MacBook Graphics Card

[wyrmintheapple]

If it supports Shader 2.0, why can't it run UT with Shader 2.0 on? And what about built-in accelerated H.264 decoding specifically? That's pretty critical for an Apple GPU right now.

Ha Ha!

1.) Read the hidden test in my post.

2.) Just because a chip CAN run something, doesn't mean its good for it. The fx5200 from nVidia CAN do Shader 2.0 too, but its not that good at it (in fact its terrible, performance takes a huge dive when most SM2.0 stuff is used).

 

[pentae]

On Intel's website it says it can use up to
Optimization of System Resources Dynamic Video Memory Technology (DVMT) 3.0 supports up to 224MB of video memory; system memory is allocated where it is needed dynamically.
So could the Macbook use that much if you maxed out Memory to 2 GB

I'm getting sick of people shutting down Integrated Graphics immediately upon hearing it without actually taking a closer look. From what i've read Integrated has come quite a long way and the GMA950 Actually beats the Radeon in the MacBook Pro on certain benchmarks, particularly to do with HD Video. So shut your traps and help me do some further research!

1. Would be nice if someone with a MacBook with 2GB of Ram could answer the OP's question re: WoW FPS.. I dont play WOW anymore but it would be good to know how hard the GMA950 can be pushed by maxing out the RAM! 224MB of Video Ram seems like a lot for Integrated to me.. Surely with the built-in 512MB of ram the MB Benchmarks are not going to be utilising the GMA950 to its fullest.

2. Does anyone know of any new GPU's coming out that we will be able to hot swap with the GMA950? Whats the Socket its on called, so I can do some research? (Couldnt really find it on the intel page) http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

 

[HiRez]

I'm getting sick of people shutting down Integrated Graphics immediately upon hearing it without actually taking a closer look. From what i've read Integrated has come quite a long way and the GMA950 Actually beats the Radeon in the MacBook Pro on certain benchmarks, particularly to do with HD Video.

The Intel GPU is pretty capable when it comes to 2D graphics acceleration, and it has built-in H.264 decoding, so it's a good chip for HD playback. It's in the 3D world where it falls flat on its face.

2. Does anyone know of any new GPU's coming out that we will be able to hot swap with the GMA950? Whats the Socket its on called, so I can do some research? (Couldnt really find it on the intel page) http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

I recall reading on one of the dissection sites that in the MacBook, the chip is not removable or socketed, IOW it's soldered onto the motherboard. That's why they're called integrated graphics.

 

[Sarpedon]

question

Will more ram (2gb say) increase the performance of gaming etc. despite the integrated card?

Thanks

 

[Sarpedon]

btw i have a macbook in the mail w/ 2gb ram, ill run motion and halo and some other programs and tell u how it goes...

 

[BKKloppenborg]

Will more ram (2gb say) increase the performance of gaming etc. despite the integrated card?

Thanks

More ram will ALWAYS increase the performace of any computer.. EX
My Powerbook G4 did have 512MB of ram and now has 1.25 GB, everything opens, closes faster and runs faster and better. BIG example is it used to take Unreal 2004 30 sec to close after i finished now it takes 3-5 seconds.



P.S. the grahics card, i called Apple wondering since Intels web site it can go up to 224MB of Shared Video memory if the Macbook could to..

NO it doesn't it only is fixed at 64MB, that sucks now i am saving for Powerbook Pro.

 

[Abstract]

If your serious about doing graphics-heavy applications, why are you trying to cut corners?

Agreed. People want a cheap laptop that can do it all. They're disappointed that Apple released a cheap laptop with integrated graphics when other vendors are offering the same thing at the same price. Wake up, you're not looking at an expensive laptop, and you won't be able to do absolutely everything on it. You get a good laptop for a good, very competitive price. People who are disappointed aren't being realistic with their expectations of a $1000 notebook.

Honestly,

I think the macbook should have had MUCH better graphic cards. You don't need high graphic cards for just gaming, you have video editors and designers who require it.

You're right. Video editing and design require a much better video card. This is why MacBook Pros exist. Why is a designer even considering buying a MacBook to begin with? It's the wrong tool for the job. This is what ALL computer makers offer for $1000. Your expectations are unrealistic. Buy the right tool for the job. You can't expect to use a fork to drink soup, and expect it too work perfectly.

"Ooooh, my $600 Mac Mini can't run Motion, or Doom 3 at the highest details...." Bah! Don't be one of "those" people.

If you're editing video, buy a desktop with a fast harddisk and a good, cheap video card, and much higher (and more useful) resolution for video editing and design and graphics work. That, or a 17" MBP. The 15" MBP is a minimum.

