It's true. Those that don't fall into that "most people don't know or care" category get screwed as you are with the potential Intel-Integrated next gen MacBook.
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.
NVIDIA Exits Chipset Business for Good? Apple to Continue to Use Old NVIDIA Chipsets
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's true. Those that don't fall into that "most people don't know or care" category get screwed as you are with the potential Intel-Integrated next gen MacBook.
It's true. Those that don't fall into that "most people don't know or care" category get screwed as you are with the potential Intel-Integrated next gen MacBook.
This is what I did with my Macbook 13'' with an Intel GMA X3100. This computer is almost 3 years old and it's GPU was outdated at launch. I'm in the market for a new laptop and I am really hoping Apple comes up with some better option for the lower end Macbooks soon.
As I read subjects and posts on this and other Apple forums and look at Apple teardowns on iFixit, I must say that I become more disappointed in Apple products. I once believed, for example, that Apple computers cost more because everything that went into the computer was better. I see now this is not necessarily true. I am also dismayed at Apple's approach of improving their products incrementally. I would love to see Apple put the very best in every product they produce. Ahhh, but I am an impractical dreamer.
Sorry but AMD mobility processors would be a shot in Apple's foot.
For mobility, Intel all the way.
High end desktop, Intel Core i7 980X
Mid-high range, I would go with an AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
For mobility, Intel all the way.
High end desktop, Intel Core i7 980X
Mid-high range, I would go with an AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
I had the experience of recently watching 2 people go the w7 route because the product they wanted wasn't available in apple's line-up. What they wanted was a macbook i3 and they weren't prepared to pay $2096 Australian for the i5 macbook pro option. Neither were they prepared to go with the core 2 option. They knew what they wanted and it wasn't there for them so unfortunately for Apple Toshiba got their money 2x.
Personally I hope Apple gets the low end notebooks sorted out sooner rather than later and that goes for the mini too.
Last edited:
Not to be a spoil sport, but by the time 3dfx shipped the Voodoo 3, they were already behind nVidia. The Voodoo 2 was the last chipset where they were in the lead. The Riva TNT and TNT2 were what pushed nVidia ahead. 3dfx had a real hard time switching to a single chip architecture and also integrating normal "2D" graphics into their solutions. The failed Voodoo Rush and the mediocre Voodoo Banshee really took their toll on them.
I was a big 3dfx fanboy, my first card was a Diamond Monster 3D. I converted a lot of folks in my classes to the joy of 3D acceleration back in those days.
Were you comparing mobile AMD chips to the mobile i3, I might agree with you. But we're talking about the Core 2 Duo, for crying out loud. I'm sure AMD has SOMETHING that blows Penryn out of the water. They also have IGPs that won't have us complaining that our 13" ::insert name of MacBook family here:: sucks nut.
Huh?
As someone who just replaced a 2.66Ghz, dual video card, 8GB RAM, 15.4" MacBook Pro with a MacBook Air, I take some exception with the notion that my MBA is a "low end" notebook. My MBA does everything I ask it to do faster than my MBP ever did.
Kind of a Windows mentality there, if you ask me. "Horsepower is everything. User experience be damned."
Oh yeah, before anyone calls me a Fanboi, both of them are faster and run better than my Dell Latitude "business class" laptop.
As someone who just replaced a 2.66Ghz, dual video card, 8GB RAM, 15.4" MacBook Pro with a MacBook Air, I take some exception with the notion that my MBA is a "low end" notebook. My MBA does everything I ask it to do faster than my MBP ever did.
Kind of a Windows mentality there, if you ask me. "Horsepower is everything. User experience be damned."
Oh yeah, before anyone calls me a Fanboi, both of them are faster and run better than my Dell Latitude "business class" laptop.
In fact I always felt Apple was screwing their customers, by rebranding the early 2009 Unibody MacBook to a MacBook Pro 13". A nvidia 320M just can't be called pro in any way, in fact I could't play half my games on a decent quality on it (some I can can't even play on the 9600M GT inside mine, but let's don't start the discussion on the rather conservative selection of components by Apple again).
