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

Asus's 13.3'' Core Duo Laptop

The great mistake Apple made was to anounce the MBP first. It would had been better if they anounced the MB and the MacMini first.
Because now everyone is comparing this MB (which we are not certian how it would be) to the MBP. And thats an impossible thing to do, to compare a $1000-1500 computer with a $2000-2500 one.

And I am cool with the specs of thsi possible MB. If I can play Age of Empires and that type of games, I am happy. I mean, if you want to play Doom 3 in top performance, buy a desktop (it's cheaper).
The MB is for people that wants a portable, silent and cool notebook.

And yes, it is true, you can find better PC's for the same price. The same goes for the MacBook Pro. But keep in mind that Apple sells for the cool factor (remeber the slogan :"Think Different" or "It just works"). And that cool factor has an extra cost.
 
Roco said:
The MB is for people that wants a portable, silent and cool notebook.
Click to expand...

Let's hope they can deliver that with the MB. They certianly have had trouble delivering silent and cool with the MBP.
 
matticus008 said:
Hardware transform and lighting is not a prerequisite for anything. Without the hardware support, T&L is performed by software. It is the distinction and definition of integrated graphics that many features performed by hardware in dedicated GPUs are performed by software (i.e. with the CPU). It's not as though integrated graphics don't support T&L features, like how the 9200 physically couldn't support Core Image features. Pre-9800 graphics cards, because of hardware bound features, do not include all the API functions and fundamental features of newer cards--features that Integrated Graphics DO support. Those older GPUs simply cannot support the latest set of functions, at any level of performance. Integrated graphics DO, allowing for programmers to take full advantage of the latest technology without having to develop for outdated GPUs and being limited by a reduced feature set.


It's also the same graphics hardware that PC competitors to the iBooks use, and indeed the same hardware that even more expensive notebooks use. Further, it's superior to the hardware in the current iBooks. So if you think that they should take three steps forward, then yes, it might be disheartening to see Apple only take two steps forward, but they're not underperforming.
Click to expand...

Many of us are just asking for an x1300, which isn't a spectacular card, but I do believe supports the latest set of functions. Did I mention it blows the GMA out of the water and isn't all that expensive? I'm aware that Apple is a business, but I'm also aware that their margins are very healthy on Macs, and that they've got what, over $3 billion in their coffers...? $3 billion, just sitting there. Apple's not "behind" the PC industry, but when they can easily afford to be ahead, even by just a little bit, I don't see why it's so unrealistic for us as their loyal base to demand that they are.

matticus008 said:
And once again, Apple doesn't have the option to use the ATI Radeon embedded graphics. Apple buys Intel mainboards. Intel sells mainboards with Intel graphics or ones designed for fully discrete GPUs. You're right that an embedded Radeon would be great for the iBook line, and likely worth the added expense. But it's just not possible without other changes, like switching to a new mainboard vendor.

My sense of outrage requires something to be taken away, or falling behind PC competitors. When that happens, I'll get my pitchfork.
Click to expand...

Okay... So Apple is using ASUS for these boards apparently... Problem solved? Here come the Radeons?

I don't know man, I really like the argument you've laid out, honestly. I think that we just demand different things from Apple. I think it's important for each side of this integrated vs. dedicated debate to acknowledge a few things and just put it to rest and stop arguing about it.

-> The integrated haters/dedicated supporters need to acknowledge that integrated graphics aren't THAT bad, and, for the most part will adequately get the job done in most circumstances.

-> The integrated supporters need to acknowledge (as you have, matticus) that the cost to Apple and the consumer of a graphics solution by ATi or Nvidia, be it a dedicated solution or their own system memory sharing solution would be worth the small monetary price that each side would potentially pay, and that it's not completely insane to desire that Apple replace the Intel solution with one of the aforementioned solutions.

