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.
Evidence for New MacBook Pros
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well... I must say I've been ANXIOUSLY waiting since August for not only a new MBP but to simply become a new convert to the Apple world! I have been checking macrumors daily for new tidbits, and I am sooo anxious! Please please please apple... soon!! My compaq presario that i've been using for the past four years is just slowly crapping out on me... i really need a new computer but i've been holding out for a MBP update, no doubt i'll be buying one the first day of the release!
Why 512MB video RAM?
Can someone explain why so many people seem to be clamoring for more video RAM? I have 128MB in my PC (which I play games on) and it runs things like Unreal Tournament 3 at high frame rates at the full res on that machine (1680x1050). On a 15" MacBook Pro, which you're highly unlikely to be playing games on anyway, at a resolution of 1440x900, why would you need 256 (let alone 512) megabytes of VRAM?
I'm not asking this as a "you guys are crazy" type thing, but I'm genuinely interested. There's clearly a demand, but I don't get what it's based around. Even 512 in regular gaming PCs seems to be of little use compared to 256 unless you're playing ultra high end stuff, and that's not stuff for the portable market anyway.
Can someone explain why so many people seem to be clamoring for more video RAM? I have 128MB in my PC (which I play games on) and it runs things like Unreal Tournament 3 at high frame rates at the full res on that machine (1680x1050). On a 15" MacBook Pro, which you're highly unlikely to be playing games on anyway, at a resolution of 1440x900, why would you need 256 (let alone 512) megabytes of VRAM?
I'm not asking this as a "you guys are crazy" type thing, but I'm genuinely interested. There's clearly a demand, but I don't get what it's based around. Even 512 in regular gaming PCs seems to be of little use compared to 256 unless you're playing ultra high end stuff, and that's not stuff for the portable market anyway.
i hope they redesign it at least to add that chicklet-style keyboard. that'll make it easier to pick up a current 2.6 cheap on blow-out!
and yeah, i'm sooo all over that if it plays out this way.
Because many people are dumb and think that "more VRAM = faster". Its like with consumer cameras: "more megapixels = higher quality pictures", but in reality quite often its the opposite.
I'd rather Apple put a faster GPU in MBP, not the same GPU with more VRAM.
peter - many of these cases are like the "spec junkie" - 450 horsepower, 15 mega pixels, T1 bandwidth - it all sound great but has little impact in many real world uses. In my business I present HD videos and ultra high resolution photographs with my MBP / 256 VRAM perfectly. These HD videos are imbedded within Keynote and really look great. Do I need more - not based on what I do. Now, if I did 3D simulations or other demanding - maybe I'd be looking for 512. Otherwise.......
Quite easily. It needs the same count of Watts like a 8700.
Edit: Just as the 8600 did fit, too. They always made the notebook thinner but with better graphics card. Why shouldn't they be able to implent an 8800, tooBtw, I am talking about the 8800M GTS, not GTX
Not true, it require more heatsink and fan, that cause MBP to be more thicker.
Apple is hardly to put high-end GPU chipset in MBP, plus I'm totally doubt that would come with MBP, though.
If you REALLY need high end graphic chipset then get IBM clone laptop with Windows.
I would prefers desktop for serious games but laptop is so weak for games and produces more heat.
Yup, I agree...
If members are really want laptop for gaming then call to Apple to developing new MacBook Gaming with more than 1" thicker, it's up to Apple to introduce new series of MB for gaming.
Regarding FW 400 I totally agree. Like I said prefer this standard over USB. Another benefit of FW is that it does not require a computer in the middle like USB (guess why Intel designed it this way
However, FW 800 is lacking broad support and even if it was the next big thing one might reason that there are not many devices capable of delivering 800 mbit/s. There's a need for higher transfer speeds for certain devices (like HD cams), but the medium on which such material is recorded doesn't deliver such speeds. Maybe this port is good for attaching your RAID system to your MBP, but then you have to wonder why there is no eSATA port for the current line...
I see a definite improvement when running a 7200rpm external drive through the 400 and 800 ports, so for me as a musician streaming audio tracks, it's absolutely essential. I like also having the option of running eSATA from the expresscard if you really wanna go that far! But I think I'd prefer to see the natural transition to FW3200 / USB3 with the same numbers of ports in the current MBP.
I'm hoping to see very little redesign. I'd personally like a TiBook-like thin, uniform bezel return, definitely with that more subtle MBA camera, MB latch maybe, but not the black keys. Please not the black keys. Both previous pro-laptop styles had their charms, so a combo with perhaps aluminium MB style keys would be nice. I've always imagined that a slightly darker, gun-metally aluminium might be interesting
Graphics card is still solid. SSD option I think on the cards.
I'm waiting for Montevina and beyond, depending on how my current 2.4 does me, which I love very much. When's Nahelem due?
Unfortunately, a couple of replies haven't really been useful.
