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.
Proof that apple won't use "Intel Integrated Grpahics"
- Thread starter Macmadant
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah right Apple never contradict themselves do they?
We are never going to intel ... mmmmmmmm
Apple never artifically cripple theyre budget systems
Try screen spanning doctor on your ibook or imac......
The 930 chipset is faster than any of the cards in the budget macs at the moment. It's ready to ship and fully supported in Intel mac's now. After all the development macs ship with the slower 915 onboard and all the fancy graphical stuff from OSX works. They don't on a mac mini do they???
They will use onboard graphics for the mini mac and ibook and the offset will be a slightly faster cpu and 512mb standard ram (which they already do)... As long as all the ilife apps run and they already do, as long as they have intel developing the motherboards for the new macs (which they have) then we are going to see onboard graphics.
The switch to intel was for the whole shebang, motherboard, chipset, processor and onboard sound & graphics for the budget consumer models.
We are never going to intel ... mmmmmmmm
Apple never artifically cripple theyre budget systems
Try screen spanning doctor on your ibook or imac......
The 930 chipset is faster than any of the cards in the budget macs at the moment. It's ready to ship and fully supported in Intel mac's now. After all the development macs ship with the slower 915 onboard and all the fancy graphical stuff from OSX works. They don't on a mac mini do they???
They will use onboard graphics for the mini mac and ibook and the offset will be a slightly faster cpu and 512mb standard ram (which they already do)... As long as all the ilife apps run and they already do, as long as they have intel developing the motherboards for the new macs (which they have) then we are going to see onboard graphics.
The switch to intel was for the whole shebang, motherboard, chipset, processor and onboard sound & graphics for the budget consumer models.
As MacRumorUser says, Apple has a pretty long history of going back on their word. Integrated graphics aren't great but they're not nearly as bad as most people will have you believe. 
MacRumorUser said:
It's a good question where you got that since Steve Jobs himself mentioned using Intel processors not long after his return to Apple.
It's unlikely, given the nature of Quartz Extreme, that they'd be able to make things go well with an integrated graphics chipset though. Still, they've been selling machines with 256 MB for quite a while, suggesting that was enough to run things smoothly.
mad jew said:
I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that the next generation of Macs is not going to lag behind the current gen in major ways. Look at how heavily the OS itself uses the graphics card. What do people think Apple is going to do? Start releasing Macs that choke on CoreImage or Quartz type functions? I don't think so. If there's an integrated graphics chip that can outdo what current iBooks and PBs can do, sure, I think it'll show up in the Mactels. But if there isn't, I don't think they're going to go that way, just because they're using Intel.
P.S. Can we please stop having threads offering "conclusive proof" of what Apple will do this year, unless the OP actually does know a guy who is a janitor in Cupertino and really shouldn't be sharing any of this, but happened to take a picture on his camera phone and...
bousozoku said:
I remeber reading an interview with a PR man (it could have been Steve) from apple being quizzed over the G5 at the time of their launch..
They were being asked about their claim that they were the first 64 bit archtecture etc... Anyway the columnist asked about intel and their processors and the apple rep replied that the G5 was far more advanced than anything intel had roadmapped and they were happy and sticking with it... Just all seem profane now.....
Quartz Extreme is supported on developer macs, and they as i've already said have the 915 chipset.
The move to Intel is for the whole nine yards, and for all the components they can bring to the party..
mkrishnan said:
Exactly! I personally doubt we'll see Integrated Graphics but it's almost irrelevant. The average user won't notice the transition to Intel and similarly, the average user won't notice whether there's a mediocre dedicated graphics card or Integrated Graphics. I have a lot of faith that whatever Apple uses, it'll be better than current systems.
mkrishnan said:P.S. Can we please stop having threads offering "conclusive proof" of what Apple will do this year, unless the OP actually does know a guy who is a janitor in Cupertino and really shouldn't be sharing any of this, but happened to take a picture on his camera phone and...