Now. Can we all just get along? :)
 
Rocksaurus said:
Many of us are just asking for an x1300, which isn't a spectacular card, but I do believe supports the latest set of functions.
Click to expand...
The x1300 is not available on an Intel motherboard design. Apple uses Intel for motherboards. Therefore, Apple cannot use ATI embedded graphics. They could switch to another vendor (including Asus), but for all we know, the Intel pricing is discounted for using Intel motherboards as well, so in addition to a more expensive mainboard, they'd also have more expensive CPUs. It's not an ideal situation, but it is the actual situation.

Okay... So Apple is using ASUS for these boards apparently... Problem solved? Here come the Radeons?
Click to expand...
Asus is manufacturing the computers--that doesn't mean manufacturing all the components. The iMac and Mac mini are also made by Chinese companies, with motherboards to Intel specifications. Components from several different companies are used to build Asus notebooks, and in this case, that Asus notebook is a custom design that will ultimately carry an Apple logo.

I don't know man, I really like the argument you've laid out, honestly. I think that we just demand different things from Apple. I think it's important for each side of this integrated vs. dedicated debate to acknowledge a few things and just put it to rest and stop arguing about it.
Click to expand...
I agree. The reality is somewhere in between. No, they're not great, but at worst integrated graphics are mediocre. It is, after all, the norm for low to mid range computers, and if it didn't get the job done, so-equipped PCs wouldn't be selling at such tremendous rates.
 
matticus008 said:
The x1300 is not available on an Intel motherboard design. Apple uses Intel for motherboards. Therefore, Apple cannot use ATI embedded graphics. They could switch to another vendor (including Asus), but for all we know, the Intel pricing is discounted for using Intel motherboards as well, so in addition to a more expensive mainboard, they'd also have more expensive CPUs. It's not an ideal situation, but it is the actual situation.
Click to expand...

http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html

I'm kind of confused, if they can put an x1600 in these, why not an x1300?
 
Rocksaurus said:
http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html

I'm kind of confused, if they can put an x1600 in these, why not an x1300?
Click to expand...
It's okay, it is pretty confusing, but go back and look at AidenShaw's excellent summary. The x1300 being requested is an embedded graphics processor. The x1600 in the iMac and MacBook Pro are discrete graphics systems. Apple's options are 1) integrated systems (Intel 945, in this case) or 2) entirely discrete systems. The "something in between" that offers better performance and still has pretty good value (embedded systems) are only offered on mainboards from a select few manufacturers, none of which supply mainboards for Apple.

Now obviously a leading-edge discrete system is not going into the entry-level products, so any discrete system will be a castrated "value" card, which are usually products which were the high-end a generation or two back, which are affordable because of their age. This presents a problem for API support, which is incomplete in low-end cards. It becomes a decision of compatibility and features vs. higher short term 3D performance. So Apple is forced to decide between moderate, but lasting, performance or higher (but still not top-shelf) performance with a shorter usable lifetime.

Inevitably, some people are going to prefer the latter because they're willing to upgrade more often. But these people are often the same people who don't see the value in the PowerBook (though it would better meet their expectations, and would allow them to upgrade less often, which balances out the price), so they buy the iBook because it's the better value, even though it doesn't quite meet their desires. There are always going to be these "tweeners."
 
iBooks Still Only Output VGA Instead of DVI - Weird!

fozy said:
I have trouble pushing a 20" studio display on single mode with my 1.5ghz 12" PB G4. Do you think they'll include dvi out on the new ibook?
Click to expand...
Who knows? It certainly makes sense to. I'm surprised the last iBook still only has VGA out. That is just plain weird. Must have to do with product differentiation more than a cost difference. :eek: :confused: :(
 
MacBook Pro Needed To Come First

Roco said:
The great mistake Apple made was to anounce the MBP first. It would had been better if they anounced the MB and the MacMini first because now everyone is comparing this MB (which we are not certian how it will be) to the MBP. And thats an impossible thing to do, to compare a $1000-1500 computer with a $2000-2500 one.

And I am cool with the specs of this possible MB. If I can play Age of Empires and that type of games, I am happy. I mean, if you want to play Doom 3 in top performance, buy a desktop (it's cheaper).