 

[Abstract]

allow me to clear up any misunderstandings you might have. i labeled the macbook as a simple internet, word processor, music, etc basic machine b/c thats what it is. the integrated graphics it has is awful, and id loooove to see some benchmarks of HL2 running on it.

Wrong. My 7 year old PC can do the things you listed quite well, so a new computer in 2006 with 71x the processing power of my old computer can do more than surf the net and check email. You should have added "....and use Photoshop CS2 and other graphics programs, and pretty much everything other than 3D games in a decent manner" to your list of things it could handle.

If people, even people who use Photoshop a lot, used to use a Ti or Al PowerBook with 1Ghz G4 processors and up to do all sorts of editing, using Photoshop, Dreamweaver, etc, surely you can't say that this MacBook is useless for anything other than very basic tasks. Again.....my old PC can do that, so your expectations are low.

Some people have expectations that are too high. Just understand that you're getting a new, up-to-date computer that's on par with everything else on the market right now (in this price range), and that if you want better, pay more.

 

[yosoyjay]

MacBook can edit video

If you're editing video, buy a desktop with a fast harddisk and a good, cheap video card, and much higher (and more useful) resolution for video editing and design and graphics work. That, or a 17" MBP. The 15" MBP is a minimum.

You might be particularly surprised by these benchmarks comparing the performance of a Dual 2.0 G5, a 2.16 MacBook Pro, and a 2.0 MacBook in Final Cut Studio tests.

http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=43717

 

[okwhatev]

More ram will ALWAYS increase the performace of any computer.. EX
My Powerbook G4 did have 512MB of ram and now has 1.25 GB, everything opens, closes faster and runs faster and better. BIG example is it used to take Unreal 2004 30 sec to close after i finished now it takes 3-5 seconds.



P.S. the grahics card, i called Apple wondering since Intels web site it can go up to 224MB of Shared Video memory if the Macbook could to..

NO it doesn't it only is fixed at 64MB, that sucks now i am saving for Powerbook Pro.

any hacks for this in the making? A MacBook running with 224MB for the graphics allocated from a 2GB installed machine would rock.

 

[firsttube]

any hacks for this in the making? A MacBook running with 224MB for the graphics allocated from a 2GB installed machine would rock.

Hear hear!

 

[matticus008]

2. Does anyone know of any new GPU's coming out that we will be able to hot swap with the GMA950? Whats the Socket its on called, so I can do some research? (Couldnt really find it on the intel page) http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

Like HiRez said, it can't be upgraded. But even further, it's not even a dedicated chip a very capable electronics person could just pop off and replace--it's parasitically built into the Northbridge logic components.

P.S. the grahics card, i called Apple wondering since Intels web site it can go up to 224MB of Shared Video memory if the Macbook could to..

NO it doesn't it only is fixed at 64MB, that sucks now i am saving for Powerbook Pro.

Just another example of an idiot phone rep. Out of the box, the integrated graphics uses 80MB according to Apple's own specifications, with 64MB guaranteed to the graphics system at all times. It can also scale to larger amounts if needed. If Apple capped it below 224MB (which I highly doubt and have seen zero evidence for), it's at least substantially more than 64MB.

any hacks for this in the making? A MacBook running with 224MB for the graphics allocated from a 2GB installed machine would rock.

No hack necessary. The system will use what it needs dynamically up to the limit. A GPU with 256MB of its own memory sits mostly empty most of the time; why would you want to rob system RAM for graphics just to sit idle?

 

[okwhatev]

No hack necessary. The system will use what it needs dynamically up to the limit. A GPU with 256MB of its own memory sits mostly empty most of the time; why would you want to rob system RAM for graphics just to sit idle?

So.... although the ATI dedicated card is unquestionably better, I would gather if you had 2GB of RAM with the new Macbook.... the 226MB it would allocate for the GPU would produce some dramatic frame increases no? Doom 3, for instance, could conceivably jump from 15FPS to 40 or so in high res....

DDR2 667 ram is pretty fast. I wonder how it's going to be in real-world benchmarks....

Astonished that no one here has maxed out the RAM and given Windows game reports back here. I'll know in one day, when I get the 4 1GB sticks I bought on newegg for my 2 (!) Black Macbooks (one for the hubby, one for me).... as well as two 7200rpm 100GB drive upgrades. Anyone want to buy some perfectly good 80GB 5200rpm SATA drives?

 

[shadowmoses]

Anyone want to buy some perfectly good 80GB 5200rpm SATA drives?