Conclusive Proof: the new Official.
Well yeah, it all comes down to the individual implementation. Early Macs had such good graphical performance for the money exactly because graphics were so tightly integrated! Just as some dedicated graphics setups are dogs while others shine, this stuff has to be looked at case by case.mad jew said:As MacRumorUser says, Apple has a pretty long history of going back on their word. Integrated graphics aren't great but they're not nearly as bad as most people will have you believe.
iMeowbot said:
Yes, this is very true, and even more so, for the Amiga computers, with their Trinity of Agnes, Denise, and Paula.
C
CompUser
Guest
awwww..... I love intergrated graphics cards.
The last time i used a teachers school owned HP laptop, I had to connect it to a 32" TV and the graphics card couldn't handle it. I had to turn off the laptops LCD so it would use all the vram on the 640x400 resolution (w/e) TV.
The last time i used a teachers school owned HP laptop, I had to connect it to a 32" TV and the graphics card couldn't handle it. I had to turn off the laptops LCD so it would use all the vram on the 640x400 resolution (w/e) TV.
I hope Apple doesn't use integrated graphics. If they ship the computers with 512MB and integrated graphics, that would be bad. 1GB and integrated graphics with only 128MB max on the graphics, I could live with that. But hopefully they stay with ATI and nVidea.
Intergrated graphics would eat up system ram on such computers.... Still it if takes say 50 dollars off the price of a mac mini I'd say intergrated graphics are a good compromise. Intergrated graphics supports pixel shader 2 as I recall which means it'll actually work with core image unlike the 9200. Intergrated graphics should be good enough for quartz.... dunno I'd want to use it to play world of warcraft though.
I think there is the possibility of Integrated graphics on the low-end Mini and maybe even the low-end iBook (or if Apple release a budget laptop ) mainly because of cost.
) mainly because of cost.
All of Apple's computers, with the exception of the Power Mac, currently use integrated video. There is no AGP or PCIe slot in my iMac, and there was none in my iBook. I don't see this changing any time soon - Apple will most likely continue to use integrated video, just like they do now.
Nermal said:
Okay, now my brain hurts. Current Macs have dedicated GPUs, right? The CPU doesn't do all of the work. So doesn't that mean they don't use the Integrated Graphics we're talking about? Have I missed something?
Nermal said:
You're saying the all Macs (except for Power Mac) cannot have their graphics card changed... right?
Depends what you're talking about. People here are talking about things like the Intel GMA 950 which is actually part of the chipset (it's integrated into the chipset). All macs except the powermacs use separate graphics processors (GPUs) that are soldered onto the motherboard. So in a sense they are integrated (you can't replace or upgrade them). Graphics solutions that are part of the chipset generally use shared memory so use some of your system memory for graphics. It's not true to say that the CPU does all the work with integrated graphics. A number of the integrated solutions support DX9 and so would support core image. The separate GPUs Apple currently use have their own video memory so don't use up system RAM.mad jew said:Okay, now my brain hurts. Current Macs have dedicated GPUs, right? The CPU doesn't do all of the work. So doesn't that mean they don't use the Integrated Graphics we're talking about? Have I missed something?
For most users an 'integrated' video system is perfectly adequate as, believe it or not, most users don't use high end apps or play games. I've got a ATI 9700 on my powerbook and I really doubt I've remotely stretched it.
Yes, Nermal I think you have misunderstood what we mean by 'Integrated'.
Integrated Graphic Chip-sets usually describes a GPU which uses the CPU and System Memory. That is, a machine who's IGC is set to 128mb will take 128 off the system, thus making the system slower. This is the case with many many budget windows machines, while Apple has always prided themselves by using a dedicated graphics chip.
