Thanks Apple, for the three year old Graphics Chip...

[lilo777]

disappointed as well...

but there are 4 things i need:

1) backlit keyboard
2) slim design
3) display port output (don't care about the new audio version)
4) FW 800

What options do we have with the PC competition with those features and better CPU / VGA combo that will run hack-intosh ?

This set of requirements looks a little bit strange. The desire to have display port and FW indicates that the laptop will be used as mobile workstation. In this case, having slim design (and even backlit keyboard) seems like an unnecessary thing.

Besides, why would you need display port? I thought that any monitor that had display port would also have DVI or HDMI so what's the point? Without display port, you''ll have plenty of options.

 

[therealseebs]

Hollow argument. The rest of the civilized world has more choices and better coverage.

Changes nothing. Apple has committed to a single-wireless-vendor strategy for the iPhone in its largest market.

And this does not apply to their hardware at all.

Yes, it does. Apple has always been very clear about saying that they are committed to Intel, not to x86.

AMD may have had better processors back in 2005 but things have been different since 2006.

Even now, there are markets where AMD is clearly a better price/performance deal.

But it doesn't matter, because Apple committed to a specific vendor in CPUs. Doesn't matter what AMD does, or what Intel does; if Apple were to use an AMD chip, it'd be going against things they'd previously said they would do. Which they do sometimes... Rumor has it they'll eventually decouple the iPhone from AT&T.

But they do have a long history of making deals -- we agree to use your stuff in everything for a year, you give us this discount.

 

[riotgear]

I just ran Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2 on my MBP i7 2.66Ghz. OS was Windows 7 64-bit running in Bootcamp. The performance was nearly identical to my Alienware M11X which has a Nvidia 335M with 1GB of RAM.

Bad Company 2 averaged about 25 fps with medium settings and native resolution.

Modern Warfare 2 averaged 42 fps at default settings and native resolution.

 

[rwdebes]

Completely agree. It's pathetic. They could have at least made the 350 a BTO option. I'd gladly pay an extra $100 for the 350, which would probably cost Apple only a few extra bucks.

VERY disappointed with the GPU; but, unfortunately, I'm not surprised.

couldnt agree more... pathetic.. i was before tuesday : this time steve is going to add at least an option for a 1gb card.. when i saw the 330M 512mb i started to think to get a HP ENVY with a Radeon HD 4830 1GB... smokes the 330M..

 

[rwdebes]

I just ran Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2 on my MBP i7 2.66Ghz. OS was Windows 7 64-bit running in Bootcamp. The performance was nearly identical to my Alienware M11X which has a Nvidia 335M with 1GB of RAM.

Bad Company 2 averaged about 25 fps with medium settings and native resolution.

Modern Warfare 2 averaged 42 fps at default settings and native resolution.

nearly identical to a 335M 1gb ? cmon buddy !!

let see how the crap 330M runs Starcraft 2 and specially Diablo 3.. not to mention the games that are coming this year..

 

[Yixian]

nearly identical to a 335M 1gb ? cmon buddy !!

let see how the crap 330M runs Starcraft 2 and specially Diablo 3.. not to mention the games that are coming this year..

Not to mention the games that aren't. With Steam coming to OS X, devs are going to be looking to Apple to release comps with decent GPUs that can handle their games, and if they don't, why would they bother porting?

People say "what's the point in decent GPUs, there are no games on the Mac", well, why do you think there are no games on the Mac? Since the Intel switch the reason is pretty much this, "because we can barely run them".

 

[Pressure]

Changes nothing. Apple has committed to a single-wireless-vendor strategy for the iPhone in its largest market.

Yes, it does. Apple has always been very clear about saying that they are committed to Intel, not to x86.

Even now, there are markets where AMD is clearly a better price/performance deal.

But it doesn't matter, because Apple committed to a specific vendor in CPUs. Doesn't matter what AMD does, or what Intel does; if Apple were to use an AMD chip, it'd be going against things they'd previously said they would do. Which they do sometimes... Rumor has it they'll eventually decouple the iPhone from AT&T.

But they do have a long history of making deals -- we agree to use your stuff in everything for a year, you give us this discount.

I can see we get nowhere here. If the things don't matter, why continue discussing them.

Apple looked at the roadmaps and clearly Intel were the ones that had most to offer overall. Also in production capacity. They were tired of not being able to get the chips they were promised (IBM and the RISC based PowerPC processor).

It were sound business going with Intel over AMD and IBM in 2005.

But that hardly matters as the topic is something else entirely.

We will know down the road if the graphic switch is functional with other vendors. After all, it does work with the Intel IGP, so why not other graphic chips.

 

[rwdebes]

look at the headline news, steve job actually mentioned the graphic in the new mbp, here's the quote:



is this a joke? or is the 330M the new mbp using a super custom version that is completely different than the regular 330M from nvidia? wtf...

yeah sometimes steve jobs think he is right.. and HE IS NOT..
he is the only one who think this crap video card is a killer graphics card..

hahahaha so funny.. steve..

