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

What is with all this negativity?

pineapple216 said:
True, but the question remains if developers will use openCL in their code...
Click to expand...
They do use OpenCL when it is the right technology for the problem at hand. I really don't think people understand what OpenCL is and what it is capable of. It is not a solution to every problem, not even to every parallel problem, instead it is a solution for problems that can fit well to the execution hardware in a GPU.
It's the same story with 64-bit and grand central dispatch, many applications don't use these technologies and thus applications won't benefit from them.
Click to expand...
Apps that can benefit from them do. You can't reasonably expect every app to make use of every technology that Mac OS/X affords the developer. The reality is that things like 64 bit code an GCD have been adopted by most developers.

In any event back to the GPU, would you expect the developer to use the GPU's 3D technology or its video decoding capability to power a text editor? I could go on but I doubt there is any one app that uses every feature of Mac OS/X.
 
One of the reasons i haven't jumped on the i-series MBPs. I use my 9400 a lot and could not imagine driving a 24" ACD AND the internal display whilst getting any semblance of a decent performance. Don't want to rely on the dedicated GPU all the time either as it draws more power and raises overall temps.
 
thejadedmonkey said:
You obviously don't remember when iPods came with wired remote, with volume and playback buttons on them, or when iPods came with a dock, and a little bag to keep it in. You probably also don't recall when Macbook's came with DVI to VGA adapters, remote controls, and macs came with a cloth to wipe the screen.

It's not like Apple hasn't added BTO CPU upgrades, months after the CPU came out but right after the CPU price dropped. Oh wait, they have. They're also the company that insisted in offering 2gb of RAM in their computers for the longest time, and using 2 1gb chips to do it.
Click to expand...

They don't come with the cloths anymore???? *tear*
 
It seems to me that if I can hold off on a new machine for 2 years, my patience might be better rewarded. I got a MB from mid 2007 and I was thinking of getting a new one, but with the small one still on Core 2 Duo, it was basically what I already had. If this stuff doesn't resolve quickly, I'm guessing the next release will be a kind of stepping stone and 2 years is my timeframe.
 
Every Gen of Intel IGPs has always been a few generations behind Nvidia and ATI's current low end IGP offerings. if you ask me this will never change. they cant make a good IGP to save their lives.

in the end you will get a better performing CPU but the IGP from intel will be the bottleneck making things around the same or worse when it comes to a OS that relies on GPU power to make things flow smoothly.
 
And they still want to call them Macbook "Pros?" LOL It's even more ridiculous than the graphics card options for the Mac Pro.
 
asdf542 said:
Just remove the optical drive from the MacBook and the 13" MBP, and poof, the space problem no longer exists. Use Intel Graphics or Fusion in the MacBook Air. Use discrete graphics in everything else.
Click to expand...

You ≠ everyone. There is a huge market that still uses optical drives on a regular basis. Regular consumers buy music CD's and other software all the time, not to mention watch DVD's. Not to mention internet speeds are crappy.
 
jamesryanbell said:
I don't give a crap as long as video playback is smooth. I'd rather have a processor boost than a rockin' graphics card.

IF VIDEO PLAYBACK IS NICE, then who gives a crap about gaming etc. If you need huge video capabilities for work, get a Mac Pro (you gotta be willing to pay HUGE for that). Otherwise, give me the better processor.

Flame away.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you just said that!

would you mean who gives a crap about gaming? its the biggest entertainment industry!

95% of the students at my high school will look for a "rockin' graphics card" over a cpu boost. CPUs are fast enough! 3d graphics is what we need far more of.
 
asdf542 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/7

Sandy Bridge Graphics perform on par with a 5450(I'm assuming it's mobile but they don't state that it is, so Sandy Bridge might be faster than the percentage below).

http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5450.23819.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-320M.28701.0.html

320M scores 15% higher than the Mobility 5450 on 3D Mark 06. Keep in mind that the Sandy Bridge graphics aren't final hardware and neither are the drivers.
Click to expand...

Also keep in mind that it was compared to a desktop 5450
 
Stridder44 said:
You ≠ everyone. There is a huge market that still uses optical drives on a regular basis. Regular consumers buy music CD's and other software all the time, not to mention watch DVD's. Not to mention internet speeds are crappy.
Click to expand...

thats why we need to drop optical drives! so then people will stop buying music CD's and other software via disc. optical drives are like bottled water!

internet speeds are not crappy
 
roadbloc said:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! DON'T DO IT APPLE! DON'T YOU DARE! :mad: :(
I'd rather stick with core2duo or just simply move to AMD/ATI.
Click to expand...

I would not buy an AMD powered Mac, period. Over the past 15 years I've been burnt too many times using AMD parts in PC's. I also wouldn't buy another C2D Mac, at this point, with the exception of the Macbook Air. Mmm, can't wait to get Macbook Air. It's like an iPad with an Operating System and keyboard.
 
wizard said:
We have to consider that the drivers reviewed here are not for Apple systems. Worst the review charts for most graphics tasks where rendered at the lowest setting. What we need are similar benchmarks for Apple hardware ran the way most people setup their computers.

They also are not Apple drivers.
Click to expand...
Err... 3D Mark 06 is Windows only. The performance under OSX should catch up eventually.

Stridder44 said:
You ≠ everyone. There is a huge market that still uses optical drives on a regular basis. Regular consumers buy music CD's and other software all the time, not to mention watch DVD's. Not to mention internet speeds are crappy.
Click to expand...
People said the same thing about floppy drives and look where those ended up. If you and others want an optical drive then you can buy an external one for the transition period while everyone else enjoys the added benefits of it being removed.
 
tuna said:
@ everyone who has criticized Intel IGPs:

Go search Anandtech. Anand did a thorough analysis of Sandy Bridge IGP capabilities and determined that they were more than enough for typical users. Roughly comparable to the 320Ms that are in MacBooks now, if not quite as powerful as the nVidia integrated options that are on the roadmap for H1 2011 when Sandy Bridge will become popular.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that Anandtech analysis using the desktop version of Sandy Bridge?
 
Cost and moving forward are issues...

Apple wants to use the newer processors, which means that it can afford the CPU itself to take over some of the graphics routines normally handled by nVidia chips.

The new Intel IGP's are supposed to be decent enough for the basic MacBooks and Minis anyways...
 
gkarris said:
Cost and moving forward are issues...

Apple wants to use the newer processors, which means that it can afford the CPU itself to take over some of the graphics routines normally handled by nVidia chips.

The new Intel IGP's are supposed to be decent enough for the basic MacBooks and Minis anyways...
Click to expand...

is that really what it's come to?

'Decent enough' for twice the price?

hmmm...

what happened to 'skating to where the puck will be'

:rolleyes:
 
gkarris said:
Apple wants to use the newer processors, which means that it can afford the CPU itself to take over some of the graphics routines normally handled by nVidia chips.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's go back to the 90s and software rendering. :rolleyes: Seriously, anyone who used computers back in those days were shown the way by 3Dfx. Graphics should not be rendered by your central processing unit.
 
Sweet. For too long, Macs have had graphics cards that are too good.

I've been begging Apple to downgrade the graphics for years. It's about time they made them ****.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

This better not affect graphics performance or that would be a **** move. Also, why do it in the 13" pro? If it's a pro it needs to be treated like one. It also REALLY needs an i3 and maybe i5 option. Core 2 duo should be out of everything except maybe the air. Ugh I remember when apple always had the worlds fastest processors and graphics in theyre then called "portables". Now they're as bad as pcs about that. Apples upgrading too slowly and subtley
 
tlevier said:
It seems to me that if I can hold off on a new machine for 2 years, my patience might be better rewarded. I got a MB from mid 2007 and I was thinking of getting a new one, but with the small one still on Core 2 Duo, it was basically what I already had. If this stuff doesn't resolve quickly, I'm guessing the next release will be a kind of stepping stone and 2 years is my timeframe.
Click to expand...

I had one of those. I've been wanting to upgrade it for a while (but I was always disappointed in its graphics card ability. Plus I was jealous of the newer style track pads, the black border around the screen, the lighted keyboard). I couldn't get myself to justify upgrading though cause like you I kept going the specs aren't enough and I'm not upgrading just for those things.

Well, this past update was *just* enough to convince me (specially after reading reviews). No, it's not much faster but I will say the graphics card is that much more capable (it doesn't bog down on Sim City which the old one would play but as soon as the city got decent sized it bogged down like mad). I mean it's not like I'm a big gamer honestly but I my huge disappointment even when my MB was new was that I wanted it to be able to do some games. The fact it couldn't even do Sim City well honestly did make me kinda disappointed in it.

In my opinion, it was worth it (but I was upgrading for the better graphics card, the track pad, the lighted keyboard, the non plastic casing - those plastic macbooks crack and there's nothing you can do about it. The chip was a disappointment but with the added RAM the computer still does better than my old computer and honestly overall I'm very happy with the computer as it fixes everything I disliked about the old computer).
 
intel wants the casual market when it comes to graphics but while the casual user may not know the different between dedicated and intergrated, they often end up desiring the performance of the prior.

nvidias bargain still beats intels best. if all you want is to watch videos and play games made in the early 90s, then intel is enough.
 
jmull said:
I would not buy an AMD powered Mac, period. Over the past 15 years I've been burnt too many times using AMD parts in PC's. I also wouldn't buy another C2D Mac, at this point, with the exception of the Macbook Air. Mmm, can't wait to get Macbook Air. It's like an iPad with an Operating System and keyboard.
Click to expand...

Biting my lip. Biting my lip. :rolleyes:

How the heck did you get burnt by using AMD parts in your computer? I'm not an AMD fanboy by any stretch of the word but AMD has been largely competitive over the past 15 years. They arguably won the battle with Intel during the Pentium 4 era. Without AMD, I believe Intel would not be as competitive as it is today. And if you hate AMD parts so much then do you hate Macs with ATI videocards in them? ATI/AMD make really good videocards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top