Poll: Intel Graphics.

[SnowLeopard2008]

Just like I trust Intel to deliver the most cutting-edge CPUs, I trust NVIDIA and ATI to deliver the most cutting-edge graphics for both high and low end computers (PC and Macs).

Sure, you can say that Intel's HD GPU can deliver performance similar to that of a graphics chip released by NVIDIA last year. However, a few hundred points on a benchmark test does not prove anything, nor does it motivate people to switch over to Intel for low end graphics. People see companies as delivering different products. If Apple suddenly started their own search engine and it delivers searches faster and better than Google, I'm not going to switch just like that. It's like the case with Safari. It's the world's fastest, but not the largest marketshare.

In any case, I don't care about low end graphics anyway, because I almost always use the 9600M GT in my MBP for stuff like PS, FCE, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, etc. Anything in the low end, I expect it to use low power but deliver ample performance so I can stream YouTube HD or Hulu without any problems. I hope Intel isn't hoping to be seriously competing against NVIDIA and ATI for low end graphics. Their forte are CPUs not GPUs.

 

[Arex]

Quite happy with integrated graphics. I don't do any gameplay and I only run Windows using bootcamp so right now I am stuck with those damn 9600 graphics turned on. All the time. Hate it. Integrated graphics should give a serious improvement on the battery life over the 9600.......

 

[briancl]

Just like I trust Intel to deliver the most cutting-edge CPUs, I trust NVIDIA and ATI to deliver the most cutting-edge graphics for both high and low end computers (PC and Macs).

Sure, you can say that Intel's HD GPU can deliver performance similar to that of a graphics chip released by NVIDIA last year. However, a few hundred points on a benchmark test does not prove anything, nor does it motivate people to switch over to Intel for low end graphics. People see companies as delivering different products. If Apple suddenly started their own search engine and it delivers searches faster and better than Google, I'm not going to switch just like that. It's like the case with Safari. It's the world's fastest, but not the largest marketshare.

In any case, I don't care about low end graphics anyway, because I almost always use the 9600M GT in my MBP for stuff like PS, FCE, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, etc. Anything in the low end, I expect it to use low power but deliver ample performance so I can stream YouTube HD or Hulu without any problems. I hope Intel isn't hoping to be seriously competing against NVIDIA and ATI for low end graphics. Their forte are CPUs not GPUs.

Fortunately businesses do not think this way because it would be bad for consumers. I welcome more competitors in the marketplace regardless of whether they are startups or long time rivals to existing players. Intel has tried and failed to enter the GPU business a couple times already, but they keep trying and this time they have a small success with a low end part. This competition drives innovation and cost reduction, and we are seeing the benefits of both right now.

For the Intel HD GPU, we are seeing real progress. Sure, the performance is just on par with nVidia's older offering; however, this is a huge step up from Intel's last GMA 4500 series GPU.

I do realize that there are some anti-competitive aspects to the new Arrandale chip such as Intel's unwillingness to license the chipset to the open market and the inclusion of the GPU on-package. However, I believe this is just a small stumbling block for the industry as a whole as we move closer to a better overall product for the consumer.

If we can package graphics processing onto the CPU die or at least CPU package, we can increase performance through the elimination of slow buses, and we can reduce costs from a consolidation of packaging and fabrication. This also allows for thinner and smaller housings which means smaller devices can get more a powerful CPU & GPU. All of these things are good for the customer.

AMD is already heading down this path unimpeded after its acquisition of ATI. Unfortunately for AMDs competitor, Intel does not have a very good graphics division, but they are still going in that direction. Perhaps Intel needs a partnership with nVidia, or nVidia needs an open license to develop a broader range of products to compete directly with Intel and AMD.

Whatever we end up with, we are headed in a direction of better products at lower costs, and that is a good thing for everyone.

 

[briancl]

In any case, I don't care about low end graphics anyway, because I almost always use the 9600M GT in my MBP for stuff like PS, FCE, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, etc. Anything in the low end, I expect it to use low power but deliver ample performance so I can stream YouTube HD or Hulu without any problems. I hope Intel isn't hoping to be seriously competing against NVIDIA and ATI for low end graphics. Their forte are CPUs not GPUs.

One other thing.... your statement here implies that there are many applications outside of 3D gaming and 3D rendering that take advantage of the more powerful discrete GPU in today's MBPs. This is simply not the case. For example, the Flash hardware acceleration features are unavailable in OSX. This comes straight from Adobe themselves.

You may notice a slight increase in performance going from a low power mode (9400M active) to a plugged-in mode (9600M GT active), but this can be explained. First, in a low power mode, the CPU is more likely to be in a lower power saving mode. This could cause sluggishness in basic apps like Expose and YouTube HD. Second, the integrated GPU uses shared memory, so when you switch to the 9600, you have the benefit of dedicated video ram, which will noticeably increase performance.

Even though the 9600M GT is a much more powerful GPU than the 9400M, except for the dedicated video memory, the performance benefit is almost nil for everyday users.

What does that mean for future MBPs? Well, this is actually good news. We can all accept the fact that the Intel HD GPU will also use shared memory like the 9400M; however, Intel was smart and they put the memory controller on the GPU die. The GPU die is on the same package as the CPU, so that means the memory controller, GPU, and CPU are all accessible without going over slow buses. This should increase general performance across the board. We are seeing these improvements in early benchmarks already, so the everyday tasks like Expose and YouTube HD should be faster even without dedicated video memory or discrete GPUs.

Also, as soon as we do have hardware accelerated flash in OS X, the Intel HD or 9400M GPUs will be plenty fast enough to accelerate 720p. 1080p acceleration will be limited to systems with 512mb of video memory (shared or dedicated). Hardware acceleration for things like video rendering is not very demanding, and any modern GPU with the correct extensions and enough RAM can do it. Having a discrete video card like the 9600M GT instead of an integrated GPU just means that your CPU utilization will go from 20% to 5%. In either case, there is no performance benefit in real world usage and it would be very difficult for the average user to tell the difference.

 

[Inconsequential]

Couldn't care less.

Intel GPU --> Better battery life than ANOTHER chip and ANOTHER set of circuitry for that, also cheaper manufacturing costs.

Rather have a Intel GPU (which does H264 decoding now, no? No biggie if it doesn't either) than two GPUs in a laptop.

My 8600GTM has done fine on its own :/

 

[briancl]

Couldn't care less.

Intel GPU --> Better battery life than ANOTHER chip and ANOTHER set of circuitry for that, also cheaper manufacturing costs.

Rather have a Intel GPU (which does H264 decoding now, no? No biggie if it doesn't either) than two GPUs in a laptop.

My 8600GTM has done fine on its own :/

Third parties have confirmed that it does 1080p decoding.

 

[CoolHotCold]

Its been explained in the big thread, but here it goes.

If you want the i5, you have to have the intel HD graphics. But its not all bad.
The Intel HD GPU is about the same as the GeForce G105M in gaming terms.
Linky

Not ideal, but handles blu-ray (not that it matters with apple) and HD flash components.

And yes, for the 15 and 17 there will be discrete graphics probably in the form of ATI.