an integrated card? No one does. That's why most laptops have an option to include a dedicated graphics card for better performance. Do you want better graphics? Tell Steve Jobs to put in decent graphics card then. The Sony Vaio Z is 60% of the MBP 13" weight and yet it has a Nvidia 330M in it, which is twice as powerful as the 320M.

On a side note, do you want to know what other companies use back technology which is basically on par as what we had 2 - 3 years ago? Nvidia. The 8600M GT was renamed to a 9600M GT which was then renamed to a GT 130M when it's basically the same damn thing.

Wanna know what the other company is? Apple. It's the year 2010, and they're introducing brand new Macbook Pros and Macbook Airs with Core 2 Duo CPUs which have been in the market for 3 years already.

Apple stuck with the Core 2 due to the dispute between NVIDIA and Intel that prevented the former from making chipsets using the later's Core i series CPUs. Plain and simple. No one here, Mac fanboy or not wants any more out of the next gen MacBook, 13" MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, or Mac mini than better than what was there before. Personally, I don't care what replaces the 320M, just as long as it is either the same or better in every technological respect. Period. That said, I'm skeptical that when Sandy Bridge is finalized and on the market, that the IGP therein will live up to the hype. I think everyone here is. But I don't think a single one of us is closed to the idea of being proven wrong. Hell, I'd love it if Intel suddenly didn't suck in the IGP department. It'd be great if they introduced something to kick the crap out of the 320M, because honestly, the 320M does what most people need and then some (which is a feat that none of the Intel GMA processors ever could do before).

 

[tigress666]

the 320M does what most people need and then some (which is a feat that none of the Intel GMA processors ever could do before).

*laugh*. My previous MB I think has a GM950 (GM something, maybe it was 850)? All I know is that I never was happy with its gaming ability even when it was new (I really don't do much gaming, but I like my computer to be capable of some. It seemed my MB was only capable of really outdated games for older systems).

But, I was really annoyed (and amused) when looking at the Sims 3 requirement outright called out my graphics card as not compatible (I mean usually you just see "needs this card or higher". It outright had, GM950 will not work (or 850 or whatever my card was... it's whatever card Sims 3 puts on the box as not compatible).

I'm much happier with the new graphics card. It can at least do some modern games (I don't game much though so not really asking too much out of it).

 

[Yebubbleman]

*laugh*. My previous MB I think has a GM950 (GM something, maybe it was 850)? All I know is that I never was happy with its gaming ability even when it was new (I really don't do much gaming, but I like my computer to be capable of some. It seemed my MB was only capable of really outdated games for older systems).

But, I was really annoyed (and amused) when looking at the Sims 3 requirement outright called out my graphics card as not compatible (I mean usually you just see "needs this card or higher". It outright had, GM950 will not work (or 850 or whatever my card was... it's whatever card Sims 3 puts on the box as not compatible).

I'm much happier with the new graphics card. It can at least do some modern games (I don't game much though so not really asking too much out of it).

The 320M plays StarCraft II with most settings on medium and some on high. It plays BioShock, and it beats the discrete ATI Radeon X1600 GPU in my iMac in just about every other technological respect as well. It also is supported by Final Cut Studio and the Adobe Pro apps. What more do we need? That said, anything less than this is unacceptable.

 

[pr5owner]

The 320M plays StarCraft II with most settings on medium and some on high. It plays BioShock, and it beats the discrete ATI Radeon X1600 GPU in my iMac in just about every other technological respect as well. It also is supported by Final Cut Studio and the Adobe Pro apps. What more do we need? That said, anything less than this is unacceptable.

lol that 320m is a POS, i can play SC2 on ultra settings at 1920x1080 (my laptop costing the same as the 13" MBA/MBP while slaughtering the 17" MBP in performance)

i get 170FPS in left4dead2, apple performance is unacceptable for its price.

the X1600? that can be found on a 4 year old HP laptop, (Compaq NC8430 with the 1680x1050 screen) your brand new video cards beats something thats 4 years old, woop dee doo

 

[Yebubbleman]

lol that 320m is a POS, i can play SC2 on ultra settings at 1920x1080 (my laptop costing the same as the 13" MBA/MBP)

i get 170FPS in left4dead2, apple performance is unacceptable for its price.

Cool story, bro.

 

[pr5owner]

Cool story, bro.

you probably wouldn't realize how slow a mac is until you've used another laptop similarly priced for at least a month. (With a clean install of 7 and updated drivers)
$999 will get you a quadcore i7 laptop with a GT425 and 4GB of ram (Asus N53J)

EDIT: according to notebook check the GTX460m gets 200+ FPS on low in L4D and 128FPS on high

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-460M.33612.0.html

with the 320m you get 78FPS on low and 48FPS on high, thats pretty sad... starcraft 2 isnt even playable at high or ultra settings, the FPS is in the red (seriously? 8FPS?)

