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.
New MacBook Pro 6,1 on Geekbench!!
- Thread starter Steve Mobs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
and also....Intel's "option" for integrated graphics is already on the CPU die...it's the "GMA HD" graphics solution that's already embedded in the CPU die and takes up no additional space, and is the best integrated offering they've had to date. I guess that's why you're just a "demi-god", and not the full fledged Steve Jobs
This doesn't negate the fact that it still pales in comparison to other GPU offerings. Apple will not downgrade graphics performance just to be able to utilize the chipset needed for ix processors. The new MacBook Pros will have dedicated graphics unless there is a corporate deal we are unaware of. Also, making an attempt at an insult will not get you any kudos on this forum.
I ask you to look at this 17" uMBP logic board, and tell me where there is a PCIe slot. You will notice the 9600M GT (and 9400M) soldered to the board, however the 9400M is directly connected to the chipset and shares RAM.
EDIT: the link you posted above shows a type of graphics card no longer common on laptops, let alone the Apple laptops being discussed. The 9600M GT is a discreet GPU because of it's separation from the chipset, not it's upgradability.
nvm, you're right
This doesn't negate the fact that it still pales in comparison to other GPU offerings. Apple will not downgrade graphics performance just to be able to utilize the chipset needed for ix processors. The new MacBook Pros will have dedicated graphics unless there is a corporate deal we are unaware of. Also, making an attempt at an insult will not get you any kudos on this forum.
nvm, not looking to get in a pissing match. I still maintain the cooling solutions required for the latest discrete cards is beyond the 13" chassis of the MBP as it stands now.
You got me there
Though, a GPU does not have to be in such a form factor to be discreet. Saying that Apple cannot fit a proper discreet GPU into the MBP is inaccurate considering the majorly important component is the die itself, which can (and has) been thrown onto the logic board because of space constraints. Notice that the majority of laptops using those kinds of cards are thicker than 1"
You got me there
I actually didn't...that was a custom solution for testing. You're right about discrete graphics, I was wrong.
But I still maintain my point, as the cooling solutions needed for the latest from Nvidia and ATI and drastically more elaborate that the 9600GT. And I also think the Arrandale onboard graphics are quite a bit better than any previous Intel offering and will prove superior to the 9400M as well.
It's a real shame that Intel can't devote the minds in the processor dept. to graphics, there is so much more potential. Hopefully Larrabee will be a game changer, if they don't keep delaying it
That might very well be true; considering the fact that the 13" MBP comes with only one fan, whereas the 15" MBP with a discrete GPU comes with two (please correct me if I am wrong).
Seeing as they don't place the fan itself on top of the logic board, but rather in a "cut-away-fjord", making room for another fan would imply considerable shrinking of other parts.
Oh, and does anyone know if they're using these fancy new magnetic fans on all of their notebooks now?
It's a real shame that Intel can't devote the minds in the processor dept. to graphics, there is so much more potential. Hopefully Larrabee will be a game changer, if they don't keep delaying it
well that was one game (and still pretty close). Unfortunately the test isn't that expansive, but in other areas it does prove superior...and that's with early drivers.
The southbridge doesn't take up a substantial amount of space on the logic board. There will definitely be a rearrangement of parts to position the RAM for a direct link to the processor's memory controller (like the '09 Mac Pro), and I'm guessing they will find a place to put a modified heatsink and/or separate fan, although there is obviously precious little space to manipulate.
But the problem is that the Nvidia 9400M is gaining on 2 years since release with the initial uMB/P, so recent tech being on-par with it isn't all that impressive. I'm sure by this point the boys at Nvidia have developed something else in the terms of integrated graphics, though we likely wont be seeing it until they stop their pissing match with Intel. Even with the new GMAs being notably more powerful, they still lack the oomph to consider them a possibility for a MBP upgrade.
It could be that the Intel IGP is what stands between Apple and higher resolution displays in their low end MPBs. It is a good solution for integration and power management - not so much for pure performance. Everyone agrees.
Anyway, I can see this whole Arrandale-scenario being quite a headache for Apple. But it is comforting to think about the fact that Apple has known about this for a long time. They most likely knew about Arrandale and its implications long before it was announced via Intel's roadmap to the rest of us.
And it is inconceivable for me to entertain the idea of them not having a Plan B for what to do, if Intel decided to play it dirty against Nvidia (the effective lock-out from producing third-party chipsets).
Pretty sure they know what to put in the notebook that will be released summer '11 too.
My guess for 13" MPB GPU, is a lame low wattage discrete one; that still squashes the 9400 and integrated Intel-thingee.
Intel is moving towards fully integrated solutions, and on their way there, they are desperately trying to rid themselves of any competition.
With all this talk (and action) about using the GPU more actively for other tasks than graphics, Intel is seeing red, and needs to reposition itself so that this won't be the case.
I'm certain we've only seen the beginning when it comes to chipset and gpu-wars.
My understanding is that the integrated graphics can simply be disabled if there's a dedicated GPU, but what can't be done is switching between them a la the 9400/9600. Someone please correct me if this is wrong.
I'm assuming it can't because it is so closely tied to CPU function, however Intel has made recent processors so customizable on the software front I wouldn't be surprised if there was a solution like that that didn't require logout.
please link me where Intel IGP is superior to 9400M
In all the test I found, 9400M is faster than Arrandale's IGP
Well they only tested 3 games, but in the other 2...
here it has the highest average FPS
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-performance/4
and here it wins outright, with the caveat that there's supposedly some double secret unlocks by nvidia for an nvidia card...but no way to quantify that.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-performance/5
And then it proves superior in a lot of media applications with cpu utilization, power efficiency, etc...the review is only a few pages, surely you saw all this already?
Those CPUs tested are the Clarkdale desktop versions, not the Arrandale mobile cores.
i5-661 GPU core operates at 900 Mhz; the standard voltage i5 Arrandale GPU cores run at 766Mhz. (as do the Arrandale i7s"
i3-530 GPU core operates at 733Mhz, standard voltage i3 Arrandale GPU cores run at 667Mhz.
So we can likely expect performance somewhere between or less than that of the two Clarkdale CPUs tested, depending on which Arrandale cores Apple sees fit to bestow upon us My money's on the Arrandale solution performing worse that the 9400 in most cases though.
i5-661 GPU core operates at 900 Mhz; the standard voltage i5 Arrandale GPU cores run at 766Mhz. (as do the Arrandale i7s"
i3-530 GPU core operates at 733Mhz, standard voltage i3 Arrandale GPU cores run at 667Mhz.
So we can likely expect performance somewhere between or less than that of the two Clarkdale CPUs tested, depending on which Arrandale cores Apple sees fit to bestow upon us
My money's on the Arrandale solution performing worse that the 9400 in most cases though.
Can you elaborate?
No. Just my semi-(but mainly)biased opinion.
Seriously though, if we can expect the mobile cores to be have their GPUs clocked lower than the desktop cores used in the article above, then I don't have high expectations for the Intel GMA HD. We'll just have to wait and see.
I don't understand why is everyone whining about the loss of the 9400M. I mean, it's anyway a low end card, not powerful enough to play decently (except maybe WOW) or work on heavy duty CAD, so what's the difference, the high end models will get additionnal GPU, and for word processing, internet, mail, looking pictures and even movies, the Arrandale integrated GPU is sufficient...
I think a lot of the vitriol comes from the fact that Intel has historically never delivered any kind of significant performance with their integrated graphics. Also, Intel's decision to incorporate a GPU with their new CPUs and not license out QPI to 3rd party chipset makers can be seen as a 'dick' move, although it's totally within their rights as the IP owner. The main issue with the latter is that it stymies competition in the integrated GPU/chipset area, so unless computer makers decide to add a discrete GPU at extra cost to consumers, we are stuck with Intel graphics -- bringing us back to the first issue: that Intel's GPU solutions have always been sub-par. True the 9400 isn't that powerful of a GPU, but it runs circles around the GMAX3100, and is what integrated graphics should be.
