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

MacBook Graphics Card

okwhatev said:
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!
Click to expand...
It's not going to show more RAM, because guaranteed allocation isn't going to change from 64MB ever, even if the graphics card is using 206MB. The OS dynamically handles memory management, and the graphics get more when it needs it and when it can be provided. Mac OS is never going to say anything other than 64MB. Even on a fresh boot, it'll tell you 64MB when 80MB is in use. I don't know where you're looking in Windows, but if it's the Display Properties or System Information, that number, too, is static and only changes at boot time.
 
matticus008 said:
It's not going to show more RAM, because guaranteed allocation isn't going to change from 64MB ever, even if the graphics card is using 206MB. The OS dynamically handles memory management, and the graphics get more when it needs it and when it can be provided. Mac OS is never going to say anything other than 64MB. Even on a fresh boot, it'll tell you 64MB when 80MB is in use. I don't know where you're looking in Windows, but if it's the Display Properties or System Information, that number, too, is static.
Click to expand...

This is good to know, but I'm curious then.... why did Windows say 64MB available, and then jump to 128 after the upgrade? Not saying your wrong..... it was just curious.
 
okwhatev said:
This is good to know, but I'm curious then.... why did Windows say 64MB available, and then jump to 128 after the upgrade? Not saying your wrong..... it was just curious.
Click to expand...
It's a Windows driver thing, because Windows needs to report a "maximum" RAM to applications which request it (it's in quotes because 128MB is not the actual maximum, but Windows is conservative--with stock 512, it reports 64MB because that is the lowest maximum of the chip, but with 2GB of RAM, it can safely assure applications that up to 128MB will be available). OS X doesn't work the same way. In both OSes, the number is just a number for the sake of providing one; what that number actually is doesn't really matter much for variable-memory GPUs.

Reported and actual figures in both systems are different, because they were both designed to report actual, physical, dedicated RAM on GPUs and neither was intended to respond to variable-RAM IG chipsets. So what is reported is a fixed number that can't change except at reboot; there is no polling to report actual usage. The GMA950 can be assigned up to 128MB RAM "owned" space architecturally (which is what Windows may be reporting and some manufacturers may set--though with Windows XP, the windows system doesn't really use much graphics RAM so that's a good 100MB+ of system RAM trapped in a lockbox when you could use it elsewhere), but Apple chooses to assign 64MB to avoid taking 1/4 of the stock system RAM. OS X also manages system capabilities better, allowing less direct access to hardware; the consequence being that Windows can achieve better gaming performance all things being equal, albeit in the typical Microsoft fast and dirty way.
 
So potentially, a Macbook will play a hardcore 3D game almost as well as the Macbook Pro, if it has 2 gb of Ram?
 
Nar1117 said:
So potentially, a Macbook will play a hardcore 3D game almost as well as the Macbook Pro, if it has 2 gb of Ram?
Click to expand...
No. GPU performance is not directly tied to VRAM, shared RAM vs dedicated RAM, etc. The MB GPU doesn't support T&L, for example.

There's really no comparison: The MBP GPU trounces all over the MB.
 
Abulia said:
No. GPU performance is not directly tied to VRAM, shared RAM vs dedicated RAM, etc. The MB GPU doesn't support T&L, for example.

There's really no comparison: The MBP GPU trounces all over the MB.
Click to expand...


Gotcha.
 
Abulia said:
No. GPU performance is not directly tied to VRAM, shared RAM vs dedicated RAM, etc. The MB GPU doesn't support T&L, for example.

There's really no comparison: The MBP GPU trounces all over the MB.
Click to expand...

No question there. However, at the native resolution of Macbook pro, all games I've tested run superb in Windows. Therefore, it's a great little gaming system despite what people have been saying.
 
okwhatev said:
No question there. However, at the native resolution of Macbook pro, all games I've tested run superb in Windows. Therefore, it's a great little gaming system despite what people have been saying.
Click to expand...
I don't dispute this, however the question was would 2GB of RAM make the MB performance on par with the MBP and it won't.

MB gaming performance is pretty subjective, but if I had to summarize it I'd say "barely adequate." But then my "barely adequate" could be equal to someone else's expectation of "awesome!" :)

In short, I don't think it's wise to oversell the MB's GPU performance; better to remain realistic and set people up to be pleasantly surprised. ;)
 
Gnorn said:
Does anyone know how a 3D rendering app like Vue or Bryce would perform on an integrated graphics card? Does it matter if I have of not have a dedicated card, and if yes, how much would that matter?

I'm torn between a 17" iMac and the 2Ghz MacBook...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you guys've seen this already, but I found the following Ars benchmark pretty interesting:

3.png


I was most surprised about the Hardware OpenGL test. I guess Cinebench is not THAT dependent on the graphics card, becomes the MB comes pretty close to matching the MBP's performance. I'm now tempted to try to run OpenGL-based 3D apps (Rhino, 3DS Max, etc.) on the MBs in BootCamp.
 
dongmin said:
I'm not sure if you guys've seen this already, but I found the following Ars benchmark pretty interesting:

I was most surprised about the Hardware OpenGL test. I guess Cinebench is not THAT dependent on the graphics card, becomes the MB comes pretty close to matching the MBP's performance. I'm now tempted to try to run OpenGL-based 3D apps (Rhino, 3DS Max, etc.) on the MBs in BootCamp.
Click to expand...
Point- yes: Video rendering is primarily CPU bound, not GPU bound. The MB and MBP kick because of the Core Duo. The Mini suffers with one core. Even most 3-D programs other than real-time games are more dependant on CPU than graphics card.

Earlier post about 2 Gb ALWAYS making a machine faster -- to define that better, heving ENOUGH RAM allows the machine to run at full speed, having too little RAM slows it down. The amount that is "enough" varies depending on the applications and data that you have open simultaneously.
 
I know those are not figures, but I can tell you that the graphics own in Halo om my MB! (see specs in sig).
 
Mac Book Graphics

Does anyone know the best geforce graphics card you can put on a macbook, and what all else you will need for it to be installed properly
 
cujo123 said:
Does anyone know the best geforce graphics card you can put on a macbook, and what all else you will need for it to be installed properly
Click to expand...
Well, right now it's an 8600M GT, and you'll need a MacBook Pro to get it.

You can't install anything on a plain MacBook. It has integrated graphics and cannot be upgraded or modified. Them's the breaks, as they say.
 
matticus008 said:
Well, right now it's an 8600M GT, and you'll need a MacBook Pro to get it.

You can't install anything on a plain MacBook. It has integrated graphics and cannot be upgraded or modified. Them's the breaks, as they say.
Click to expand...

Well, same goes for the Macbook Pro. Once you buy it, you can't upgrade its graphics card either.
 
Mac-Biodiesel said:
Well, same goes for the Macbook Pro. Once you buy it, you can't upgrade its graphics card either.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the question.

The question was, "what is the best GeForce card you can put in a MacBook?" And the answer is none. You can't put any card in a MacBook. You need a MacBook Pro to get one.
 
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