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-320M.28701.0.html

 

[Yebubbleman]

you probably wouldn't realize how slow a mac is until you've used another laptop similarly priced for at least a month. (With a clean install of 7 and updated drivers)
$999 will get you a quadcore i7 laptop with a GT425 and 4GB of ram (Asus N53J)

EDIT: according to notebook check the GTX460m gets 200+ FPS on low in L4D and 128FPS on high

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-460M.33612.0.html

with the 320m you get 78FPS on low and 48FPS on high, thats pretty sad...

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-320M.28701.0.html

Believe me, I'm not new to the notion that Apple's computers are overpriced for what they are. It sucks. That said, they hold the monopoly on computers that can run Mac OS X without the need to modify kernel extensions with every point release. Given that, your specs are nice, and for the cost of the hardware, it is a superior buy...if I want the freakin' thing to be running Windows. So yeah, the 320M, being an IGP, sucks compared to the 460M GTX that you have, and for that price. But I want to be running OS X on the damn thing and if I want the performance you have, the PC tower that I'll be building in addition to the 13" MacBook Pro should more than suffice.

Otherwise, I have no idea the point you're trying to make. Macs are overpriced; we know. So what?

you probably wouldn't realize how slow a mac is until you've used another laptop similarly priced for at least a month. (With a clean install of 7 and updated drivers)
$999 will get you a quadcore i7 laptop with a GT425 and 4GB of ram (Asus N53J)

EDIT: according to notebook check the GTX460m gets 200+ FPS on low in L4D and 128FPS on high

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-460M.33612.0.html

with the 320m you get 78FPS on low and 48FPS on high, thats pretty sad... starcraft 2 isnt even playable at high or ultra settings, the FPS is in the red (seriously? 8FPS?)

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-320M.28701.0.html

Also: You are on a Mac forum clearly dominated by those who are in favor of Macs. Are you just trolling for kicks or what?

 

[435713]

Believe me, I'm not new to the notion that Apple's computers are overpriced for what they are. It sucks. That said, they hold the monopoly on computers that can run Mac OS X without the need to modify kernel extensions with every point release. Given that, your specs are nice, and for the cost of the hardware, it is a superior buy...if I want the freakin' thing to be running Windows. So yeah, the 320M, being an IGP, sucks compared to the 460M GTX that you have, and for that price. But I want to be running OS X on the damn thing and if I want the performance you have, the PC tower that I'll be building in addition to the 13" MacBook Pro should more than suffice.

Otherwise, I have no idea the point you're trying to make. Macs are overpriced; we know. So what?

I will slightly defend the price thing. Slightly. haha

If your comparing laptops and find a windows machine that is comparable to what Apple is going for (thin, really good build quality, which can be subjective but still, and a long battery life and decent enough specs) Apples laptops can be ball park. Problem is they simply refuse to do what every other maker does and have more lines of laptops.

As long as the $$$ comes they will just do what they do though. Don't blame em personally anyone else would do the same thing. Laptop pricing has always been odd to me anyways, its all over the damn place. The iMacs are ballpark from any comparison I have done. Obviously you can build a rig for less. For all in ones they are decent on price.

It has been frustrating recently and made me consider switching lappies and just nabbing an iMac down the road. I did get my 1199 MBP for 1000 new thanks to Microcenter and a BB price match. So that kind of helped. I would never pay retail for what Apple is going for with their laptops. Don't blame anyone that does though, reviews on their laptops are spectacular.

 

[gkarris]

Your 200$ netbook probably has a Athlon Neo processor, which I'm sorry to say, is not even in the same league as the C2D in the MBA. It doesn't have a SSD, forget about performance there and the ATI graphics are not what you think they are.

Basically, you're living with your head in the sand if you think brand names are specs. AMD/ATI produces low-end components for netbooks that are power efficient, but not high on performance.

Post the model info so we can enlighten you (or better yet, just run geekbench on it just to see the processor's score).

Actually, it's an AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor L310 (MS store special normally $399). Not a cheaper one from a normal $200 machine. It was only $200 as opposed to $1000 for an Apple machine.

