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
$2k for a 8400? Try less than $1k. At $2,000 you can expect to get an 8800. Actually now that I look gateway has a laptop with a 8800 in it for $1300.
Apple should lower the price of the Macbook and Macbook Pro or they should have more beefy gpu's IMO. At the current price the Macbook should have the 8400 and the Pro should have a 8800.
Just look at the Macbook as an example. In its range you can get something with similar specs (13 incher) with a 8400 gpu, 9 cell battery, at 4.5 pounds for about $900-1000.
With that said it would be nice if the rumor of a price drop were true as I'm planning to get one sometime after the next update but I think I'd rather see a lower end gpu in the Macbook and a high end in the Pro than save $100 or so.
Heck my dream laptop would be a Macbook with a 8600/9600 but since I doubt that will happen I'm planning on a Macbook Pro maybe around Dec.
After Effects also uses GPUs and Photoshop CS4 is going to utilize GPU acceleration (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37611/140/). I think it's going to start becoming the trend to offer better performance from pro graphics packages.
GPUs aren't only for gaming.
If GPU acceleration really catches on, then Apple could offer a slower CPU and a faster GPU.
Currently Apple uses 35 W CPUs in the MacBook Pro and a 22 W GPU (8600M GT). If Apple switched to a 25 W CPU with Montevina, they could use a 35 W GPU (8800M GTS) that is over twice as powerful as the 8600M GT, with only a 3 W increase in overall power. The top 25 W CPU is only one stepping (267 MHz) slower than the top 35 W CPU.
I want everything on one machine. I don't want to have to carry two machines around. Mac for work, internet, and so on, and Windows for games. The problem is, Macs right now are so expensive compared to identically-configured PC counterparts, and the current GPU is ancient.
Actually now that I look gateway has a laptop with a 8800 in it for $1300.
Yes... and I bet its 2x thicker than MBP, and 2x noisier too.
I can understand it being thicker but why is that a problem given the video card?Yes... and I bet its 2x thicker than MBP, and 2x noisier too.
Yes... and I bet its 2x thicker than MBP, and 2x noisier too.
http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529668096.php
Sorry mate, it's only around a third of an inch thicker than the MacBook Pro.
Get over yourselves people, there's a serious problem with the MBP line and it's time to just admit it.
27% to 67%, therefore an average of 47% thicker than the MacBook Pro assuming linearity.
Although the processor is slow (2.2 GHz), it does have a 7200 RPM HD, a feature available in the MacBook Pros only as a BTO. And isn't 7200 RPM HD a pro feature?
And it's also "starting at" 9.2 pounds (2.4 pounds more than the 17" MBP).
Maybe its heavier because of the larger video card, and its plastic, which can be heavier than aluminum. Oh, and its kind of sad that this HP is so much better than the 17" (and dont say ooh the cpu is 2.2, the 17" is 2.5! Who cares, Ill take a better video card over 2 seconds faster at encoding stuff any day...) for $1499 (my friend called HP and got it for $1300, crazy), which is a HUGE difference. I mean, I need a 15" MBP to use logic for school, but it really is sad that we're paying this much for OS X and the "slim" and "pretty" design.
Video cards do not way substantially different amounts though ofc That extra weight will come 90% from other things.
Size is the only real factor here, but when you ask around it seems almost everyone would take 2x better graphics and better cooling for that extra thickness. We are buying MBPs for their specs, not slimness, after all.
This will be the first MBP revision since the MBA right? Maybe Apple will stop trying to force the MBP to be something it's not now that the MBA is there to satisfy those with ultra portability in mind.
You know it makes sense.
3850 or 8800M GTS BTO biatch!
That extra weight will come 90% from other things.Size is the only real factor here, but when you ask around it seems almost everyone would take 2x better graphics and better cooling for that extra thickness. We are buying MBPs for their specs, not slimness, after all.
This will be the first MBP revision since the MBA right? Maybe Apple will stop trying to force the MBP to be something it's not now that the MBA is there to satisfy those with ultra portability in mind.
You know it makes sense.
3850 or 8800M GTS BTO biatch!
You mean an 8800M GTS?
No, no it doesn't. It's not even 128bit. Not even in 3dmark and that's not even the whole story.
Also, why is the 9600M GT so likely when it's 65nm and there are 55nm alternatives?
Manufacturers don't backslide with specs in new models. When was the last time you saw someone come out with a product that was SLIGHTLY SLOWER (!), SLIGHTLY THICKER (!!), etc?
How many people have to tell you that the MBP is not targeted at you and will not be targeted at you in the future? Get on with your life and find something that meets your needs. It's out there. But it wasn't designed in Cupertino.
How many people have to tell you that the MBP is not targeted at you and will not be targeted at you in the future? Get on with your life and find something that meets your needs. It's out there. But it wasn't designed in Cupertino.
