Asus's 13.3'' Core Duo Laptop

[Groovey]

Ugh, embedded graphics again...don't do it Apple, please!

The rest of the specs look good though - didn't expect a 2GHz Core Duo (but it makes sense if there will no longer be a 12" pro laptop).

Agreed. It's starting to look more and more like this is the point where I sadly leave the iBook/MB line and start waiting for the 12"/13" MBPro. Though it probably is difficult to tell yet, if the integrated graphics would ever feel bad or slow down other actions involving RAM. Just afraid it might... Opinions?

 

[student_trap]

Agreed. It's starting to look more and more like this is the point where I sadly leave the iBook/MB line and start waiting for the 12"/13" MBPro. Though it probably is difficult to tell yet, if the integrated graphics would ever feel bad or slow down other actions involving RAM. Just afraid it might... Opinions?

but will there even be a 12/13" mbp????????

 

[7on]

That ain't no consumer laptop lads and ladettes.

I checked with an Australian site and compared the price of that to a 20" iMac

iMac - $1,980
Asus 1.66 - $2,861

I am not paying 50% more than a 20" iMac for a consumer laptop!

well duh, I'm not asking apple to put a 256MB dedicated Vcard in there - just by those numbers that were posted my Raedon 9000 with 64MB of dedicated memory outperforms the GMA950

 

[MrCrowbar]

Wouldn't it be hard (expensive) to manufacture 2 different mainboards (1 with integrated graphocs chip and one with a slot for a graphics card)? I mean, it's a laptop, you can't leave much free spaces in there for optional stuff. Look at the Mac mini, it has integrated graphics across the line.

So the Macbook line would follow that model (remember it has to remain cheap enough for custumers) so there can only be one mainboard for the whole line. And since the cheapest model has to be affordable (999$), integrated graphics is mandatory here. So I say integrated graphics for the whole line. Works great for 2D anyway and I'm sure it saves a lot of battery power. Imagine 6 hours of battery life... woah!

 

[spacemoose]

Posted by Groovey and clicked on by the blind monkey, spacemoose:
Agreed. It's starting to look more and more like this is the point where I sadly leave the iBook/MB line and start waiting for the 12"/13" MBPro. Though it probably is difficult to tell yet, if the integrated graphics would ever feel bad or slow down other actions involving RAM. Just afraid it might... Opinions?

What the hell...? First Intel in Macs, then Windows on Macs, now Asus makes Macs... Is Apple the new Nike, with making nothing of their own, besides branding? (No, I didn't forget about OS X)

Not to be off topic, but the comparison to Nike is rather unfair. They are one of the few shoe companies that actually does research in-house (their campus in Oregon has some amazing facilities) to develop the technologies they use in their shoes. Sure they contract out the manufacturing (China be cheap), but they design their stuff.

Edit ---- oops, quoted wrong person, hehe

 

[j26]

well duh, I'm not asking apple to put a 256MB dedicated Vcard in there - just by those numbers that were posted my Raedon 9000 with 64MB of dedicated memory outperforms the GMA950

??? Why the rudeness???

And what relation does what you said have to my post???

 

[rdas7]

Anyone else notice that the guy on the plane seems to be using Mac OS? Menubar at the top, icons on the desktop right aligned.

Probably nothing, just amusing.

 

[7on]

but will there even be a 12/13" mbp????????

I doubt it, more likely the MB would run from $1000-$1999 and MacBook Pros $1999-infinity. All it is, is a name. Naming a 13" laptop "Pro" won't make it any faster. I think they're just trying to get rid of all the "iBook or 12" Powerbook" decisions. I think the "Pro" moniker is like a size level. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 17" come out as the MacBook Extreme or MacBook Premium or something.

 

[7on]

??? Why the rudeness???

And what relation does what you said have to my post???

what rudeness?

 

[QCassidy352]

I hope the Macbook uses the Intel integrated graphics solution. It works FINE, and it's cheap. It is interesting that the vast majority of posters to Mac related boards tend to be only interested in FPS. There are other uses for computers besides gaming.

There are 3 reasons using integrated graphics is really, really stupid.
1) It uses other system resources, resulting in overall reduced performance
2) You don't have to be a "gamer" to appreciate playing a game once in a while. It would be nice to have a computer that, although not made for gaming, could handle some casual gaming as one part of the general use of the computer.
3) Using the worst possible graphics solution shortens the overall life of the computer. Even the 1.2 Ghz ibooks could not take full advantage of Tiger's effects, and I believe they were the current model when Tiger was released. It will take very little time for these integrated graphics to be unable to support what will become standard visuals.

Furthermore, low-end dedicated graphics solutions (such as a 64 MB Radeon 9550 or x1300) are dirt-cheap these days. Crippling a $1200 laptop with a POS graphics solution to save $30 makes very little sense to me.

 

[jaxstate]

Remember, Apple did hire a bunch of ex Sony Laptop designers a while back.

If Apple made that I wonder what they were thinking. It look's like one of those really thin sony notebooks. Not an iBook.

 

[milo]

So what will this 945GM not be able to do? I mean, I realize there's principle involved, but what games will I not be able to play on it?

Probably just Quake 4 and Doom 3, and you can probably limp through those at the lowest settings. What games are you interested in?

I don't know how anyone can defend them over a dedicated graphics card. Admittedly, the new intel graphics are waaaay more powerful than older versions, but nothing is like a nice 128-512 mb card in there

Integrated graphics are cheaper. I'd rather save the money than pay more for a graphics card I won't take advantage of.

 

[Groovey]

Not to be off topic, but the comparison to Nike is rather unfair. They are one of the few shoe companies that actually does research in-house (their campus in Oregon has some amazing facilities) to develop the technologies they use in their shoes. Sure they contract out the manufacturing (China be cheap), but they design their stuff.

Took a while to understand your reply, you might have quoted wrong? I don't think people need to be worrying about Asustek manufacturing the Macbooks. Weren't at least iBook G4's already manufactured by the same company? At least my iB G4's been working like a charm.

 

[student_trap]

I doubt it, more likely the MB would run from $1000-$1999 and MacBook Pros $1999-infinity. All it is, is a name. Naming a 13" laptop "Pro" won't make it any faster. I think they're just trying to get rid of all the "iBook or 12" Powerbook" decisions. I think the "Pro" moniker is like a size level. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 17" come out as the MacBook Extreme or MacBook Premium or something.

well i suppose that the other reason that the pro name was a good thing was that the 12" powerbook also had an aluminium shell.

The merging of lines will probably reslut in a lower spec'd laptop with a plastic shell. That is a laptop that i don't want, although i need portability...decisions decisions

 

[Lord Blackadder]

One other point against the integrated GPUs is that they tend to be less capable for handling HD video, which might be a big deal for more people than the gaming issue.

As for me, I am only a casual gamer but care enough about 3D performance that I won't buy a new laptop that can barely play new games.

 

[JDOG_]

Integrated graphics are cheaper. I'd rather save the money than pay more for a graphics card I won't take advantage of.

Right, but look at any PC laptop these days and it's rocking a video at least 64mb, right up to 256mb at a lower price than iBooks. I'm not going to get into the whole Mac vs. PC hardware discussion, because it's null, but you're already paying a premium for a great computing experience, so why do you feel the need to have outdated technology?

I for one was pissed when my iBook couldn't do some of the fun Core Image stuff Tiger can do (given it was an "older" machine at <2 years) Like others have said, there will probably be some new bells and whistles in Leopard that will require stronger hardware as a kick to get people to buy new machines, and those with integrated graphics will get left in the dust...this is obviously the way of the world, but my main point is how can you justify people in the PC realm getting much better graphics cards for economy prices while Apple "settles" with integrated graphics so THEY can save the money.

I guarantee the new iBooks will cost just as much as the current ones, if not more...and if these specs pan out, we'll be getting less horsepower under the hood (in terms of historical hardware inflation) than we "should"

 

[Danksi]

...
3) Using the worst possible graphics solution shortens the overall life of the computer. Even the 1.2 Ghz ibooks could not take full advantage of Tiger's effects, and I believe they were the current model when Tiger was released. It will take very little time for these integrated graphics to be unable to support what will become standard visuals.

Furthermore, low-end dedicated graphics solutions (such as a 64 MB Radeon 9550 or x1300) are dirt-cheap these days. Crippling a $1200 laptop with a POS graphics solution to save $30 makes very little sense to me.

Cheap = Profits

Forcing customers to buy new every 2-3 years = Profits

Apple's a business.. not a charity

 

[bigandy]

*ignores argument because of obvious unfounded arguments about the strength of the intergrated graphichs, which are actually far better in this incarnation compared with previously..*

 

[anonicon]

Physics

I'm somewhat surprised to see all the people complaining about integrated graphics on this board, but not shocked.

Given the severe thinness of the laptop and all the components and connective circuitry that has to be stuffed into that space, while also ensuring that there's sufficient airspace for cooling the CPU and hard drive, Integrated Graphics make a lot of sense, and are a smart move.

If you really need to play a FPS your laptop, buy a Powerbook. If you want a bigger, less sexy notebook that has space for a dedicated graphics card, buy a Powerbook or a Dell.

 

[milo]

indeed i don't care for games, but i need to run external moniters. My current powerbook 12in has trouble and stutters a little when trying to dual screen with a 40" screen. I was hoping that the 12in powerbook's replacement would be able to cope a little better

Why would you think integrated graphics would make it unable to run an external monitor? The minis can even play back HD, it should be able to drive a monitor without any stuttering.

Though it probably is difficult to tell yet, if the integrated graphics would ever feel bad or slow down other actions involving RAM. Just afraid it might... Opinions?

That's not the case on the mini. Apps run just fine, the shared video ram doesn't slow down apps at all. Unless you're running a high end game, you'd never be able to tell what kind of video hardware you're using. Worse case, you upgrade the ram, which I'd recommend on any computer anyway.

There are 3 reasons using integrated graphics is really, really stupid.
1) It uses other system resources, resulting in overall reduced performance
2) You don't have to be a "gamer" to appreciate playing a game once in a while. It would be nice to have a computer that, although not made for gaming, could handle some casual gaming as one part of the general use of the computer.

1 simply isn't true, the minis run apps just as well as any other mac. If it were true, show us a benchmark where non-graphic performance suffers?
2 The mini runs "casual" games just fine. You just can't run hardcore games at high resolutions.

People need to stop making statements out of ignorance, it's obvious you've never used one of the minis.

One other point against the integrated GPUs is that they tend to be less capable for handling HD video, which might be a big deal for more people than the gaming issue.

Not the case with the mini. HD tends to be limited more by the CPU, the mini duo can play all sizes of HD with no problem. A core solo would be a WAY bigger limitation on one of these than integrated video would be.

Right, but look at any PC laptop these days and it's rocking a video at least 64mb, right up to 256mb at a lower price than iBooks.

The asus linked *in this very article* has integrated graphics. Some cheaper PC laptops have a video card. But generally, even on the PC side, cheaper laptops are more likely to have integrated, and as you get more expensive, you see more video cards. There are even cheap desktop PC's that use onboard video.

 

[student_trap]

*ignores argument because of obvious unfounded arguments about the strength of the intergrated graphichs, which are actually far better in this incarnation compared with previously..*

so can they handle HD at 1080?

 

[anonicon]

As for me, I am only a casual gamer but care enough about 3D performance that I won't buy a new laptop that can barely play new games.

Soooooo...you'll be getting a Powerbook? Good laptop.

 

[milo]

so can they handle HD at 1080?

YES! (at least on the core duo...beg for that, it boosts the machine WAY more than a video card)

 

[student_trap]

Why would you think integrated graphics would make it unable to run an external monitor? The minis can even play back HD, it should be able to drive a monitor without any stuttering.

i know that they will run an external, but the question is how smoothly? I ask because its the graphics card that has to handle things such as core image (i think) (for the visual stuff in Tiger), and at the moment my 64meg card stutters when trying to do all of this visual stuff on two moniters, my girlfriends mbp however (256meg) has no problems. Now im not asking for 256 in a 13in laptop, but whether whatever it has will handle the increasingly visual centric nature of the current and comming OS's

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Soooooo...you'll be getting a Powerbook? Good laptop.

Yep, MacBook Pro for me. I'm not in the market for the iBook-replacement laptop but if I was the GMA950 would be a bummer.

The integrated graphics give good performance in many areas but I'm still of the opinion that the benefits of sticking a Mobility Radeon/GeForce Go in the new laptop outweigh the costs.