The amount of people bashing Intel graphic cards based on their past reputation made me stop reading this thread after the second page. Yes, they did absolutely suck, but if you guys too just one minute to read the articles posted, you'd realize the latest IGPs are actually pretty damn decent. It's slightly better than a 5450, which is almost on par to a 320M.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/7

Interesting - but is this running in a desktop or in a mobile config? Apple will be using the mobile config, of course, for the MacBook and Mini.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I will slightly defend the price thing. Slightly. haha

If your comparing laptops and find a windows machine that is comparable to what Apple is going for (thin, really good build quality, which can be subjective but still, and a long battery life and decent enough specs) Apples laptops can be ball park. Problem is they simply refuse to do what every other maker does and have more lines of laptops.

As long as the $$$ comes they will just do what they do though. Don't blame em personally anyone else would do the same thing. Laptop pricing has always been odd to me anyways, its all over the damn place. The iMacs are ballpark from any comparison I have done. Obviously you can build a rig for less. For all in ones they are decent on price.

It has been frustrating recently and made me consider switching lappies and just nabbing an iMac down the road. I did get my 1199 MBP for 1000 new thanks to Microcenter and a BB price match. So that kind of helped. I would never pay retail for what Apple is going for with their laptops. Don't blame anyone that does though, reviews on their laptops are spectacular.

Thinness shouldn't matter to anyone with a practical sense, unless the MacBook Air IS the product that best suits them. The battery life is rad, but not worth the huge price premium, at least not in my opinion. As dude with the Asus pointed out, they're overpriced. But they're kind of the only game in town. Apple does have a monopoly on hardware that can run their own OS.

 

[435713]

Thinness shouldn't matter to anyone with a practical sense, unless the MacBook Air IS the product that best suits them. The battery life is rad, but not worth the huge price premium, at least not in my opinion. As dude with the Asus pointed out, they're overpriced. But they're kind of the only game in town. Apple does have a monopoly on hardware that can run their own OS.

Yeah thats the whole form over function thing with the thinness. I wasn't saying I like it that way by any means, just usually it drives the $$$ up. I t could be 2.5 inches thick for all I care as long as it rocked on the specs. Agree on the battery as well, in no way can they justify too much of a markup with that. Just giving them some kind of justification I guess. Probably shouldnt really.

 

[KnightWRX]

Yeah thats the whole form over function thing with the thinness.

Thinness and weight are specs, they are function, not form. I bought the MacBook Air because I wanted something even lighter than my 13" MB, yet I wanted something that had decent gaming ability. The 320M fits the bill, no matter what pr5owner says.

A huge POS from Asus or Dell would have added weight and girth to my bag, which is a pain to drag around on the motorcycle with all the gym clothes in it already.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Yeah thats the whole form over function thing with the thinness. I wasn't saying I like it that way by any means, just usually it drives the $$$ up. I t could be 2.5 inches thick for all I care as long as it rocked on the specs. Agree on the battery as well, in no way can they justify too much of a markup with that. Just giving them some kind of justification I guess. Probably shouldnt really.

Meh...the 13" Pro is a rip-off like they all are, but until they muck it up with potentially (but hopefully not) subpar Intel graphics, it's not a bad machine to buy...for a Mac, that is.

Thinness and weight are specs, they are function, not form. I bought the MacBook Air because I wanted something even lighter than my 13" MB, yet I wanted something that had decent gaming ability. The 320M fits the bill, no matter what pr5owner says.

A huge POS from Asus or Dell would have added weight and girth to my bag, which is a pain to drag around on the motorcycle with all the gym clothes in it already.

For the MacBook Air, I agree. For those who apply that to the MacBook Pro, I couldn't disagree more fervently.

 

[435713]

Thinness and weight are specs, they are function, not form. I bought the MacBook Air because I wanted something even lighter than my 13" MB, yet I wanted something that had decent gaming ability. The 320M fits the bill, no matter what pr5owner says.

A huge POS from Asus or Dell would have added weight and girth to my bag, which is a pain to drag around on the motorcycle with all the gym clothes in it already.

Wasn't really thinking the Air, but yeah the thin and light weight works well for that machine, I agree. I was talking more in terms that the MBP line has to be a certain size and will continue to be that way, probably nixing the optical drive on there later next year I would guess.

I have noticed pr5owner is pretty opinionated on the graphics card matter.

Meh...the 13" Pro is a rip-off like they all are, but until they muck it up with potentially (but hopefully not) subpar Intel graphics, it's not a bad machine to buy...for a Mac, that is.

Yeah I would not have got it at 1200 thats ridiculous. IMO. Steve will stand on stage and blab about how great intel is for the 13' models etc... more BS from him. By then I plan on being on a different notebook and possibly building a rig. Be nice if Apple was going belly up again and dint receive help and OSX got out of jail.

Balloons pop eventually.

