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

New MBP GPUs

Ok putting aside the depressing thought of the 9600M, let's just hypothesise about the alternatives:

Is there are size/heat/power consumption reason why an HD3800/3850/3870 or a 9700M/9800M couldn't be put in the MBP?

And is there any way that the 15" might just have a 9600M but the 17" might have one of the above?
 
Mangaroo said:
Since it seems the consensus is that a 9600 will be put in, anyone know the sorts of fps it will get (1280x1024/800 no aa etc) in COD4 / UT3 / Assasins Creed / Devil May Cry 4 / Battlefield 2 ^__^ oh...and crysis and starcraft 2 if you happen to know! I guess fps is the stuff that really matters, right?
Click to expand...

It will get 150FPS in full resolution everything maxed in Crysis. :rolleyes:
 
Anyone who thinks the MacBook Pro is getting a high end gaming card is delusional.

Stop making garbage threads about this.
 
MacBook Pro (Rev. A)----ATI X1600
MacBook Pro (Rev. B)----ATI X1600

MacBook Pro (Rev. C SR)----nVidia 8600M GT
MacBook Pro (Rev. D Current)-----nVidia 8600M GT

Now, (just my speculation so dont bash me) I think Apple will go back to ATI for the next 2 revisions and I think that they will use the 3870. BUT!!! I also think nVidia does have a deal with Apple. nVidia is much more promising than ATI and I think ATI is behind in the GPU business.
 
ok i finally found some benchmarks...and...well i can WHY see people really don't want the damn 9600M - it would be terrible. In fact, i think if we do get that, ill actually build a gaming pc to suffice for a year or two until they hopefully get it right, and be without mac osx :'(.
 
Salavat23 said:
Since laptop GPUs are more or less equal to desktops GPUs, you could use the following review as a guide:

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nvidia-9600gt-review.ars/2
Click to expand...

Actually they're not more or less equal at all. If you're looking for a notebook GPU be in the same league as its desktop counterpart (if such a word may even be excused), you're going to be sadly disappointed.

Desktop cards use more power than the entire laptop. This means fewer cores (and everything else) on the laptop versions, and lower clocks on top of that.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-8600M-GT.3986.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9600M-GT.9449.0.html

Now, (just my speculation so dont bash me) I think Apple will go back to ATI for the next 2 revisions and I think that they will use the 3870. BUT!!! I also think nVidia does have a deal with Apple. nVidia is much more promising than ATI and I think ATI is behind in the GPU business.
Click to expand...

No. The 3850/3870 are for larger notebooks. They're also high-end, and if you hadn't noticed, Apple has always used mid-range graphics in their PowerBook and MacBook Pro lines. The X1600 is midrange, so is the 8600.

I'm almost expecting them to keep the same 8600 in there. I'd like an ATI card, but ATI hasn't given them much to choose from (actually, really nothing, except maybe a BTO for the 17").

I think they should scale down their 4850/70s to work well in mid-sized laptops, since they're energy efficient... high performance per watt.
 
the 9600gt is pretty damn good for games.

the macbook pro is not really a "gaming computer"
a gaming computer would be something that is 8-12 pds. the mbp is something light, and quite powerful, a best of both worlds type of computer.

with the ATI 1600xt i can play crysis at medium/low settings (which is gorgeous) at 35 FPS.

and consider this. the only computer with anything close to the nvidia 9800 would be the imac with the nvidia 8800gs. and thats a desktop.

however, I might count on the nVidia 260 in a mobile form.
its pretty new and by the time Apple comes out, this may be the card :p

but as for now, im banking on the 9600gt, i think its better than the ATI 3650
 
Tallest Skil said:
So get a Windows laptop for games. Yes, you didn't mention them, but OS X does marvelously in professional applications without the "best" cards.
Click to expand...



Btw, if u want a pretty nice laptop for gaming, get the Sager 8660.

It has a 2.8Ghz Core to Duo, and a 9800 GT

however, its 1.5 inches thick and 7 pounds, a bit bigger than the MBP
 
noodle654 said:
MacBook Pro (Rev. A)----ATI X1600
MacBook Pro (Rev. B)----ATI X1600

MacBook Pro (Rev. C SR)----nVidia 8600M GT
MacBook Pro (Rev. D Current)-----nVidia 8600M GT

Now, (just my speculation so dont bash me) I think Apple will go back to ATI for the next 2 revisions and I think that they will use the 3870. BUT!!! I also think nVidia does have a deal with Apple. nVidia is much more promising than ATI and I think ATI is behind in the GPU business.
Click to expand...

... Not sure where you get your information.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38243/135/

ATI isn't really "behind" in the GPU business.
 
ATI is hardly behind at the moment. The 4870 (desktop) matches the GTX 260. The 4870X2 should easily match the GTX 280. The 4 series is so good that Nvidia actually lowered their prices from $650 for the GTX 280 to $500 and $400 for the GTX 260 to $300. Nvidia had no idea they would be so good.

I would hope for an Nvidia GPU in the next revision, as the 3650 is the 2600 with DirectX 10.1. Now you might say "OSX doesn't use DirectX!", and you're absolutely right. There would be no added benefit. The 9600GT is what we're going to get.

It's funny that some of you guys are convinced that it's a horrible card when in fact it's a mid range card. Before I built my current gaming computer along with my G4, I was using a GeForce 2MX, and a 5200FX in an iMac. THOSE are garbage cards, even for their time.

Compared to the 8800GTS in my computer, the 8600GT isn't much. But it's miles ahead of where you think it is.

As someone said above me, if the X1600 gets 35FPS with medium settings, that's great. 30FPS is considered easily playable, anything more is just icing on the cake.
 
Call me crazy, but I almost rather have an ATI chip in a MBP again. Better Pro app performance (which is 80% of what I do on mine) and I have never once had a problem with an ATI chip. Perhaps my needs are just different... I keep my gaming to consoles.
 
CaptainChunk said:
Call me crazy, but I almost rather have an ATI chip in a MBP again. Better Pro app performance (which is 80% of what I do on mine) and I have never once had a problem with an ATI chip. Perhaps my needs are just different... I keep my gaming to consoles.
Click to expand...

Nah, you're not crazy. I'd love a new ATI chip with superior performance to the 8600 GT. I've been an ATI fan for years..... probably partially because they've supported the Mac for forever, and also because I hate nVidia for buying out 3dfx (and contributing to their demise).

ATI has, historically, had superior image quality (both text and graphics), fewer driver problems, and greater stability. This can even be seen with Vista, where (last I heard) the largest causal factor behind crashes were nVidia drivers.

I also like ATI control panels and options better.

I'm hoping it'll be an ATI card... though I'm thinking it might well be the same 8600 GT.
 
Firefly2002 said:
They're also high-end, and if you hadn't noticed, Apple has always used mid-range graphics in their PowerBook and MacBook Pro lines. The X1600 is midrange, so is the 8600.
Click to expand...
Not correct. 8600 was the best available M gpu for ~ a year.

Apple will use the best available card that is large, cold and small enough to fit in.
 
The question is whether or not the HD3800/3850/3870 are too big/hot/power consuming to be possible, as everyone here is ruling out the 9700M and up.
 
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