So are there really so many users, who actually need the power of a 320M? When it comes to IGP, I think it really does not matter to much which one you put inside...they all lack the "Pro" power of a discrete
rdlink said:
I still don't get why people don't understand this: The ULV processor used in the MBA is essentially the same processor like the Core 2 Duo used in the 13" MBP but it achieves the same processing speed with less energy hence it is clocked down significantly to save more power. It really is nothing special, just a processor that "by accident" needs less energy to perform the same task.
Also I guess you don't understand the difference between an SSD and a normal HDD. Why don't you go ahead and switch out the HDD in your MBP for a dedicated SSD and see how much faster it can get over the MBP.
Third: the MBP might have 2 graphic cores insides, but they can't run simultaneously. Apple never adopted nvidias SLI or AMDs Crossfire to do just that. The nvidia Geforce 330M is at least twice as fast as the 320M build inside the MBA.
So when it comes down to it, it really is the SSD that makes a big difference and if you include that one in a MBP it will beat the MBA in any comparison.
Why is it that people think the MBA is the greatest invention since sliced bread?
Last edited:
It's not a great user experience when your render takes 2 more hours than it could take and when your mac craps out because of simple flash plugins.
So, yeah, the user interface is there already, we just need to think about horsepower.
I love the Mac mentality : "Buy too much machine because Apple sells you too much machine, but when Apple sells you less machine and you find out it's good enough for you, claim anyone needing more is a Windows drone".
Seriously, your 15" that you replaced that was "as fast as" your new MBA was simply under-utilized. You spent way more money that you needed to on it. Good job.
Your MacBook Air uses a flash-based solid state drive (SSD), thereby removing the long-time bottleneck of the hard drive. Assuming you are not doing anything heavily graphical, that would be why. That, being a specification (a "horsepower" if you will), IS why your user experience is what it is. Science.
The problem is solved if Apple discontinues the 13" MacBook Pro. Every other shipping machine with the 320M doesn't fall in the category of "Pro" (which I'd reserve for the MacBook Pro, the iMac, and the Mac Pro product lines), and for an IGP, the 320M is, by far, better than anything we've ever had in the low-end Intel Macs since the transition started five years ago. If they kill the 13" MacBook Pro, the majority of the target market audience for the remaining 320M based products won't care that said remaining products still have it. Again, just a thought.
Wait, you want to kill the 13" Pro and doom those of us who don't want an MBA but don't want a larger than 15" computer to the frikkin MB just cause you object that they called it a Pro?!!!!!!
So what it's not what you consider a Pro, it's still a helluva lot better than the MB solely for nothing else a much better case design (no frikkin cracking plastic, better color for framing a screen with, hell, better color overall, white sux, slightly thinner, one extra input port, light-up keyboard which is just nice aesthetically).
Now if you want to propose they just take off the Pro in the name I wouldn't object (I don't care what it's called, it's just a name), but it sounds like you want them to get rid of it solely cause you object to them calling it a Pro.
First and foremost, chill the fu*k out! I, personally don't want to kill anything in Apple's lineup, least of all the 13" MacBook Pro, which is actually my favorite of the current shipping Macs next to the 27" iMac.
Secondly, I'm suggesting that it may be a prudent call on Apple's part, especially if they can keep lowering the cost of the 15" MacBook Pro as they've gradually been doing and if otherwise, the 13" Air is comparably fast, and if the white MacBook shares virtually the same main logic board (and therefore chipset, processor, RAM type, etc.) as the 13" Pro; with little exception, it's pretty much the same computer! Those who go with the 13" MacBook Pro, fall into one of two camps, they either don't know or care about the technical difference between it and the white MacBook, or they use it as a power user, and thusly care about the specs. Compare the white MacBook to it, you're missing out on a FireWire 800 port (which, I agree, should be there) an (unused) IR sensor, and a backlit keyboard that is more of a luxury than a useful feature and an SD card (which I'd bank will be included in the white MacBook before too long). That's it! Arguing that the 13" Pro should stick around solely because it is a more aesthetically pleasing computer sounds about as silly of an argument as the argument for a black MacBook was over a white one at the time; $50-150 (depending on the rev.) for the same machine in black. Unless you have the kind of money to blow on aesthetics.