That's DESKTOP GPUs.
A note to people. Desktop GPUs are different from mobile GPUs. Mobile GPUs have "M" or "Mobility" in their names, desktop GPUs don't.
iPhone 3G.
The $1199 iMac. When it transitioned to aluminum, the GPU downgraded from a X1600 (midrange 128-bit) to a HD 2400 XT (low-end 64-bit). The 24" iMac went the same way, from a DESKTOP 7300 GT and 7600 GT to a mobile HD 2600 PRO.
(The X1600 is better than the HD 2400 right?)
There's also the discrete GPU to integrated GPU transition the Mac mini and iBook/MacBook made.
(Did the 15" PowerBook G4 increase in thickness from 1.0" to 1.1" when going from titanium to aluminum?)
I am telling you to buy what you need. If you want a notebook that can handle most professional tasks and still be good for some gaming on the side, or you need 15" to 17" of screen real estate then buy a MBP. If you don't play games and just need a laptop to do some light work/need a smaller form factor for travel, get a Macbook. If you want a brick that plays top of the line games, go somewhere else. Case in point:
That Gateway is tapered and most of the system is actually 1.7" thick, nearly double the thickness. It also only has a 2.2Ghz CPU in it, shifting the bottleneck and wasting all that power. What's the point of an 8800 if the CPU can't keep up?
Look, what do you want out of a MBP? Price that matches the performance? You do realize this is Apple, right? This is the company that charges $200 for 2GB more of RAM. This is the company that charges $300 for another two years of warranty. This is the company that charges $900 for a 23" screen. The only thing louder then your voice is your wallet. I needed a monitor, looked at Apple, looked at Dell, and walked away with a 2408WFP 24" for $600.
I fail to see what you are trying to do. Are you saying we are paying too much for what we are getting? If so, would you complain about the MBP's specs if it was $300 cheaper? $400? $500?
It's overpriced. It's Apple. You won't change anything by moaning about it. Stop buying or stop complaining. The only way you will get them to lower prices/create better valued machines is to stop feeding them cash.
"Only" a third of an inch thicker? At 1/3 of an inch thicker, it's 33% thicker. That's bloody significant. Apple's not going there.
And for the record, what you just linked was $1500, not $1300; at 2.2 GHz, the CPU is signficantly cheaper than the 2.5 GHz CPU found in the 17" MacBook Pro (although admittedly, not much slower); and Gateways are notorious for... well, sucking.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. There are some things we can all agree would be reasonable for Apple to incorporate.... a screen res a notch higher, a memory card reader, a faster graphics card within reason, slightly boosted CPU clocks.
However, changing the form factor to suit what you personally are wishing for is a bit ridiculous.
So like I said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Keeping this in mind, try not to eat your new MacBook Pro.
I don't know how long you've been using Macs, but as someone who's been using them for the better part of his life, about fourteen or fifteen or so years, and has watched them for at least ten years, I can tell you high-end graphics cards have never been high on their priority list.
That's not going to change.
It's worse then that, if you read the specs the size is given as 1.3 to 1.7" meaning it is tapered and is normally 40% to 60% thicker. (I assume the thinest part and the thickest part are contained to the front and back edge respectively)
Firefly2002 said:
I still have an old Gateway in my house, must be 13 years or so old now, and it was just plagued with problems from day one. I'm surprised it still runs.
Firefly2002 said:
I agree, I'd love to have all of those things (less so the card reader), but the problem is the suppliers just don't make more powerful products that can work well in such a small environment. Look at how hot the MBPs get now, you can go sterile if you work with it on your lap for too long. Unless cooling tech gets better (I heard they've come up with some sort of mini refrigeration device) or Apple redesigns with cooling in mind, you are going to get the same situation as you do now.
Firefly2002 said:
This. If all the people complaining read only one thing, read that statement.
In Halo and WoW, the 2600 HD was better.
'Seriously, Apple should forget about Nvidia and be exclusive with ATI.
I've been talking to some peeps on a notebook gpu forum and apparently the 8700M GT runs hotter than the 8800M GTX, and considering the 9700M GT is a die shrunk 8700M GT, and the 9600M GT is only 65nm, it is probably actually a good bit hotter than ATI's HD 3850.
So in other words, surely a 9600M GT isn't a safe bet at all, but a long shot.
So in other words, surely a 9600M GT isn't a safe bet at all, but a long shot.
Did this post get ENTIRELY ignored? Because it has a good point. The 2.4Ghz and 2.53Ghz Penryn/Montevina processors have 25W TDPs, unlike the 35W TDPs on 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz Penryn/SR chips they will be replacing. Did it occur to anyone else that this could easily make room for a bigger GPU? Also, may I remind everyone that we DO NOT HAVE HEAT/TDP INFO ON THE HD 3800s? People seem adamant that they run too hot, yet we don't even know how hot they run!