HD 3850 as a BTO on the 17" is FINE. Just give me a decent GPU! I will pay $1000 for that BTO option alone, just don't force me to buy a PC!!
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 MBP GPUs
- Thread starter Yixian
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HD 3850 as a BTO on the 17" is FINE. Just give me a decent GPU! I will pay $1000 for that BTO option alone, just don't force me to buy a PC!!
eh. I wouldn't pay more than $2,500 for a macbok pro with a 9800GT in it.
I don't really game much, because I dont' have a computer that can run games...but I used to game a lot.
So really its hit or miss as to whether I'm even going to utilize a powerful graphics card...
I don't really game much, because I dont' have a computer that can run games...but I used to game a lot.
So really its hit or miss as to whether I'm even going to utilize a powerful graphics card...
Dude, I have the money, I am NOT buying a PC, all I want is an Apple portable equivalent to the high end models EVERY other manufacturer offers.
I want a portable with Mac OS X and I want a high end GPU, this is not, despite the fanboys insecure denials, an unreasonable request, there are PC equivalents and there is a market.
The problem is not jst that Apple don't produce it, but that they produce a mid-range laptop, price it as if it's high end and names it as if it's high end.
I want a portable with Mac OS X and I want a high end GPU, this is not, despite the fanboys insecure denials, an unreasonable request, there are PC equivalents and there is a market.
The problem is not jst that Apple don't produce it, but that they produce a mid-range laptop, price it as if it's high end and names it as if it's high end.
I'd like that, but Apple may not give 1680·1050 on the 15" until 1920·1200 is by default on the 17".
The iMacs also used to use one graphics card in the G5 days.
HD 3850 as a BTO on the 17" is FINE. Just give me a decent GPU! I will pay $1000 for that BTO option alone, just don't force me to buy a PC!!
The 8800GS in the iMac might be an indication of something like this. The iMac had two options for graphics cards, but then a third was added as a BTO option in the second best model, and standard in the best. They were nothing but mid-range, but suddenly, they were... upper mid-range. They advertise it as being for gaming, so at least Apple has acknowledged gamers.
The Macbook Pro currently offers 2 graphics cards (8600M GT 256MB and 512MB). Maybe the next one will have a third, higher one available BTO.
The thing is, even if they wanted to introduce a higher GPU, they most likely can't due to heat restrictions.
Possible. The current one seems a little on the wussy side:
Just adding a bit more vane area to the heatsinks should help. Bigger fans wouldn't hurt either, but space is pretty tight in that chassis, I'd imagine.
Ughhh...
Can someone answer me one question?
Why is the MacBook Pro thinner than the MacBook? Why is Apple's most powerful, high end laptop, thinner than it's cheaper consumer model, when every 0.1" would bring a cooler more powerful computer?
Why are we sacrificing so much to shave 0.3" off a $3k PRO notebook?!?!
I agree. This makes no sense. The iMac is thinner than the Mac Pro. The iPod nano is thinner than the iPod.
What is the obsession with making PRO products thin?
(There was this picture of an all-in-one Mac Pro some time ago, I can't find it right now.)
Consumer products, I can understand, as things like thinness attract consumers, and it's not like most consumers need a lot of power. But pro? The MacBook Pro might look nice and thin, but that'll be the least of your concerns when it gets pwned by a "fat and ugly" quad-core PC laptop. "Get a Mac Pro" is not the answer, as the Mac Pro isn't mobile.
I have thought of a new Mac notebook lineup.
MacBook:
$1199/$1499/$1799
13.3" (high-end may be 15.4")
1280*800/1280*800/1440*900 resolution
2.27/2.4/2.53 GHz dual-core (25 W)
2 GB RAM
160/250/250 GB HD
X4500/X4500/9300M
Firewire 800
.95" thin aluminum case
4.5~5.0 lb.
MacBook Pro
$2299/$2799
15.4"/17."
1680*1050/1920*1200 resolution
2.53 GHz / 2.8 GHz dual-core (35 W), 2.27/2.53 GHz quad-core option (35/45 W)
2 GB RAM
200/250 GB HD (dual HD option)
9650M GS (HD 3850 and Quadro FX M options)
1.5" thin aluminum case
5.5~6 lb. (15.4") / ~7.5 lb. (17.")
This lineup will deliver a solid consumer lineup (like how the iMac is with the Extreme CPU and high-end GPU), as well as a truly professional lineup like the Mac Pro.
The $1799 MacBook is similar to a Montevina $1999 MacBook Pro, except that it has a lesser graphics card. But that's okay, right? Because apparently good graphics don't matter in a pro laptop.
Apple's laptops have never been intended for gamers. You see this if you look back all the way to the original PowerBook itself (meaning, well before the PowerBook G3).
I suppose you probably haven't been on board with Apple too long, or my guess is you wouldn't be asking this (I could be completely mistaken, of course), since they've never offered high-end graphics with their notebooks. Granted, they've gotten better... we're lightyears ahead of where we were when they were offering the ATI Rage LT Pro, and 8 MB versions of the original Radeon (which was say ahead of the crappy LT Pro, no good even at the time).
But on the bright side, at least we HAVE graphics cards, unlike 95% of all PC notebooks. Even at $2000, many PC notebooks lack dedicated graphics... those that have, often have the 8400 GS.
As for thinness, Apple's always seen "Pro" as sleek, sexy and powerful-- finesse, basically, not thick, portly and beastly. Remember, the MacBook Pro is just a PowerBook with a new name (no PowerPC, no "Power" in the name); nothing's changed in scope other than that.
As for why's it thinner, why do you think? With a bigger chassis (15.4" and 17" screens to thank for that) you get more surface area, and a greater volume per square inch to work with, allowing for a thinner notebook.
Apple introduced the PowerBook G4 eight years ago as "only 1" thin"; they like to keep it that way. Notice how the 12" PB was fatter than the 15/17".
What price range are those 95%?
Mac Pro would like to disagree with you.
The fact that the Mac Pro has not gone down in size over the years means that "thick" and "big" is not inconsistent with Apple design. So the MacBook Pro doesn't have to be that thin. It just is because Apple insists on sacrificing too much performance for thinness. Thanks to the 1" thickness, we miss out on high-end processors and graphics cards.
The MacBook Pro isn't pro. It's an enhanced mainstream notebook. "Express," if you will.
Let's hope we see that with the 55 nm shrink, although I think that 48 shaders is the next step.
I guess the fact that they've brought high end (ish) graphics to the iMac 17" as a BTO means that we might see the same in the MBP. The iMacs and MBPs have gone through long periods with the same GPU.
For $3k an 8800M GTS is not a lot to ask anyway.
And that's a nice card, I'd be perfectly happy with it.
For $3k an 8800M GTS is not a lot to ask anyway.
And that's a nice card, I'd be perfectly happy with it.
a lot of the students who use macbook pros for their university courses are going to want to play games too - and i think that group is making up a larger and larger portion of apple's sales...
The 8600GT gets perfectly good FPS in new games (30+). If you're looking to do 100FPS, a $700 gaming computer (E8400, HD4850, etc) would be cheap and easy to build.
Everything in life is about compromises. Some of them you're happy to make, some of them you're not happy to make, and some of them you don't make, and look for better ones.
If the MacBook Pro has always made a compromise. Mid range card. Upper mid range processor. As some one who's actually used the current gen, it plays TF2 pretty well. I didn't bench it, but I didn't notice any choppyness or video lag. All high settings.
Everything in life is about compromises. Some of them you're happy to make, some of them you're not happy to make, and some of them you don't make, and look for better ones.
If the MacBook Pro has always made a compromise. Mid range card. Upper mid range processor. As some one who's actually used the current gen, it plays TF2 pretty well. I didn't bench it, but I didn't notice any choppyness or video lag. All high settings.
Name me something a MBP has trouble doing besides ridiculously cutting edge games. Just about ever "pro" app (Logic, Photoshop, Final Cut, ect) runs extremely well on the current Pros because they are mainly CPU based applications, of which the MBPs have quite good ones. GPUs aren't a huge factor on what I'd call professional work. So the question remains:
What do you consider "pro"?
The MBPs are think, sleek, easy to travel with, and still perform very well. That is the image Apple wishes to put forward: powerful yet stylish. The Mac Pros (I heard someone mention them before as contradictory to Apple's normal image) are giant, beefy monstrosities because they are SUPPOSED to be giant, beefy monstrosities. They aren't consumer computers in the least. They are marketed as workstations, and that's what they look like.
So my point is this: If you want to play high end games flawlessly on your laptop, the 3" thick, 12 pound "laptops" are over there. Go have fun. If you want to play games on max on a Apple notebook, I'm sorry, Apple doesn't make a product for you. They aren't targeting you. Have you ever seen Apple market their products with "games" as a selling point? Do the MBPs cost too much? Yes, they do. But all Apple products do. It's like screaming at the ocean to turn back the tides; Apple knows people will pay those prices, so they keep them there and nothing we say will change that because we speak with our wallets. But from what you have stated, are you really suggesting you'd pay $3000 dollars for a HD 3870? Just go buy that brick of an Alienware computer for $3300. 8800GTX and all!
No notebook is as thin as the Pro while retaining that much power. You are attempting to make the MBP into something it isn't: a gaming laptop. Powerbooks never were, MBPs aren't now, and unless there is a radical design shift, they won't be in the future.
So in this case, when the MacBook has almost as good a CPU as the MacBook Pro, you're telling me you buy Apple's professional laptop because it's more "sleek" than it's consumer one -_-
Computers are primarily about performance, paying the huge amount extra for the MBP we do should = a huge amount more features. All this boils down to a ******** less for 0.3" of freaking thickness, and that's completely ludicrous.