The MB is for people that wants a portable, silent and cool notebook.

And yes, it is true, you can find better PC's for the same price. The same goes for the MacBook Pro. But keep in mind that Apple sells for the cool factor (remeber the slogan :"Think Different" or "It just works"). And that cool factor has an extra cost.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a mistake Roco. The giant leap in power from a single 1.42 or 1.67 GHz G4 to a Core Duo @ 2GHz had to be made at the pro end first in the most popular size. The PowerBook had been eclipsed by the G5 line for way too long in what the definition of "Power" is. The need for speed was most acute in the Pro mobile line. One member here even sold his PPC Quad after realizing the 2 GHz Core Duo MacBook Pro runs Final Cut Studio almost as fast as his Quad and can still drive his 30" monitor.

We're in a weird mobile space right now - HOT 32-bit with speed soon to be trumped by 64-bit with more speed and at the same time lower power consumption - IE cooler with longer battery life. Those who were starving for mobile Mac speed or are new to Macs can buy now and enjoy a considerable speed bump. But many veteran Mac users may be continuing to wait for the 64-bit Merom mobiles to ship. Still others like myself may even wait for them to ship with Leopard, which according to the latest reports may be as soon as January 2007 but certainly no later than June next year.

Meanwhile, the MacBook can wait a bit longer while ingredients get cheaper and the major MacBook buying season is still ahead of us. Only reason there is this pent up anticipation is because the first MacBook will be radically faster than the current iBook. Doesn't happen like this very often. In fact I can't rmember when it ever happened except a little backward NON-bump when iBooks switched from a 900 MHz G3 to an 800 MHz G4 processor back on October 22,2003. So we're 2.5 years into the G4 iBook era. July 21, 1999 was when the original colorful clamshell 300 MHz G3 iBooks came to market. And they were stuck in G3 land for more than 4 years. So 2.5 years to a radical bump isn't bad considering that there really hasn't been one before.

Point is Apple had to radically bump the Pro mobile liine before the iBook line or it would have canabalized thier Pro mobile market. That's why it's likely that Sunday's NAB press conference will unveil the 17" incarnation of the MacBook Pro while MacBook yearners will still be in the waiting room for at least another 10 days or more. :D
 
What i am most worried about is the dysmal battery life, nowhere that i saw on the asus website did it give indications about the battery life. Thats really unacceptable when you're selling a low power, portable computer, the ibook always boasted its 6 hour battery life which for a student like myself would be very useful (treating the computer more like an ipod that you only need the power adapter when you're at home). Given the battery drop from the 15" powerbook to the new macbook pro its probably safe to say that the macbook will half under half the battery life of the ibook. This begs the question, are they going to keep a model with excelent battery life or are they going to give up on battery life and settle for terrible PC battery life?
If anyone knows what the asus's battery life is it might shed some light on the kind of power we might expect from the macbook.
I just hope that they try harder than with the macbook because if they dont then the old ibooks will look extremely promising, even if they're so much slower.
 
Rocksaurus said:
I'm pretty sure the x1300 is a discrete card... Isn't the "Radeon Xpress200" their embedded solution?
Click to expand...
Oops, it looks like "x1300" is a typo that's been carried over from first quote a few pages back. It should be x300.
 
matticus008 said:
Oops, it looks like "x1300" is a typo that's been carried over from first quote a few pages back. It should be x300.
Click to expand...

Ah, that would be the cause of my confusion. Though I would love it if Apple put the x1300 in :)
 
I think X13/1400 is dreaming. I think the high end model may have a X600, perhaps 800. Mayeb as an option. dunno. neither do i think there will be a 11". way too small. that's closer to PDA:p
 
if i see intergrated graphics on the final product, im going to be gutted. I refuse to have intergrated graphics, unless they have some decent quality them.