 

[therealseebs]

I can see we get nowhere here. If the things don't matter, why continue discussing them.

I think they do matter.

Apple looked at the roadmaps and clearly Intel were the ones that had most to offer overall.

You were there and saw this?

... Didn't think so.

In the absence of a specific contractual deal with Intel, there is no reason for Apple to say "always Intel, never AMD", because they don't know what will actually happen five years down the road. But wait, Intel has a long history of offering huge discounts to companies that commit to Intel-only. So Apple goes for that, gets a deal, and that works for them.

But that hardly matters as the topic is something else entirely.

Not really. The topic is "does Apple make deals to use a given company's hardware whether or not it's the best hardware available".

And the answer is, sure they do.

We will know down the road if the graphic switch is functional with other vendors. After all, it does work with the Intel IGP, so why not other graphic chips.

We may not know that -- if Apple doesn't do any more ATI chips in laptops, we'll never find out.

 

[rwdebes]

Not to mention the games that aren't. With Steam coming to OS X, devs are going to be looking to Apple to release comps with decent GPUs that can handle their games, and if they don't, why would they bother porting?

People say "what's the point in decent GPUs, there are no games on the Mac", well, why do you think there are no games on the Mac? Since the Intel switch the reason is pretty much this, "because we can barely run them".

thats why im probably getting a ENVY HP 15" for less than a 15" macbookpro
and im getting Radeon 5830 1gb , i7 quad etc...

one day steve will wake up and see people want to play games and want at least an option to get the ****ing card they want !

 

[Pressure]

In the absence of a specific contractual deal with Intel, there is no reason for Apple to say "always Intel, never AMD", because they don't know what will actually happen five years down the road. But wait, Intel has a long history of offering huge discounts to companies that commit to Intel-only. So Apple goes for that, gets a deal, and that works for them.

The roadmaps were known and publicly available for everyone to see.

I believe every other vendor is using both AMD and Intel. Apple is unique in the way that they both have hands in the hardware and software used.

Have a good day.

 

[Yixian]

And even with bootcamp gaming, there are a hell of a lot of PC users who would switch to the Mac if they knew they could comfortably game when bootcamping. With Apple's market share rising, and the video game business already enormous, Apple will have to address this demographic soon if they want to break into it at all.

Take a 15" MacBook Pro with a high res screen, make it a few mm thicker if need be, put a 57XX/58XX in it, give it a black annodised case and bundle a mouse. Charge whatever extra for it you want and call it a MacBook Extreme, I guarantee you it will sell more than the Apple TV and MacBook Air combined.

 

[therealseebs]

The roadmaps were known and publicly available for everyone to see.

Yes, but processors don't always match the speculated promises in the roadmaps.

I believe every other vendor is using both AMD and Intel. Apple is unique in the way that they both have hands in the hardware and software used.

And they are unique in committing to only one chip vendor.

If Intel were always better, no one would be using AMD. That everyone else uses AMD chips in some product lines suggests that the AMD chips are competitive in some environments. That Apple doesn't suggests that Apple's reasons are political, not technical.

 

[riotgear]

nearly identical to a 335M 1gb ? cmon buddy !!

let see how the crap 330M runs Starcraft 2 and specially Diablo 3.. not to mention the games that are coming this year..

Nearly identical performance when comparing my two systems, running at the same time, while playing MW2 and BC2 and using Fraps. What is your problem?

 

[Yixian]

Nearly identical performance when comparing my two systems, running at the same time, while playing MW2 and BC2 and using Fraps. What is your problem?

Sadly the reason for this is actually a criticism of both cards. Neither is properly equipped to make the most of that much vram so it effectively becomes useless over a certain point.

This isn't the case with modern cards, if Apple hadn't used an antique in this revision then 1gb vram would have mattered a lot more.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Received the MSi GX640 today... first impressions: Blazing fast. The only negative I can come up with thus far is the red trim around the machine. It is a gaming laptop so a little bling was in order I suppose, it's certainly quite under stated and classy compared to the Alienware rigs. My Win 7 (64 bit) 'Experience' Numbers:

Processor: 6.7
Memory 5.9
Graphics 7.0
Gaming Graphics: 7.0
Primary Hard Disk: 5.9

I'll do some more thorough benchs and post results, but thus for for $1100 and getting i5 M430, 4gb, Ati 5850 with 1gb GDDR5, 500gb 7200rpm drive, nice 1680x1050 res screen, bluetooth, n wireless...etc etc... It's a deal.

 

[PAC88]

apple told me to think different

so I just ordered a Thinkpad t410.

 

[riotgear]

And even with bootcamp gaming, there are a hell of a lot of PC users who would switch to the Mac if they knew they could comfortably game when bootcamping. With Apple's market share rising, and the video game business already enormous, Apple will have to address this demographic soon if they want to break into it at all.

Take a 15" MacBook Pro with a high res screen, make it a few mm thicker if need be, put a 57XX/58XX in it, give it a black annodised case and bundle a mouse. Charge whatever extra for it you want and call it a MacBook Extreme, I guarantee you it will sell more than the Apple TV and MacBook Air combined.

I don't think many pc gamers will switch to a mac if your conditions were met. As a former developer of AAA pc games it has been my experience that most pc gamers hate Apple.

 

[Yixian]

I don't think many pc gamers will switch to a mac if your conditions were met. As a former developer of AAA pc games it has been my experience that most pc gamers hate Apple.

I'm not saying all, or even most, but more than ever. And conversely, I am seeing more people switch from MBPs to PCs than ever due almost exclusively to frustration with the GPUs.

Most don't seem to be happy with their PCs either, so we are stuck between a rock and a hard place sadly...

 

[riotgear]

I guess I've learned a long time ago to keep my desktop PC for games. It's cheaper and will always kick the crap out of a laptop.

 

[neteng101]

Why are people talking about serious gaming on laptops... no laptop, PC or Mac, is ever going to come anywhere close to the performance of a gaming desktop. If you're that serious about games, get a desktop PC and the proper gaming setup.

Most PC laptops save for a few high-end low-volume models, have rather mediocre graphics and are just as useless for gaming unless you want to watch a frame-by-frame slideshow. A ton of PC laptops come with Intel graphics which are just plain useless for gaming.

Bear in mind, even the fastest of laptop GPUs are at best, very middle of the line and not really what gamers want... no one buys an underclocked 5770 for their serious gaming desktop (don't let name badging fool you, its called a Mobility Radeon 5870, but its nowhere near a 5870 performance-wise).

And that's only talking single GPU desktops, not even the potential of SLI/Crossfire setups.

 

[Yixian]

A hell of a lot of people do their PC gaming on laptops these days, a hell of a lot.

 

[mr.steevo]

Hi,

I would imagine that Apple does not have a priority with having their computers run the latest games because they don't sell the most popular games through their online store. Apple sells TV shows, movies, music, and books using its online store. The hardware is more than adequate for these needs. If Apple started to sell games that you could download through their store then there would be a change in how the computers are spec'd out.

s.

 

[cathyy]

benchmarks put the 9600m GT at 50% faster/better than a 8600GT, but the 330M at only 33% better than the 9600GT. given that, 300M is 100% faster/better than the 8600M GT (or twice as fast).

You're looking at the wrong benchmarks then. The average 3DMark06 score for the Early 2008 MBPs (8600M GT) is roughly 4300 which is a way more accurate figure than the 3300 points stated on notebookcheck. If you're still confused about why the 3300 points on notebookcheck is not to be used, check out my other thread:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9672144#post9672144


I estimate this is roughly how powerful all the cards are relative to the 8600M GT:

9400M - 40%
320M - 85%
8600M GT - 100%
9600M GT - 110%
GT 330M - 160%

How do you know that the apple graphic switching works with any graphics card?

Are you an apple engineer? Did you help design the system? Know of an implementation that utilizes an ATI based card?

I'm guessing no, no and no. Point is, Apple's technology is most likely based off the nvidia optimus technology, and not written from the ground up by Apple, so it is most likely catered to using nvidia gpus.

I don't see why it's impossible for Apple to write it from ground up. Sony's been using their own system of graphics switching for many years, which was way superior to the 9400M/9600M switching. It could be switched on the fly for a long time.

 

[tkingart]

I really dont understand it sometimes...it does not take much to please most people, but Apple seems to like pissing of its higher end consumers.


With this update Apple has effectively had the EXACT SAME GPU PERFORMANCE FOR 3 YEARS

Here are the numbers, I currently have a Santa Rosa MBP (3 years old) which I am upgrading with this update and it has a 8600m GT card

8600m GT Specs Core Clock:475MHZ Fillrate:3.8GP/s 7.6GT/s Bandwidth 22.4 GB/s

9600m GT Specs Core Clock:500MHZ Fillrate:4GP/s 8GT/s Bandwidth 25.6 GB/s

330M GT Specs Core Clock:575MHZ Fillrate:4.6GP/s 9.2GT/s Bandwidth 25.6 GB/s


So lets recap, over the past 3 years there has been a 16% GPU performance increase based on the texture fill rate, which is basically nothing considering the time span.

All they had to do was use ATI like they do on the rest of the line up, or if they love crappy nVidia so much used the 350GT. This would have yielded TWICE the performance of the 330, with a 5 watt increase in TDP...

why...so they could shave 15 minutes of battery life and save 30 dollars in component costs?

sigh...

Dear jsnuff1,

You are quite welcome! we were all tickled pink when your post was forwarded around our offices. I nearly giggled myself silly, while spinning around in my man chair while reading it on my iPad.

It's a good thing most people don't know about NVidia's re-branding of older desktop GPU's for the mobile market! shew!

Sorry for keeping this short, but we have a new game we play at lunchtime called Hacky Google Sacks.

PS. What's with the name?!


Best Regards,

Steven