In the old days, it was pretty easy to calculate how much VRAM you needed. Three bytes per pixel for 24-bit color - so how big is the screen? (1280x1024x3 = about 4 MiB is enough)
Some apps would "double buffer", and build the next image in the VRAM and do a nearly instant swap. Doubles the need per window, so for a full screen window we're at about 8 MiB. Add an alpha channel for transparency, and we add another 8 bits per pixel, so 8 MiB becomes about 10 MiB.
Make it a pair of 1600x1200 screens, and we're at about 30 MiB.
But, those were the old days.
Today, VRAM is used for many things in modern systems. Motion effects, transparency, and other needs have moved to an environment where every window is given to the graphics card to manage. In the old days, you basically only had to worry about VRAM for the visible pixels. Today, the compositing engine puts all of the windows "onscreen", and gives the graphics card "depth" information and lets the graphics card determine which pixels are visible. Have 10 or 20 windows up, and 256 MiB disappears rather quickly.
In other words, the "eye candy" that you see needs more graphics memory than your full screen 3D game. Couple that with the common use of multiple large displays, and you often run into situations where 256 MiB is either slow or forces the OS to disable certain features.
Theory is good of course, but nothing beats a real benchmark on how 512 MB draws system eye-candy faster than 256 MB on he same GPU?
BTW, when I used an older MBP (with X1600) with a 30" ACD I noticed no slowdowns in expose, dashboard, etc effects when I had many windows open. That was with 256MB VRAM on a slower GPU than 8600GTm
That is true. But as of recently 512 Mb of Vram has become the standard, from the fact that many games are using that much at higher texture settings.
The games that have a heavy use of extra 256MB VRAM wont run well on a MBP anyway, especially on highest graphics settings
True, though games are starting to need more ram by default. It reduces the need to swap textures from system ram to vram.
I didn't know that mini-dvi was not dual link. I wonder if it would be hard to make the mini-dvi port dual link as well?
Except that Apple and Disney are so close - and Disney is all BluRay. Since they get about $10 more per disk for BluRay than for DVD, I'm sure Disney would like BluRay to catch on.
I don't have any idea when it will happen, though.
Mac OS Rumors had a report that the MBA was going to be updated with Penryn at some point,
I posted a sarcastic reply ("Well, gee. When Intel releases faster chips which consume less power, Apple will put them into their laptops. I'd never have figured that out on my own. Thank you so much, Mac OS Rumors."). They never posted it.
It may not make a computer that fits YOUR needs, but it's hard to see that the iMac is 'multiple steps below a Mac Pro' for most users. You can expand RAM high enough for the vast majority of users. You can add as many external hard disks as you need. The processor is plenty fast for the majority of users.
I'm willing to bet that for 90% of non-game players and non-graphics professionals, there is no real difference in usability between the iMac and the Pro. If you're a professional or an avid game player, you need the pro.
Of course, there are plenty of people who want the Pro, but want it at half the price, but that's too bad.
I just don't see a significant number of people being left out between the iMac and the Pro.
If we ever get to the point that Apple is in business only to satisfy your needs, that might become relevant.
Yes, for top-end gaming.
The MBP isn't meant to win any Quake frame rate contests, however. If you want killer frame rates, you get a desktop with multiple graphics cards. Laptops aren't (generally) meant to be the top end gaming machines.
Ah geeze, jragosta use the multiquote.
Video RAM is nice but you're going to need the pipes and bandwidth to use all that texture space. Laptops are going to get lower clocked, cooler parts as it is.
Radeon 38xx at 55nm is sexy right now.
Video RAM is nice but you're going to need the pipes and bandwidth to use all that texture space. Laptops are going to get lower clocked, cooler parts as it is.
Radeon 38xx at 55nm is sexy right now.
Actually I do have a gaming rig with 512 Mb framebuffer. I just mention the vram as a way to future proof from future gaming. OSX also uses the graphics card, so a increased framebuffer may help when having a dual monitor setup with multiple windows open.
Though on Windows, using the inf from LaptopVideo2go allows it to run at the mobile GPU's stock speeds (which are lower than desktop cards)
It doesn't take a genius to spell genius correctly either.
Also i think the MBA touchpad is more of a gimmick than anything. Give me higher CPU speeds and access to more ram and i'll be quite content.
what do you mean out of fashion? do you think apple "design" or whatever "design" is driven by fashion?
They certainly have their own sense of fashion that they follow, and most other products have been redesigned countless times already. Think of the iPod nano for instance. Each one sole really well, but was completely changed the next revision.
I think they're drive to make things nicer and nicer, and the MBP is stale.
Absolutely sam. For those of you who don't want change (why?), you might as well get in the mindset for a MBP with a new MBA-like keyboard, magnetic latch, and so on. Might not happen this time around, but it will eventually.
Also I gotta agree with a "bigger" video card. The current card isn't bad, but up the vram (256 at least), if nothing else to just future proof it. Yes, no crap the MBP isn't a gaming machine, but it's not like an upgrade would hurt.