Plus, I don't know if you've had much hands-on time with the unibody polycarbonate MacBooks, but, while they be made of the "weaker" material, they DO take more dings and scratches than the aluminum. They don't crack like the 2006-to-Mid-2009 MacBooks did unless you go out of your way to try to put a crack in it.
Anyway, it's just a theory. Way more of the 13" MacBook Pro's target market audience are going to have beef with the continued use of the Core 2 Duo (the switch from GeForce 320M to Intel graphics that may or, more likely, may not be comparable, if not better) than the target market audience of the MacBook Air, white MacBook, and Mac mini computers will and if the 13" MacBook Pro is more or less the same computer, then either beef up the 13" MBP to be more like its older siblings (i.e. don't give them the same IGP or GPU as the MacBook, MacBook Air, or Mac mini) or kill it and close the gap by lowering the price of the 15" MacBook Pro while giving the white MacBook the FireWire Port and SD card slot. I see NOTHING wrong with that scenario.
Last edited:
Ok, and I disagree. I don't fit in either one of those camps. I do care about the technical difference (obviously as I much prefer the little extras the MBP gives me and think it is well worth the extra money for it) and I don't really need a power user computer, the MBP 13" does great for me (I love my 2010 MBP, it pretty much solves all the issues I had with my 2007 MB, like a much much better graphics card. And the current MB loses one thing over my 2007 I find very important, an extra input/output port).
Honestly, aesthetics do have some part to play when buying a computer. For example, for a better display, you want to frame the display in a dark color, makes the colors pop out more. White dulls things. So aesthetics are a practical thing as well. Black is great cause it is neutral (needed when you have a constantly changing screen, it's not like framing a picture that stays the same). And if most people are being honest, aesthetics still does play a part in choosing anything they buy. It may not be the most important thing they go by, but it still plays a part (like some people paying the bit extra just cause they like the looks better. How do you think Apple got away with charging more for the black macbook? Which, at the time while I preferred the black color, I wasn't going to pay more *just* for color which was the only difference the black macbook offered, unlike the differences between the MBP and MB).
Plus it is more than just aesthetics. Maybe small touches, but they are there. The metal casing being superior over the plastic casing isn't just aesthetics. The extra input/output port isn't just aesthetics. The backlit keyboard (if you don't touch type, but I do so it's more that it looks better for me) isn't aesthetics. Shoot, the SD card reader isn't aesthetics (I didn't list it cause I really don't use it).
Why not just propose they get rid of the MB or replace it with the MBP? But wait, the MBP was originally a Macbook for a short while (I remember this cause it was when I first wanted to get a new Macbook over mine but couldn't justify a new computer for the things I liked. The 2010 MBP was the one that just got enough specs for me to justify upgrading). Obviously Apple found they could get more by upgrading the name and introducing a new MB that didn't have quite as many features (even if it was small downgrades or maybe small upgrades to the new MBP over the new MB).
Personally, I think the reason they keep both is from what I hear the 13" MBP is their best seller, but the MB serves as a cheap intro into their macbooks (get them started and next time maybe they'll want a little more than the MBP offers). And there are people out there who actually prefer the white (I think they're crazy but you know, that's the thing with "aesthetics", it is subjective).
Last edited:
Clearly, you're not alone. Again, aside from the 27" iMac, the 13" MacBook Pro is my favorite currently shipping Mac and I, like you care about the difference and prefer the extras (even the ones I stated were insignificant).
I'll grant you that there are more differences between the white MacBook of current and the 13" Pro than there were between the white MacBook of yesteryear and the black one, though the differences in features are trite, and there's no reason why they can't be implemented on the white MacBook.