I maybe, how much can you offer one for with shipping to the UK? PM me

ShadoW

 

[matticus008]

So.... although the ATI dedicated card is unquestionably better, I would gather if you had 2GB of RAM with the new Macbook.... the 226MB it would allocate for the GPU would produce some dramatic frame increases no? Doom 3, for instance, could conceivably jump from 15FPS to 40 or so in high res....

Allocation doesn't automatically increase with additional RAM; it's important to understand that. A computer with 512MB and a computer with 2GB are both going to boot with 80MB being used by the graphics system. Adding more RAM just makes it easier for the graphics to take on more memory without causing performance slowdowns in the system. The extra system RAM will help overall gaming performance substantially, and it will allow the graphics system more room to expand its graphics RAM (texture memory) with fewer conflicts, which will also boost performance somewhat. So more RAM will indeed improve performance, but it won't suddenly make 3D responsiveness like that of a more powerful, dedicated card.

 

[iHeartTheApple]

Astonished that no one here has maxed out the RAM and given Windows game reports back here. I'll know in one day, when I get the 4 1GB sticks I bought on newegg for my 2 (!) Black Macbooks (one for the hubby, one for me).... as well as two 7200rpm 100GB drive upgrades. Anyone want to buy some perfectly good 80GB 5200rpm SATA drives?

I agree...I'm surprised that no one has reported on a 2GB MB for Windows games. I'd like to hear how it works out because the *only* thing that is keeping me from buying a MB right now is the games thing. Although, the games I want to play may not need anymore than what the MB has...

Any ideas if Ghost Recon, AVP2, Neverwinter Nights, and the like would be playable at high settings? They're much older games than the ones that everyone are worried about. I still would like to play WoW on it, but that's a different story entirely.

Also, do we know *for sure* that the MB is not capped at some vram value below 224MB (per Intel's specs)? I've heard this before and I've never gotten a straight answer from anyone. Even if it's not capped, will 224MB of GMA950 goodness (with 2GB system ram) be anywhere close to the ability of the x1600 with either 128 or 256MB of DDR3?

 

[Eluon]

Ummm, no. Here's the thing..

Not evenone makes buckets of cash. I'm a struggling university student, so I don't have the cash to buy a laptop for mucking around and a serious desktop for intensive graphic editing. I gotta combine it - and the MBP is definitely out of my price range. Hell, I've been doing my graphic editing on a G4 800mhz iBook for the last 2.5 years - no, it's not as fast as an iMac or Powermac, but it's really all I ccould go for at the time, cause I also needed a portable computer for my studies. You can tell people to go for the more expensive machine all you want, but for me, at least, it's not an option. Cutting corners? Nah - It's about working with what you got. We're just curious to see how far we can go with the intel graphics chipset.

Thank you for saying that. People here think everyone can drop thousands upon thousands for machines. Luckily my MBP was paid half for birthday and Christmas this year. I understand making do with what you've got. Don't listen to some of these people.

 

[matticus008]

Thank you for saying that. People here think everyone can drop thousands upon thousands for machines. Luckily my MBP was paid half for birthday and Christmas this year. I understand making do with what you've got. Don't listen to some of these people.

Not at all. If someone was using an 800MHz iBook before for video editing, the MacBook is substantially better on all fronts. By all means, make do with what you can afford, but it's not Apple's fault that not everyone can afford their more expensive machines. More than that, it's no one's fault on the forums that the machines best suited to certain tasks come with a hefty price tag.

More expensive computers are obviously better suited for the task, but it's a moot point if one can't afford them. If you're expecting a MacBook to perform as well as a MacBook Pro, you have unreasonable expectations.

I agree...I'm surprised that no one has reported on a 2GB MB for
Also, do we know *for sure* that the MB is not capped at some vram value below 224MB (per Intel's specs)? I've heard this before and I've never gotten a straight answer from anyone. Even if it's not capped, will 224MB of GMA950 goodness (with 2GB system ram) be anywhere close to the ability of the x1600 with either 128 or 256MB of DDR3?

Innocent until proven guilty, right? There's no evidence that Apple has artificially limited the capabilities of the GMA950. It's not a match for the x1600 at any amount of RAM, though.

 

[afornander]

i realy want to see hl2 on a macbook. many people say that hl2 would run like crap, well, it would have to be at minimal settings but it would still be very playable "i" think. most games from the source engine (hl2) play great on imbeded graphics.

 

[Xephian]

More ram will ALWAYS increase the performace of any computer.. EX
My Powerbook G4 did have 512MB of ram and now has 1.25 GB, everything opens, closes faster and runs faster and better. BIG example is it used to take Unreal 2004 30 sec to close after i finished now it takes 3-5 seconds.