 

[tigress666]

Thinness and weight are specs, they are function, not form. I bought the MacBook Air because I wanted something even lighter than my 13" MB, yet I wanted something that had decent gaming ability. The 320M fits the bill, no matter what pr5owner says.

A huge POS from Asus or Dell would have added weight and girth to my bag, which is a pain to drag around on the motorcycle with all the gym clothes in it already.

Agreed. I don't need the super thinness of the macbook air, I can deal with having it as thick as my MBP for the extras I get of the MBP, but i do actually like that my notebook is thin. I mean it is a laptop and ultimately I do like it to be portable. It fits in my backpack quite well when I am taking it on the plane with me. And I still have space for other stuff and the bag will fit under the seat.

Personally, I think the 13" MBP is the best compromise for some one like me that wants something portable, but also wants a desktop replacement (I plug it into my monitor and keyboard at home), and wants something that can do some gaming. I don't need an ultra gaming machine so I like the compromise of being more portable but still being able to do some games.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Agreed. I don't need the super thinness of the macbook air, I can deal with having it as thick as my MBP for the extras I get of the MBP, but i do actually like that my notebook is thin. I mean it is a laptop and ultimately I do like it to be portable. It fits in my backpack quite well when I am taking it on the plane with me. And I still have space for other stuff and the bag will fit under the seat.

Personally, I think the 13" MBP is the best compromise for some one like me that wants something portable, but also wants a desktop replacement (I plug it into my monitor and keyboard at home), and wants something that can do some gaming. I don't need an ultra gaming machine so I like the compromise of being more portable but still being able to do some games.

It's a good machine for that. It'll run any game for Mac OS X that is out on the market today, and probably quite a few in the future. It'll definitely run most pro apps just fine and fast enough before you get into Mac Pro territory. Though were it gauged as a Windows laptop, it'd be sub-par, which is the point made by pr5owner. Again, it's the price we pay to run the superior OS free of the modifying of kernel extensions with point releases. Though, I'm okay with it.

 

[tigress666]

It's a good machine for that. It'll run any game for Mac OS X that is out on the market today, and probably quite a few in the future. It'll definitely run most pro apps just fine and fast enough before you get into Mac Pro territory. Though were it gauged as a Windows laptop, it'd be sub-par, which is the point made by pr5owner. Again, it's the price we pay to run the superior OS free of the modifying of kernel extensions with point releases. Though, I'm okay with it.

Exactly. I don't really want windows *shrug*. And I don't need an ultra gaming machine so not really worth the compromise of Windows for the better gaming machine.

The 13" MBP is the best computer for me I think.

And I do think you overpay for it, but it's the price of liking an OS that is locked down to one computer. There are definitely upsides (runs better as doesn't have to try to work on all sorts of different hardware and the maker of the OS knows what hardware they are making it for), but there are downsides too (we're stuck with what Apple decides most people want if we want OSX). You just gotta weigh what is most important to you.

 

[AidenShaw]

Again, it's the price we pay to run the superior OS free of the modifying of kernel extensions with point releases.

What does "free of the modifying of kernel extensions" actually mean?

Curious, since Apple OSX has both "point releases" and .kexts, and Windows has neither.

 

[Yebubbleman]

What does "free of the modifying of kernel extensions" actually mean?

Curious, since Apple OSX has both "point releases" and .kexts, and Windows has neither.

Apple doesn't make the ONLY computers capable of running Mac OS X. One can build an x86 PC and by way of patching and modifying files, some of which are kernel extensions. The resulting machine and installation of Mac OS X is commonly referred to as a Hackintosh. On the one hand, you get tons of performance and you spend very little money. On the other hand, updating to 10.6.x from 10.6.x-1 requires re-patching kernel extensions, among other things. Obviously, your mileage may vary based on the configuration you are using; it's way harder to do on a laptop than a desktop, and it's a tad harder to do on a name-brand PC tower than it is on one you build yourself (depending on how well you follow the advice of those who have used that same configuration before you). But yeah, I mention that to cover my bases from those who might say "Nuh uh, Apple Macs aren't the only things capable of running OS X." Were I up for the additional headache, I'd have one at my desk right now, but I figure that's what my PC tower is for.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple doesn't make the ONLY computers capable of running Mac OS X. One can build an x86 PC and by way of patching and modifying files, some of which are kernel extensions.

Thanks - I misread your post as a "run OSX vs. run Windows" post, rather than "run OSX on an Apple vs. run OSX on a Hackintosh" message.

Sorry, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Thanks - I misread your post as a "run OSX vs. run Windows" post, rather than "run OSX on an Apple vs. run OSX on a Hackintosh" message.

Sorry, thanks for the clarification.

No worries.