Poll: Intel Graphics.

Would you buy/be happy wiht intel graphics in macbooks and pros?

  • No. Even tough Arrandale would be nice i don't want intel graphics in my laptop!

    Votes: 58 73.4%
  • Yes. Arrandale is worth it even if we do get intel graphics!

    Votes: 21 26.6%

  • Total voters
    79

Theclamshell

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Mar 2, 2009
2,738
1
Ok, so i think we all know that there will most likely be cpu upgrades to the macbook's. I read the article about intel slipping up and announcing macbook pro's with core i5's and Intel HD graphics in a raffle

This really upset me. I know its just a rumor but what if it is true. Would you really buy a macbook or macbook pro with Intel graphics. It would be a step backwards in terms of graphics. I think that the higher and macbook Pros would retain dedicated cards from another manufacturer (hopefully).

So what would you do? would you buy a macbook or a low end macbook pro with intel graphics in it? Also, does anyone have any idea what dedicated cards could be put in the laptops so intel graphics would not be needed?

Also. another reason for me hating intel graphics is the fact that my santa rosa macbook form 2007 with the intel x3100 has Lag playing free rider in full screen mode!
 

NewMacbookPlz

macrumors 68040
Sep 28, 2008
3,266
0
I would not purchase a MBP with integrated graphics...complete dilution of the brand.

I highly doubt Apple would offer the 15 and 17" models without some sort or discrete option. The 13" MBP, maybe...but I'd really hope not.
 

gfiz

macrumors 6502
Dec 18, 2009
349
1
Virginia
no matter what, it WILL include intergrated graphics...the question is if apple will also include a discrete option as well.
 

Theclamshell

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Mar 2, 2009
2,738
1
no matter what, it WILL include intergrated graphics...the question is if apple will also include a discrete option as well.
This is what worries me. Especially because something like the macbook air or the 13" pro wont have space for another card :(
 

gfiz

macrumors 6502
Dec 18, 2009
349
1
Virginia
This is what worries me. Especially because something like the macbook air or the 13" pro wont have space for another card :(
umm...the intergrated graphics are on the chip...so they don't take up anymore room being there.
 

briancl

macrumors newbie
Jan 3, 2010
26
0
The Intel HD GPU has benchmarked at nVidia 9400M levels.

The performance of the integrated graphics in the MBP line for the past 2 years has been pretty pathetic, yet nobody complains about it. As soon as the same performance is achieved from something from Intel, everyone feels they deserve better at the same price point.

If you want discrete graphics performance, buy the higher end models. The same statement has been true for years. Nothing has changed.
 

miniConvert

macrumors 68040
Not interested in anything else carrying Intel integrated graphics. I've experienced them in both the Mac mini and MacBook Air; since experiencing the nVidia version of the MacBook Air it's clear that, technically, we can do better, even where space and heat are a factor.
 

briancl

macrumors newbie
Jan 3, 2010
26
0
Not interested in anything else carrying Intel integrated graphics. I've experienced them in both the Mac mini and MacBook Air; since experiencing the nVidia version of the MacBook Air it's clear that, technically, we can do better, even where space and heat are a factor.
Are you implying the the integrated nVidia graphics in the MacBook Air is better than the Arrandale Intel HD GPU? What are you basing this on? The benchmarks show that they are equivalent in real world performance.

The Intel HD GPU can decode 1080p HD streams and it performs on par with the 9400M with just about everything else. What more do you need at the low end? This isn't a gaming machine.
 

Theclamshell

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Mar 2, 2009
2,738
1
Are you implying the the integrated nVidia graphics in the MacBook Air is better than the Arrandale Intel HD GPU? What are you basing this on? The benchmarks show that they are equivalent in real world performance.

The Intel HD GPU can decode 1080p HD streams and it performs on par with the 9400M with just about everything else. What more do you need at the low end? This isn't a gaming machine.

Please post the link. I want to see how they benchmark
 

maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
63,831
30,344
Boston
Intel has an incredibly poor track record when it comes to GPU performance. Since more and more applications are offloading work to the GPU, I think an intel integrated GPU is a huge step backwards and will only blunt the performance gained from arrandale.
 

Thunder82

macrumors 6502
Jul 16, 2008
439
0
Chicago, IL
Are you implying the the integrated nVidia graphics in the MacBook Air is better than the Arrandale Intel HD GPU? What are you basing this on? The benchmarks show that they are equivalent in real world performance.

The Intel HD GPU can decode 1080p HD streams and it performs on par with the 9400M with just about everything else. What more do you need at the low end? This isn't a gaming machine.
Wow, you actually just made my day. I was so ready to call BS on this, as I've heard nothing of an upgraded Intel GMA GPU specific to the Arrandale launch.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-HD.23065.0.html

Notebookcheck says you should expect a 3429 3DMark05 score, where the 9400M scores a 3151. This is great news in my book...
 

