integrated graphics and UI speed

[2ms]

Do Macs with dedicated graphics memory and discrete circuity (ie not integrated on board) have snappier general OS user interface? Or does the difference in graphics speed only come to bear in particularly graphics intensive applications like games?

 

[tipdrill407]

Macs with Dedicated GPUs will sometimes experience a bit of graphics lag when triggering expose with two monitors running or if there is only 512 mb of RAM installed. Other UI Features run fine.

 

[Maxiseller]

In order to answer your question we need to have a "relative to" added.

Is the UI faster on a MacPro because of it's dedicated card? Yes, possibly - would it be faster if the macBook had dedicated ram? Who really knows.

I have a Powermac G5 1.8 and the user interface is just as snappy as on my Macbook which has integrated graphics. The power of the graphics isn't actually as bad as I thought when people were moaning on these boards. I can play all my games that I couldn't actually play on the iBook I had before it. The GMA is a pretty good chip!

 

[Eidorian]

Intergrated graphics - dependent on amount of system RAM

Discrete graphics - usually fast unless the hard drive is asleep

I noticed Expose is a tad bit grainy on my Mac mini at work. I have to tweak my new LCD some more though. It still doesn't compared to my old 9800.

 

[Demon Hunter]

I thought I read somewhere that integrated graphics have faster timings for things like the GUI?

 

[2ms]

It used to be the case that no matter what, integrated graphics were always very slow. However, these days system RAM is a lot faster than it was in those days. So I do not know how fast or slow modern integrated graphics are. Is the graphics hardware the same between MiniMac and MacBook? Do these machines use dual-channel ram that doubles the bandwidth or anything?

 

[Catfish_Man]

The slowest thing for integrated graphics is vertex processing (it doesn't do it; it just hands it to the cpu), but a 2D interface shouldn't have much of that; I'd expect it to basically depend on resolution vs. available memory.

 

[2ms]

Am I going to be A-ok safe for a while from amount-of-ram UI slow-downs with 1GB of RAM or does Tiger like to have more than that somewhat commonly? And if so, do u think 1GB will still be plenty when 10.5 and 10.6 come around?

 

[CanadaRAM]

Am I going to be A-ok safe for a while from amount-of-ram UI slow-downs with 1GB of RAM or does Tiger like to have more than that somewhat commonly? And if so, do u think 1GB will still be plenty when 10.5 and 10.6 come around?

Depends entirely on what programs and data you open, and how many at one time. Not possible to guarantee you AOK. 1 Gb is fine for Tiger and 1 or 2 apps, 2 Gb is best for graphic programs, digital audio, digital video and for running a bunch of programs at once.