P.S. the grahics card, i called Apple wondering since Intels web site it can go up to 224MB of Shared Video memory if the Macbook could to..

NO it doesn't it only is fixed at 64MB, that sucks now i am saving for Powerbook Pro.

Yes, but after ~2GB, you won't see much of an improvement from a consumer's point.

Everything after 4GB is a waste for most unless your a pro HD video editor or something.

 

[slffl]

Other than 3D games and applications that use 3D, how well will the MacBook perform with 2GB RAM? Specifically iLife applications and Parallels. Will these applications run just as fast as on a 2.0 MBP?

 

[Abulia]

Other than 3D games and applications that use 3D, how well will the MacBook perform with 2GB RAM? Specifically iLife applications and Parallels. Will these applications run just as fast as on a 2.0 MBP?

Yes. Neither of those applications benefit from the GPU on the MBP so performance on a MB would be identicial.

 

[bankshot]

Wow, lots of bad advice / misinformation here. Wish I'd seen this thread last week when it was started.

Any serious 3D rendering app will run like **** on the integrated graphics. Get the iMac.

Okay, did just that... gonna pick it up next week

Oooh, and thank God for the optical mouse... no more lint on the trackwheels

I hope the iMac is really what you needed/wanted, then. I don't know of any 3-d renderer that uses the GPU for anything beyond previews and setting up the scene. Maybe that's enough of a difference for you to go with the dedicated graphics card, but don't assume it will affect your actual renders in the slightest. Those will be handled by the CPU, so you could have a 10 year old 4 mb 2-d only card and still get exactly the same rendering performance.

You don't need high graphic cards for just gaming, you have video editors and designers who require it.

Apple must really love people with this attitude. Video card makers, too. More money for them.

With the exception of Motion, none of the apps in Final Cut Studio needs high end 3-d acceleration. Video editing, in general, is a purely 2-dimensional affair. The GMA 950 is more than capable of running Final Cut Pro and others, as this article clearly shows.

High end games, of course, are an entirely different story. I just get tired of seeing misinformed people stating things that simply aren't true, perhaps because they don't fully understand them and made the wrong assumptions. Argh. The battle against misinformation never ends!

 

[okwhatev]

I agree...I'm surprised that no one has reported on a 2GB MB for Windows games. I'd like to hear how it works out because the *only* thing that is keeping me from buying a MB right now is the games thing. Although, the games I want to play may not need anymore than what the MB has...

Any ideas if Ghost Recon, AVP2, Neverwinter Nights, and the like would be playable at high settings? They're much older games than the ones that everyone are worried about. I still would like to play WoW on it, but that's a different story entirely.

Also, do we know *for sure* that the MB is not capped at some vram value below 224MB (per Intel's specs)? I've heard this before and I've never gotten a straight answer from anyone. Even if it's not capped, will 224MB of GMA950 goodness (with 2GB system ram) be anywhere close to the ability of the x1600 with either 128 or 256MB of DDR3?

Okay.... just capped my system with 2GB of 667Mhz, DDR2 SDRAM.... and unfortunutely it's made no idfference in the Mac OS for available video RAM. It remains at 64MB. Windows XP, on the other other hand, shows 128MB of video RAM available. Before I upgraded the RAM on the Macbook, it showed 64MB like in Mac OS. Honestly, I'd rather have the video RAM available in Windows where it can be used for games, but 128MB is a far cry from the 224 you're supposed to get out of the GMA950. This is looking to be some sort of firmware limitation. GRRRR!

Anyhow, that said, games are really flying in Windows XP on the 2Ghz Macbook. Remember, due to the fact that you can't run anything above the Macbook's highest resolution (1280X800), 128MB of VRAM ends up being plenty for most games. I found no slowdown in several intensive games, where on the Mac OS (probably because they're running in Rosetta) framerate was dropped about 3 times.

So I'm really happy here, other then being a little irked by the current Mac OS VRAM limitation.

 

[okwhatev]

some fun numbers for you guys:

With 2GB RAM:
Mac OS startup time: 17 seconds
Windows XP (SP3) startup time: 16 seconds (!!)

With 512MB of RAM:
Mac OS VRAM: 64MB
Windows XP VRAM: 64MB

After 2GB total RAM:
Mac OS VRAM: 64MB
Windows XP VRAM: 128MB

With 512MB RAM:
choppy 1080p playback in Mac OS

With 2GB RAM:
PERFECT 1080p playback in Mac OS

It's an unbelievable Windows XP and Mac OS machine. Kudos to Apple!

Now let's fix that VRAM limitation, eh?