Theclamshell

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Mar 2, 2009
2,738
1
Here is the link for the 9400m for whoever wants to see. I was wandering though. They tested more games on the 9400. Is this because it is more readily avaliable in a bunch of systems or will it perform better for gaming?

Also the 9400m currently has a 12watt consumption while the intel HD has a 35 watt consumption. Whats up with that?

Link: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html
 

Terminal.app

macrumors 6502
Sep 29, 2009
266
0
We have had 12" models with discrete graphics.
The PPC Mac mini had discrete graphics as well. Remember when Apple's sales pitch for the budget mini was, "Try getting discrete graphics in a low end PC! Oh wait, you can't, it's all integrated, LOL!" :cool:
 

Thunder82

macrumors 6502
Jul 16, 2008
439
0
Chicago, IL
Here is the link for the 9400m for whoever wants to see. I was wandering though. They tested more games on the 9400. Is this because it is more readily avaliable in a bunch of systems or will it perform better for gaming?

Also the 9400m currently has a 12watt consumption while the intel HD has a 35 watt consumption. Whats up with that?

Link: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html
I don't quite understand the wattage consumption either. Also, notebookcheck mentions the driver support isn't great and that the card really isn't geared toward gamers.

Either way, this is a much better option that the absolute crap-garbage 4500HD, which I was thinking Apple might be stuck with. (for 13" MBP & Air at least)
 

Theclamshell

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Mar 2, 2009
2,738
1
I don't quite understand the wattage consumption either. Also, notebookcheck mentions the driver support isn't great and that the card really isn't geared toward gamers.

Either way, this is a much better option that the absolute crap-garbage 4500HD, which I was thinking Apple might be stuck with. (for 13" MBP & Air at least)
Im still upset about intel graphics but yes. It is a vast improvement over any of intel's offerings now.
 

briancl

macrumors newbie
Jan 3, 2010
26
0
Here is the link for the 9400m for whoever wants to see. I was wandering though. They tested more games on the 9400. Is this because it is more readily avaliable in a bunch of systems or will it perform better for gaming?

Also the 9400m currently has a 12watt consumption while the intel HD has a 35 watt consumption. Whats up with that?

Link: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html
The 35W is for the entire package. The Intel HD on-package GPU is actually very advanced in its power consumption and dynamic clocking capabilities. The end result is a very low power consumption with decent performance.

Here is what Tom's Hardware said about the dynamic clocking and thermal budget sharing features of the Arrandale CPU/GPU package:

"the 32nm CPU die is actually rated for up to 25W typical consumption, while the integrated graphics and memory controller uses up to 12.5W with total package power not to exceed 35W. Within that power budget, the fastest CPU core (Intel’s Core i7-620M) runs at a 2.66 GHz base clock rate and can Turbo up to 3.33 GHz with a single core active. Or, if there’s a demanding workload hammering the GPU, available TDP can take the graphics core from 500 MHz as high as 766 MHz. In extreme cases, which Intel defines as occasions when the package isn’t thermally-constrained and able to violate its maximum power limits, the processor may use up to 29W, leaving 6W to the graphics and memory controller. Or, the graphics may use up to 20W, leaving 15W to the CPU."
 

briancl

macrumors newbie
Jan 3, 2010
26
0
Wow, you actually just made my day. I was so ready to call BS on this, as I've heard nothing of an upgraded Intel GMA GPU specific to the Arrandale launch.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-HD.23065.0.html

Notebookcheck says you should expect a 3429 3DMark05 score, where the 9400M scores a 3151. This is great news in my book...
I'm glad I could inform a few people with facts. Everyone seems so convinced that the MBP is doomed because of Intel HD graphics, but in reality, the performance will be similar to what we've all been used to for a couple years now.

Likewise, the high end MBP will not get a massive improvement in the GPU department. The speculated nVidia 330M is only slightly better than the 9600M GT that we all have now.

Apple is not blowing the doors off of anyone in the graphics department.
 

BeamWalker

macrumors 6502a
Dec 18, 2009
527
283
I would have no problem with the Intel grafics (for the 13") as long as it supports OpenCL. Otherwise it would be pointless getting the new books since you loose all the new cpu power that is now necessary to fill the spots the gpu left blank.

The other thing is Apple has to make it worth my while. I mean they'll safe a ******** of money since the new cpus cost pretty much the same as the old ones but have more features integrated on them. And of course there is more Space on the Motherboard that they would have to fill with something.
And I don't just mean bumping the HDD specs. This is something they have to do anyway. Last week I saw a Timline Notebook with 500GB HDD and 4 Gigs of Ram for a third of the MBP's Price.