Otherwise im going to wait a bit longer and maybe buy a macbook pro :confused: :mad: :(
 
Integrated Graphics Are Likely in the iBook/MacBook

Willis said:
if i see intergrated graphics on the final product, im going to be gutted. I refuse to have intergrated graphics, unless they have some decent quality them.

Otherwise im going to wait a bit longer and maybe buy a macbook pro :confused: :mad: :(
Click to expand...
Integrated Graphics Are Likely in the iBook/MacBook. You may as well just go ahead and order your MacBook Pro now. 'Cause integrated graphics are 99% likely as a way to save costs and differentiate the lower priced line from the higher priced line. Sorry. :(
 
stop concentrating on the negatives

Please guys, stop worrying about the negative impact of integrated graphics, the current dedicated card in the current G4 ibook sucks anyway. And the real problem with the PPC ibooks is that the G4 CPU is a total JOKE in the current market.

In recent benchmarks mac mini core SOLO for example, completely wipes the floor of the G4 model it replaced for all applications except 3d games (which was roughly the same). I read somewhere the SOLO boots in half the time as the g4 model they replaced, and beats the current powerbooks too.

I would rather pay less for a cheaper macbook, it will be a great machine for everything you want to do, except 3d gaming. Also it's worth mentioning that if the integrated video memory worries you, you can always double your RAM . If that's not enough performance, or you want to play Half lif 3 then shut up and buy a MacBook PRO.
 
crackbook said:
Please guys, stop worrying about the negative impact of integrated graphics, the current dedicated card in the current G4 ibook sucks anyway. And the real problem with the PPC ibooks is that the G4 CPU is a total JOKE in the current market.
Click to expand...
Be careful, you could be banned for making too much sense. :cool:
 
crackbook said:
In recent benchmarks mac mini core SOLO for example, completely wipes the floor of the G4 model it replaced for all applications except 3d games (which was roughly the same). I read somewhere the SOLO boots in half the time as the g4 model they replaced, and beats the current powerbooks too.
Click to expand...


i can't help but think that part of the jump in performance is due to the switch in compiling. i am not well versed enough to be specific, but apperently xCode used to compile for size and not speed. (this is the point where someone who does know comes and points out that i have very little idea what i am talking about. ;))
 
Ive had a look at what the Mac Mini with its intergrated graphics, and ive noticed it says 64mb. well 64 is better than the current ibooks 32...

Like i said, if the graphics are a reasonable par, i may consider, but it looks like i wont buy till jan 07 now anyway or until Leopard comes out.
 
I think it was mentioned earlier, but wouldn't getting more memory (RAM) alleviate the 'problem' that some people (such as casual gamers) may think they have with the integrated graphics solution?
 
Elrond39 said:
I think it was mentioned earlier, but wouldn't getting more memory (RAM) alleviate the 'problem' that some people (such as casual gamers) may think they have with the integrated graphics solution?
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't.
 
Airforce said:
No, it wouldn't.
Click to expand...

And the proof is here:
http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/04/24/intel_unleashes_dualcore_for_laptops_uk/page17.html

Choice quotes:
- If the results from the graphics benchmarks in PCMark05 suggest that the 945GM might be able to handle graphically-intensive 3D games, 3DMark05 patently deflates this false hope (compared to a lowly x300 solution).
- For productivity applications such as MS Word, Excel and Outlook, the added expense of a dual-core system, however, cannot be justified despite the marginal cost difference. Only those who run virus scans continuously in the background, and who regularly use multiple system services and more resource-intensive applications such as video editing or 3D rendering, are likely to appreciate the dual-core benefits.

Which begs the question: what's the point of having an expensive ninja CPU, combined with a poodle GFX (non) solution? Is this not the ultimate waste of money for consumers that every IT professional who knows their behinds from their elbows would advise against?
 
Which begs the question: what's the point of having an expensive ninja CPU, combined with a poodle GFX (non) solution? Is this not the ultimate waste of money for consumers that every IT professional who knows their behinds from their elbows would advise against?[/QUOTE]

I smell what you're steppin in.

Hope apple doesn't do it.
 
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