I understand that the GMA X1300 graphics chip in the new MacBooks can only support 144mb of shared video ram.... but i know that that certain chip can max out at 256mb, is it possible to persay, "overclock" the macbooks X1300 graphics processor to support 256mb of shared memory? This might not be a big boost either if possible..
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.
GMA X1300 "overclock?"
- Thread starter macman784
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, this is not possible as of this moment in Mac OS X. More memory to the video card doesn't increase performance much at all for basic usage, the memory helps with having external or multiple screens though, but doesn't help much with performance.
The minimum the GMA 950 took was 64 MBs, and I believe the GMA 950 ran at 250mhz, the GMA X3100's minimum was 144 MBs, and runs at 300mhz. It also supports vertex shaders and all the new shaders, etc. so it is a pretty big improvement.
The GMA 950 should normally run at 350mhz and the GMA X3100 should run at 450mhz, but Mac OS X caps it.
The GMA 950 should normally run at 350mhz and the GMA X3100 should run at 450mhz, but Mac OS X caps it.
hmm.. i always thought that more memory added to the graphics processor would make it run faster. Im mean 144mb to 256mb has to be somewhat of a boost in "memory speed", and yet maybe not. There has to be some kinda of small, "quirk" that we could do so we could use the X1300 to its full advantage.
You are correct. The more RAM you add to the computer, the better the graphics will work, and if you have matched pair, like 2 sticks of 1 GB or 2 sticks of 2 GB, the better the graphics processor will work.
Note: Matched pair give an 8% speed bonus.
Note: Matched pair give an 8% speed bonus.
However true in some ways, this statement is somewhat imprecise.
RAM doesn't speed up a computer, it simply avoids swapping information from disk which takes longer to read than if the information was already stored in the RAM.
In the same way, more VideoRAM speeds up the graphics because more information can be stored instead of it being processed on the fly all the time. However, integrated graphics are no match for dedicated graphics in terms of processing power which is what 3d rendering in games usually require. VideoRAM in these cases are used to store resolution information (higher the res, the more RAM is required). However the more bells and whistles are enabled, every time a pixel needs to change, the GPU needs to change that information. If the GPU is a faster model (say 8600m gt), this is relatively painless. But for a high-res X3100 GPU this will take a lot more time, thus the ability to use more RAM is rendered useless because it is not the RAM that determines the speed of the information change.
This is why a low-end MBP will smoke the high-end Macbook in terms of GPU power, although the Macbook in reality is capable of handling more RAM.
Actually, the GMA 950 supported PS 2.0 and things like that.
The main difference is that the GMA 950 lacked hardware T&L, while the X3100 has it.
As for being a "big improvement". Its not. The X3100 will be able to choke out a steady 30fps at 800x600 with medium details while playing older games (but not some, like Doom 3), while the GMA 950 would struggle to keep up that kind of framerate on the same settings.
You can forget about newer games. Or even "improvements" of older games, like Half-Life 2 Episode 1 and 2. Unless you turn all of the eye candy off and turn the settings down. Then the X3100 could choke out a "playable" framerate at a low resolution.
I always thought that since the X3100 has 144mb of "shared" memory that even if u added more memory to the computer, that the 144mb could be directly used toward the graphics processor, which as i can tell is not being done..... ugh, why did apple have to cap the X3100's memory capability of 256mb off??? 
Hi, guys. I got another question.
The FSBF is 800 MHz of X3100. But the frequency of memory is 667 Mhz. Somebody said that you can't improve the speed even using 800 MHz memory stick. I'm not understand that. Why not?
The low frequency of memory will not be the bottleneck of CPU?
The FSBF is 800 MHz of X3100. But the frequency of memory is 667 Mhz. Somebody said that you can't improve the speed even using 800 MHz memory stick. I'm not understand that. Why not?
The low frequency of memory will not be the bottleneck of CPU?
See, this is the interesting part about Apple (and Laptops in general). You can't overclock them. The memory controller will only recognize memory up to 667Mhz. But, at least on a PC, that can be increased well past that as people overclock the memory bus and the cpu bus for the big overclocks.
Yes the lower bus speed of the RAM can affect the CPU, which is why Intel has big L2 caches on their chips.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
I have a SR MB, and had for a week the previous model. Out of curiosity on both machines I exited spaces in slow-mo (click the screen you want while holding the shift key). It seems to be equally choppy on both machines. But it's like butter on my one generation old iMac!
Someone mentioned before that the graphics of these integrated chips depends on how well the driver is written. Do you think Apple will have updates that improve the SR MB integrated chip?
Someone mentioned before that the graphics of these integrated chips depends on how well the driver is written. Do you think Apple will have updates that improve the SR MB integrated chip?
Mind you, if you really need all the bandwidth possible, would you be running the said application on a notebook?
Probably not, but you can always buy one of these. I am sure, for a notebook, there isn't much better.