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

Good idea to have integrated graphics in 15" MBP?!

Good idea

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 54.5%

  • No

    Votes: 30 45.5%
  • Total voters
    66
Azrel

Azrel

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 8, 2005
117
0
Personally I think it's a great move, to have the option of not having something, is better than being forced to have something you don't want/need.

For many people the extra GPU isn't needed for their work (audio, programming, graphics).

What do you think?
:apple:
 
Just a few months ago I was consulting our family's friend on which Mac to buy. All she does is write and translate but she had to settle on the low-end 2.4 GHz uMBP because uMB's screen was too small and much worse in quality. Ended up paying for stuff she will never use.

The new 2.53 uMBP would have been just right for her.

Voted "Yes"
 
agl82 said:
Absolutely not.

Apple has completely blurred the line between "Pro" and "Consumer" machines. Graphic designers and video editors need discrete graphics and putting onboard graphics in a "Pro" machine is just silly. They are not giving people more choices, they are giving them less. Graphics pros now only have a choice of matte screens on the 17" MBP and now have no way to replace batteries if they are working somewhere away from an electrical outlet. "Pro" machines should have the option of swappable batteries. It might last 8 hours but once it dies you have to plug it in for 2 hours. This is simply unacceptable and ridiculous on Apple's part. Unfortunately, it's par for the course, since Apple likes deciding what's best for your whether it's true or not.


http://gizmodo.com/5284638/when-pro-doesnt-mean-pro-anymore
Click to expand...
just get a power pack or 2:rolleyes:
 
I love how the price for the low end 15" is what I paid for my mid range MBP with a 512MB 8600M GT card. Happy with my "Classic" and will not upgrade until I really have to.
 
I haven't switched to the 9600M, so it would work out for my case; of course I could never live with myself if I had a 15" computer with integrated graphics, so I would buy the dedicated graphics option (even if I never use it).
 
agl82 said:
Absolutely not.

AGraphic designers and video editors need discrete graphics and putting onboard graphics in a "Pro" machine is just silly.
Click to expand...

Would you have been happier if they called the 15" with integrated graphics a Macbook?

People get way too caught up in a "name".
 
Lots of "pros" have absolutely no need for a discrete 3D graphics accelerator.

I was unaware that only "graphics pros" were allowed to buy a machine that had the word "pro" on it, or that the same "pros" would be horribly confused because a machine was offered that didn't contain such an obviously "pro" feature. What of the countless other "pros" that have no need for it and are happy to be able to purchase a more affordable 15" Apple notebook that more closely matches their needs?

More choice couldn't possibly be a bad thing, bruised egos of the self-inflated narcissists notwithstanding.
 
knownikko said:
Lots of "pros" have absolutely no need for a discrete 3D graphics accelerator.

I was unaware that only "graphics pros" were allowed to buy a machine that had the word "pro" on it, or that the same "pros" would be horribly confused because a machine was offered that didn't contain such an obviously "pro" feature. What of the countless other "pros" that have no need for it and are happy to be able to purchase a more affordable 15" Apple notebook that more closely matches their needs?

More choice couldn't possibly be a bad thing, bruised egos of the self-inflated narcissists notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Agreed. See my previous post for the real-life example - that woman is a PROfessional translator. She's a pro with absolutely no need for a dedicated graphics card.
 
I do a fair amount of Photoshop and Illustrator work and its not uncommon to have files a couple hundred megabytes in size. Yet I still do all this on the 9400M. Why? Because I don't feel like logging out and switching to the GT. The 9400 has more than enough power.
 
Thing is, here I am using a loan MBP 15-inch with integrated 9400M / 9600M GT - I've switched between the two and no matter how hard I try - I see zero difference running iLife / iWork / Safari Quicktime or VLC in performance differences between the two graphics options.

I'm happy to buy a MacBook Pro with 9400M and not pay the premium price for the 9600M GT option - I just wouldn't use whatever the extra power it gives. :)
 
Its a good idea if you use bootcamp, for some reason the 9600 uses a ridiculous amount of battery power in Windows.
 
alphaod said:
I could never live with myself if I had a 15" computer with integrated graphics
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. I think it's a major waste of money to buy a computer for $1600 that only has integrated graphics (ex: the new 15" MBP with only the 9400..)

I also think that Apple could have saved a lot of money and cut prices by not bothering to include the dual GPU option and just having a single discrete GPU.
 
winninganthem said:
Agreed 100%. I think it's a major waste of money to buy a computer for $1600 that only has integrated graphics (ex: the new 15" MBP with only the 9400..)

I also think that Apple could have saved a lot of money and cut prices by not bothering to include the dual GPU option and just having a single discrete GPU.
Click to expand...

now now.... they need the 9400 so they can claim those 7 hour battery times... :p
 
I don't think this harms the MacBook Pro's image.

The MBP is now more appealing to people because they are given a choice. Do I pay extra for something I may not use?

I think if Apple had paired the MBP with a vastly inferior chip like Intel graphics, we would have some issues. But the 9400m is capable and Apple is committed to supporting it well in Snow Leopard.

It's also quite interesting apple now has the 9400m on every mac (minus the MacPro), which almost guarantees it will be a well supported chip with good performance. I think this bodes well for everyone.
 
alphaod said:
I haven't switched to the 9600M, so it would work out for my case; of course I could never live with myself if I had a 15" computer with integrated graphics, so I would buy the dedicated graphics option (even if I never use it).
Click to expand...

In OS X I've never switched either, however, under Windows I play games so a dedicated GPU is essential.

I'm glad they adjusted the prices; it made my refurb uMBP 2.53 with 512MB 9600M GPU much more affordable. :)

Cheers,
 
Azrel said:
I don't think this harms the MacBook Pro's image.

The MBP is now more appealing to people because they are given a choice. Do I pay extra for something I may not use?

I think if Apple had paired the MBP with a vastly inferior chip like Intel graphics, we would have some issues. But the 9400m is capable and Apple is committed to supporting it well in Snow Leopard.

It's also quite interesting apple now has the 9400m on every mac (minus the MacPro), which almost guarantees it will be a well supported chip with good performance. I think this bodes well for everyone.
Click to expand...

High-end iMacs don't have them I think. At least Apple says nothing about it.
 
You're going to get a lot of comments from pretentious users who are offended that their "Pro" machines have less cachet than they used to. For example:

winninganthem said:
Agreed 100%. I think it's a major waste of money to buy a computer for $1600 that only has integrated graphics (ex: the new 15" MBP with only the 9400..)
Click to expand...

agl82 said:
Absolutely not.

Apple has completely blurred the line between "Pro" and "Consumer" machines. Graphic designers and video editors need discrete graphics and putting onboard graphics in a "Pro" machine is just silly.
Click to expand...

It'd be a bigger waste of money for someone who doesn't need discrete graphics to spend $300 more for them. :rolleyes: Apple still sells a MBP with dedicated graphics - all they've done is add an option for those that don't need them. How is this a bad thing, exactly?
 
Yes

Why? It extends the arm of Apple to those who don't need the GPU. I'm telling you - the MAJORITY of MBP users never see their GPU fully utilized! It just sits there sapping battery power and uncomfortably warming their lap.

Seriously .. too many of these threads.
 
I vote yes.

And LOL @ all of these "enthusiasts" who are so upset over the fact that a MacBook Pro is not really a "Pro" machine anymore. Get off your high horse and use your f'n computer you twits.
 
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