This graphics chip is indeed "integrated" as in its a part of the logic board on all but the PowerMac, but it has it's own memory and processing unit, thus making it as if it was on its own AGP/PCI bus. Apple have probably done this to save space - the iMac and eMac are too oddly shaped (in a good way tho!) to accommodate AGP slots, whereas a more conventional "tower" (i.e. the PowerMac) has plenty of room.
In my opinion Apple has gone back on their word many times now and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they used an Integrated chipset. Like Morn said, if they reduce the price of the Mini by a sizable amount (relative to its already inexpensive price) then I'd welcome it - some integrated chipsets aren't all that bad any more. However, the iMac, iBook, PowerBook should never be given one as, for a start, they become quickly obsolete and if you check out a PC you'll notice how many "critical updates' there are for Integrated Chips which are accessing the memory incorrectly!. Personally I like being able to brag about having a dedicated graphics chip in my iBook.
Apple would also be a fool by using integrated graphics because they have been aiming for the last few years to move the graphics stuff to the graphics card, "in order to free up processor cycles" (e.g. Exposé or Core Image). Going back on this would be quite a big feat (a lot of useless code in OS X would be left) and people would get further ticked off.
Integrated Graphic Chip-sets usually describes a GPU which uses the CPU and System Memory. That is, a machine who's IGC is set to 128mb will take 128 off the system, thus making the system slower. This is the case with many many budget windows machines, while Apple has always prided themselves by using a dedicated graphics chip.
This graphics chip is indeed "integrated" as in its a part of the logic board on all but the PowerMac, but it has it's own memory and processing unit, thus making it as if it was on its own AGP/PCI bus. Apple have probably done this to save space - the iMac and eMac are too oddly shaped (in a good way tho!) to accommodate AGP slots, whereas a more conventional "tower" (i.e. the PowerMac) has plenty of room.
In my opinion Apple has gone back on their word many times now and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they used an Integrated chipset. Like Morn said, if they reduce the price of the Mini by a sizable amount (relative to its already inexpensive price) then I'd welcome it - some integrated chipsets aren't all that bad any more. However, the iMac, iBook, PowerBook should never be given one as, for a start, they become quickly obsolete and if you check out a PC you'll notice how many "critical updates' there are for Integrated Chips which are accessing the memory incorrectly!. Personally I like being able to brag about having a dedicated graphics chip in my iBook.
Apple would also be a fool by using integrated graphics because they have been aiming for the last few years to move the graphics stuff to the graphics card, "in order to free up processor cycles" (e.g. Exposé or Core Image). Going back on this would be quite a big feat (a lot of useless code in OS X would be left) and people would get further ticked off.
Ah good, that's what I was thinking. Thanks caveman_uk and SpaceMagic for the reassurance.
Nermal, you're mad.
Nermal, you're mad.
luckily, the better of the current integrated (PC) graphics cards are actually faster than the "dedicated" graphics chips on current ibooks and the mini.
yes, faster. and the whole shared memory issue is only truly an issue if you don't have a lot of RAM in the first place.
The integrated graphics on the new ATi motherboards are pretty capable.
also, both nVidia and ATI have recently developed stand-alone graphics cards (not integrated) that use system RAM to compensate for their lack of onboard graphics (so far usually 16-32mb)
well, to make their machines smaller, truly integrated graphics are probably going to be necessary. As long as the machine itself has at least 512 mb of RAM, and the RAM is at least PC3200, then I think things will be fine.
We're not talking about powerhouse machines, here...
yes, faster. and the whole shared memory issue is only truly an issue if you don't have a lot of RAM in the first place.
The integrated graphics on the new ATi motherboards are pretty capable.
also, both nVidia and ATI have recently developed stand-alone graphics cards (not integrated) that use system RAM to compensate for their lack of onboard graphics (so far usually 16-32mb)
well, to make their machines smaller, truly integrated graphics are probably going to be necessary. As long as the machine itself has at least 512 mb of RAM, and the RAM is at least PC3200, then I think things will be fine.
We're not talking about powerhouse machines, here...