Both the white MacBook and the 13" Pro only have one jack, and I'm also not a fan of that decision, even though I've seldom needed a second port; give it to me just in case I'll need it. The Metal casing looks better and is a stronger material, but the white polycarbonate is a more durable material (if that makes any sense).
Essentially, my take is that it's redundant. You could kill off either one, because, again, on the inside, they're essentially the same computer. I had theorized up until recently, that they'd kill the MB and make the 13" MacBook Air the new "MacBook". And that can still happen. Though that theory faces problems when the 13" MacBook Pro, out of all of the machines that still have a Core 2 Duo and a GeForce 320M are, by far, in the greatest demand for an upgrade. Mac mini and white MacBook customers could stomach a switch back to Intel for graphics (assuming it is a step down in any way) FAR better than 13" Pro customers could. They could also stomach keeping the Core 2 Duo and the GeForce 320M better than the 13" Pro customers could. I'm not saying it'd be the preferable thing for those of us who like the 13" Pro over the white MacBook (again, I'm one of them). I'm just saying that Apple faces the least amount of resistance as far as customers and critics are concerned by nixing the 13" Pro over the white MacBook. Though, my original theory may still prove more correct. Who knows? I guess this is MacRumors, after all.
That makes sense and I've heard the same thing. It just seems as though they'll face problems with the 13" Pro no matter what they do. Stupid Intel, they should've just let NVIDIA made superior chipsets. That said, I cannot fathom a 13" MacBook Pro with an Intel IGP (nor can I fathom one stuck with a Core 2 for much longer), especially given that model (and it's Aluminum Late 2008 predecessor) was made on the principle of superior integrated graphics processors.
Uh, me neither but that wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about the firewire port (and for me it wouldn't matter if it was a third USB port, either way when you are using the laptop as a desktop too having a third port, USB or firewire, is very nice. I can put my keyboard into one USB, my iphone/ipod connection in the other, and keep a backup hard drive connected to the firewire port. Otherwise I'd have to keep switching out the ipod/iphone with the backup hard drive. I know it's a small thing but it's one of the reasons I'd pick the MBP over the MBA. Of course price is an issue too, I don't need it that thin to justify the higher price even if everything else was equal to the MBP, which it's not. Once again, small touches but the MBP does have a few extras the MBA does not. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the 13" MBA does as well as its predecessor. Though I do predict the 11" MBA will do quite well since it really is a big difference in size from the 13" MBP/MB).
There's no reason why the white MacBook shouldn't have either FireWire or a third USB port, I agree. Alternatively, I don't see why a convergent product can't happen. Otherwise, I only think it'll be harder to sell "MacBook Pro" customers on either (a) a Core 2, or the alternative, (b) a Core i3 with Intel's IGP, than it would the white MacBook on that. Drop the price of the 15" MacBook Pro down so it's closer to the higher-end 13" MacBook Pro's price-point, maybe with a weaker dedicated GPU and problem solved. Yeah, you and I would be screwed, but I get the feeling such would be the situation in which Apple loses the fewest customers. Then again, if I'm wrong and more people buy that model solely for aesthetics, then my original theory makes more sense. Either way, I'm predicting that one of the two won't be around for the long haul.
Don't degrade the Apple community from mindless babble than it already is.
NVIDIA lead the GPU business for a reason & that reason is because they are a better company than ATi - both in Software and Hardware respects.
They're not mindless, just blindly zealous.
Also, ATI is owned by AMD now and they're quality has definitely gone up. I used to be anti-ATI, now I'm a believer.
A chipset is the interconnecting processor on the motherboard/MLB, it controls the transfer of data between all of the other components.
NVIDIA, as a whole, doesn't suck, nor do most of their products. The GeForce 8600M GT is a certifiably bad product as are the early revision GeForce 9400M and early revision GeForce 9600M GT as well. They fail, and NVIDIA made horrible choices in making that hardware. It doesn't mean that they suck, have always sucked and always will suck. They, made a series of lemons in close proximity of each other. You just happened to have terrible timing. :-(
Last edited by a moderator: