I've always been curious what % of the mac userbase plays games at all. Of that %, how many play games that need anything beyond a gma950? I just ask because none of my dozens of friends that use macs play games on them. Anyone have any idea of the #'s? How many units do the best selling osx video games push?
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.
Intel Announces 'Sandy Bridge' Core Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've always been curious what % of the mac userbase plays games at all. Of that %, how many play games that need anything beyond a gma950? I just ask because none of my dozens of friends that use macs play games on them. Anyone have any idea of the #'s? How many units do the best selling osx video games push?
Isn't that what buggy whip manufacturers said about the horseless carriage?
Laying down the proper architectural foundation to better use the horsepower locked up in graphics processors doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. I can see how the Microsoft-uber-alles crowd wouldn't like it, but I'm not sure why anyone else would object...
That's testing the 3000 version of the integrated graphics. The chips that would go into a laptop would only have the 2000 version at half the speed.
There was the time when Intel management told their hardware designers to increase Megahertz at any cost. Doesn't matter how _fast_ the processor was, as long as the clock is high. And then people would buy a 3200 MHz P4 chip thinking it was fast - when it wasn't. And then AMD responded by giving its chips numbers like "AMD 3200" - and people would buy them because it was the same number as the Intel chip! What they didn't realise was that at the time and "AMD 3200" would run at maybe 2000 MHz, not 3200 - the 3200 was just an arbitrary number. On the other hand, the AMD 3200 running at 2000 MHz would probably outrun the Pentium 4 at 3200 MHz
Why make a chip with a meaningless high clock speed when you can have the same effect on sales by just giving it a meaningless high number?
Last edited:
2011 is looking grand for MBP's...
Current signs seem to point to a likely February '11 MBP refresh update announcement with SB, but for now fingers should still be crossed.
I think if you're in that group you'd be better off just waiting for Ivy Bridge to debut in late 2011/early2012 before looking to upgrade your current system. But if you got an older system than the 2008 models then why not take the SB plunge now?
If that's true, that's something to really look forward to.
+1
I certainly don't begrudge your skepticism.
All of these are hilarious!
Well said!
If you can wait, then why not? But Ivy Bridge is probably at least 10 months away from now...
Current signs seem to point to a likely February '11 MBP refresh update announcement with SB, but for now fingers should still be crossed.
Very nice news that it's out, but honestly i think we all saw it coming... however the question you have to ask yourself is What's the point in upgrading when Ivy Bridge will be released end of this year?
Soo I mean i don't know yet if i will buy a new MBP, Im still on a Early 2008 model.
I think if you're in that group you'd be better off just waiting for Ivy Bridge to debut in late 2011/early2012 before looking to upgrade your current system. But if you got an older system than the 2008 models then why not take the SB plunge now?
If that's true, that's something to really look forward to.
+1
I certainly don't begrudge your skepticism.
If you just bought a Macbook Pro, I want this thread to be the reason that you should have waited.
Just assume that this will be the biggest update ever, and that you'll miss it.
All of these are hilarious!
Well said!
If you can wait, then why not? But Ivy Bridge is probably at least 10 months away from now...
Last edited:
Core 2 needs to get replaced immediately. The lack of a mobile quad core as well.
OpenCL is fine for the dog and pony show but it's barely tangible. It's nice to see a box checked that they put the effort into creating something that we've forgotten outside of WWDC. Wait, what?
All mobile Sandy Bridge processors have the 12 EU version of the Intel HD 3000 IGP. The clock speeds are also very comparable to their desktop counterparts.
definitely Macbook/Macbook Pro soon and MBA in april (to follow 6 months cycle).
desktop CPU also out, so iMac refresh as well, just when apple wants to release them is the question.
these Mobile CPUs are $225 and up, hope AMD catch up with Intel in performance one day. Intel is making tons of money on these Mobile CPUs.
If that's all they are, Sandy Bridge is a whole heap of overkill. A Pentium III would probably do just fine.
You won't get any solid information just from OS X game sales since most games are for Windows. As such people will install Windows on their Mac to play games. All the games I play on my computer I run in windows with the exception of WoW. Most games will require much more than a GMA 950. Even Cataclysm requires at least an ati 9500 and WoW is not exactly the most graphics intensive game out there. As far as I can tell from this page Cataclysm doesn't even support the GMA 950.
http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&tag=wowsupportedvideo&rhtml=true
Easy decision!
You are excited about them adding DRM into the chip set itself? wow...
Link to article about the DRM
I don't care about the processing power or graphics ability after hearing what else is included. With this DRM addition and the ability to remotely shutdown the CPU there is an easy decision for me not to buy this Intel crap!
You are excited about them adding DRM into the chip set itself? wow...
Link to article about the DRM
I don't care about the processing power or graphics ability after hearing what else is included. With this DRM addition and the ability to remotely shutdown the CPU there is an easy decision for me not to buy this Intel crap!
Assuming you're right about playing in windows on a mac, I'd have to think that less than 10% of mac users utilize boot camp right? I've never seen anyone buy myself using it...
Maybe noone uses them for games (yet), but they sure as hell are for alot more than internet browsing and office tasks. I'm a graphic designer and use MBP's for the entire Adobe Suite (which sucks resources in a big way). MBP's are used by creative professionals that actually require power.
lilo777 sounds like a known troll to me.
Hopelessly behind? They have i-whatever cores (as far the the MBPs go)
Is it because they are dual core and not quad core? How many programs take advantage of quad cores? I would rather have a dual core and good battery life rather than a quad core with 2 extra cores my computer probably wouldn't use and horrible battery life. A laptop is all about battery life. Thats what spec whores don't understand. You want power? Get a desktop.
Internet browsing and office task machines? I lol'd.
Do you even know what market the Macintosh is and has been in for years? Graphic arts, video editing ... basically what the poster above me said. Creative professionals. The PC fanbois hate it but its the facts. Like it or leave.
Internet and office use... lawlz. Thats what cheap PCs are for.
FYI I have nothing against cheap PCs. Just nobody buys a 1k Plus machine for internet and office use.
Hopelessly behind? They have i-whatever cores (as far the the MBPs go)
Is it because they are dual core and not quad core? How many programs take advantage of quad cores? I would rather have a dual core and good battery life rather than a quad core with 2 extra cores my computer probably wouldn't use and horrible battery life. A laptop is all about battery life. Thats what spec whores don't understand. You want power? Get a desktop.
Internet browsing and office task machines? I lol'd.
Do you even know what market the Macintosh is and has been in for years? Graphic arts, video editing ... basically what the poster above me said. Creative professionals. The PC fanbois hate it but its the facts. Like it or leave.
Internet and office use... lawlz. Thats what cheap PCs are for.
FYI I have nothing against cheap PCs. Just nobody buys a 1k Plus machine for internet and office use.
And they're also testing an i7 Quad no less. You won't see this in a MBP13.
Give me an i5 maybe with a discrete GPU and we'll call it good. I'd even call that a major upgrade.
Signing off now. Time to put the flying pigs to bed.
Pure speculation
Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned ARM as a threat... Here's some baseless speculation:
If Apple used their iPad SSD experience to come up with the new MB Air with it's non-2.5" SSD storage... And Lion is bringing lessons from iOS back to the Mac... What's stopping them from doing something genius/crazy like adding an A4 processor to each laptop, providing (a) iOS compatibility in OS X, and (b) a chip which can take some of the heavy lifting away from the Intel IGP and CPU. Kind of like Altivec for the PPC, I guess.
My iPad decodes H.264 without getting hot or sluggish and the code has already been written for a lot of this stuff.
I just think that the Intel parts will be downgraded to being a (large) piece of the Mac platform at some point in the future, and everything I see regarding their huge leaps forward (sarcasm intended) says to me that they will only last so long, just like 680x0 and PPC.
Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned ARM as a threat... Here's some baseless speculation:
If Apple used their iPad SSD experience to come up with the new MB Air with it's non-2.5" SSD storage... And Lion is bringing lessons from iOS back to the Mac... What's stopping them from doing something genius/crazy like adding an A4 processor to each laptop, providing (a) iOS compatibility in OS X, and (b) a chip which can take some of the heavy lifting away from the Intel IGP and CPU. Kind of like Altivec for the PPC, I guess.
My iPad decodes H.264 without getting hot or sluggish and the code has already been written for a lot of this stuff.
I just think that the Intel parts will be downgraded to being a (large) piece of the Mac platform at some point in the future, and everything I see regarding their huge leaps forward (sarcasm intended) says to me that they will only last so long, just like 680x0 and PPC.
Last edited:
No, I found it adequate for what was needed two or three months ago when I bought it. Sandy Bridge is not even shipping at this point, much less found in an Apple laptop. I think it's fair to measure it with what's coming rather than based our speculation on current needs.
And what's your point with all your attacks on my MBA instead of my arguments ? That my possessions must define my opinion ? I fail to be impressed by Intel graphics but because I own a MBA my opinion is null ?
Really, what are you getting at with your constant badgering ? Do you even have a point ?
No, I found it adequate for what was needed two or three months ago when I bought it. Sandy Bridge is not even shipping at this point, much less found in an Apple laptop. I think it's fair to measure it with what's coming rather than based our speculation on current needs.
And what's your point with all your attacks on my MBA instead of my arguments ? That my possessions must define my opinion ? I fail to be impressed by Intel graphics but because I own a MBA my opinion is null ?
Really, what are you getting at with your constant badgering ? Do you even have a point ?
So you found it adequate two months ago but now it isn't? LOL. Nice purchase.
The fact remains that you are trashing Intel for their graphics matching that of a NEW machine you purchased two months ago that's still being sold. Also what arguments have you even had? All you have done is criticize the fact that the Sandy Bridge IGP matches the performance of the 320M and I found it INCREDIBLY ironic that you are saying this from a machine that has a 320M that was purchased literally a couple of months ago that also has a two year old processor in it. Also you want to talk about constant badgering? Nearly every thread on the front page of MacRumors I see you having a 12 page argument with. If I were you I'd find a new hobby other than just arguing with everyone on MacRumors.
So you found it adequate two months ago but now it isn't? LOL. Nice purchase.
It's still adequate for my needs. However, when it comes time to upgrade it, sidegrading won't be an option and thus the Intel graphics that are a big sidegrade (even less so, seeing how other benchmarks show the SB IGP to be between a 310M and 320M for performance on tests that aren't CPU bound) won't be an option then.
Not to mention OpenCL support is still a big mystery (software based OpenCL really defeats the purpose of using a language that lets you offload tasks to the GPU).
This will be the last post in regards to my MBA. I see you really don't have a point and I'm getting tired of your incessant attacks on my machine.
I have one of the pre-release Sandy Bridge 32 nm. processor PC laptops (first ones were months back in Malaysia and Singapore) and the graphics, though integrated, are good enough for low end, and some mid-level stuff.
From other forums and some mixed reviews, it handles stuff like iMovie level video (simple video editing programs) and most Adobe CS tasks, and it's surprisingly good for so-called "Intel" integrated graphics.
The Sandy Bridge integrated graphics stand somewhere in between 45 nm generation integrated chip graphics and the nVidia/ATI stuff from 2010, but somewhat closer to the latter.
While some will diss Intel for what were a bad history of "integrated" Intel graphics have to try out a 32 nm. Intel chip with graphics chipset and judge for themselves.
That being said, a 2010 MBP with Intel Core 2 Duo paired with a dedicated graphics card is still somewhat better than Sandy Bridge alone, but not as much as one would think.
From other forums and some mixed reviews, it handles stuff like iMovie level video (simple video editing programs) and most Adobe CS tasks, and it's surprisingly good for so-called "Intel" integrated graphics.
The Sandy Bridge integrated graphics stand somewhere in between 45 nm generation integrated chip graphics and the nVidia/ATI stuff from 2010, but somewhat closer to the latter.
While some will diss Intel for what were a bad history of "integrated" Intel graphics have to try out a 32 nm. Intel chip with graphics chipset and judge for themselves.
That being said, a 2010 MBP with Intel Core 2 Duo paired with a dedicated graphics card is still somewhat better than Sandy Bridge alone, but not as much as one would think.
You were honestly going to upgrade to the next revision of the MBA in less than a year of your purchase? Doesn't sound like a very good investment to me, regardless of what the next revision entailed.
As for OpenCL, nothing uses it anyway even if it doesn't support it. As Eidiorian said, it's essentially vaporware at this point.
I would love to have movies without DRM but it's not going to happen. We all know that. Given this fact, better DRC is a good thing if the studios feel safe enough to stream high quality content. Don't you want movies in better quality? Why do you think Apple does not sell/rent DRM free movies? Intel crap, Apple crap. You see too much crap.
Last edited:
Did you read the article? The guy I was responding to was making the claim that the IGP was gonna suck yet the article clearly stated otherwise.
Low setting overall differences from the 320M to SB IGP:
+3.47
Medium setting overall differences from the 320M to SB IGP:
-1.7
Net result in favor of SB IGP over 320M:
+1.77
Last edited: