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

New MBP GPUs

Fabiano said:
But I think (and I can be wrong) that even with an efficient power management, a more powerful dedicated GPU still spread much more heat than a less capable one, even when not in intensive use.
Click to expand...
I'm not totally sure about GPUs either, but with CPUs:
A quad-core 2.53 GHz is 45 W.
A dual-core 2.53 GHz is 25 W or 35 W.
A quad-core 2.53 GHz with two cores active and two cores idle is (45 W)/2 = 22.5 W, less than either dual-core.

That's my thoughts. A more powerful *PU doesn't need as much resources to do a defined task as a less powerful one. But then again, the more powerful *PU is hotter when maxed out, so the advantages seem to even out.

Fabiano said:
When watching DVDs, I put the MBP on my belly while laying on my bed, sometimes it gets inconveniently hot, comparing to any other laptop I had before. :p
Click to expand...
That might be because the MBP is a very thin laptop.
 
Yixian said:
Why wouldn't they use the 9650M GS/GT? They are better than the puny 9600M GT.
Click to expand...
If there's a reason, it's heat.

The 9650M GS is a likely candidate for the MacBook Pro, as it appears to be in the same heat output range as the 8600M GT (higher clocks + optical shrink). The 9700M GT appears to be the successor to the 8700M GT and will most likely be too hot for the MacBook Pro.
 
I just don't want the 9600 = the 8600 = the same thing I could have bought a year ago.

New case, probably thinner, probably cooler/less powerful card.


But possibly better cooling and higher performance card.


Or possibly the same card we already have.

How can I be wrong with these predictions?
 
m1stake said:
If you had read the previous page, the 3600 is a 2600 with DX10.1 and shader model 4.1. OSX doesn't use DX, and there aren't any performance gains in 4.1. :)
Click to expand...
There's also a die shrink (65 nm » 55 nm) and a memory speed increase (750 MHz » 1000? MHz). Wikipedia doesn't list 3650 core speed for whatever reason.
 
If the 9600M GT would be disappointing, I can't even comprehend how let down I'd be with a freaking HD 3600, having a card like that in a $3k 17" laptop would be so intensely ridiculous it'd collapse in on itself forming a black hole of bollocks.

9650M GS is a bit better than a 8700M GT. Obviously an HD3850 would be much nicer, or ideally an HD 4850 but nobody even knows if they're anywhere near release yet, but a 9650M GS would not be disappointing.

Average, mediocre, but not disappointing in the way a 9600M GT would be.

There are no words for an ATI HD 3600, does that card even have any performance edge on the 8600M GT?
 
Yixian said:
If the 9600M GT would be disappointing, I can't even comprehend how let down I'd be with a freaking HD 3600, having a card like that in a $3k 17" laptop would be so intensely ridiculous it'd collapse in on itself forming a black hole of bollocks.
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as a mobile 9600M GT. At least none that I've seen. The 9600 GT is a desktop GPU and somebody earlier in the thread confused that with mobile GPUs.

Yixian said:
9650M GS is a bit better than a 8700M GT. Obviously an HD3850 would be much nicer, or ideally an HD 4850 but nobody even knows if they're anywhere near release yet, but a 9650M GS would not be disappointing.
Click to expand...
The HD 4000 series was just released for the high-end desktop. It'll be Q3 2008 before they come to the mainstream, and probably early 2009 before the Mobility Radeon HD 4000 series is released.
 
Yixian said:
Ugh... jeez... this is a really bad time for mid range GPUs -_-
Click to expand...
Unfortunately yes.

And NVIDIA plans to continue with G9x cores for the next 12 months or so after GT200's release. By then NVIDIA would have their next generation GPU. So next year we'll have 55 nm 9xxx GPUs. And because even the 9700M GT still has 32 stream processors (same as 96x0M, 8600M), we may continue to have 32 stream processors in NVIDIA GPU MacBook Pros through 2009 (48 if we're lucky).
 
After 4 pages in this thread and countless other threads all started by the same person for the same reason to discuss the same thing, can we let this die already?

It's doesn't take a degree to figure out that Apple will use a mid range card. If you're unhappy with that then don't buy the product. Easy.
 
m1stake said:
After 4 pages in this thread and countless other threads all started by the same person for the same reason to discuss the same thing, can we let this die already?
Click to expand...
I have a feeling it won't until Apple does so (midtower anyone?).

m1stake said:
It's doesn't take a degree to figure out that Apple will use a mid range card. If you're unhappy with that then don't buy the product. Easy.
Click to expand...
So Apple should just get rid of the Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, and Mac mini, leaving only the iMac and MacBook? Unhappy? "Then don't buy the product. Easy." :rolleyes:
 
Oh man, oh man. If you weren't busy blowing historical truths out of proportion and into regions they don't pertain to, you'd notice that we're talking about notebook GPUs and not the entirety of the Apple product line up :)

And yes, "Don't buy the product. Easy". If you don't want it, don't buy it. See how that works? :D
 
omg omg!!!!!!!
why are yous getting so farkin hyped over a gpu,
all the graphics cards in macbook pros do what they were intended to do very nicely, they were never intended to game!!!!
whats the point of such a powerful card when it makes the main features of the laptop sh*t,
battery life, no doubt a 3870 mobile laptop is always meant to be plugged into a wall, the xps 1730 or whateva only has 45min battery life on full settings.....ewwww
i would never want to give up the 4 hour battery life on the macbook pro, even equivalents don't match up, my sis's dell wit a 8600m gt 2.4 ghz only get 1.5 hours battery from web surfing and word processing

i would love for apple to use ati graphics cards even though they prob wont, they just write better drivers for their products and seem to give more a dam for the mac market while nvidia wants apple to beg for their cards
 
Yixian don't expect a more midrange 256-bit mobile video card in the MacBook Pro until the Mobility HD 46xx Series comes out or nVidia's successor to 9M.
 
iSpoody 1243 said:
whats the point of such a powerful card when it makes the main features of the laptop sh*t,
battery life, no doubt a 3870 mobile laptop is always meant to be plugged into a wall, the xps 1730 or whateva only has 45min battery life on full settings.....ewwww
i would never want to give up the 4 hour battery life on the macbook pro
Click to expand...
As I have said before, powerful components only draw a lot of power under heavy use. How long is the XPS 1730's battery life when idle? On half settings?

Eidorian said:
Yixian don't expect a more midrange 256-bit mobile video card in the MacBook Pro until the Mobility HD 46xx Series comes out or nVidia's successor to 9M.
Click to expand...
I would have to agree with you.

The desktop 4600 series use a 256-bit bus, so we could see a 256-bit mobile 4600 too.
 
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