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

[jav6454]

enlighten us

OP stated frequencies only for the GPU and citing those as performance factors... a GPU has other factors like shader count, shader clocks, bus width, VRAM speed, VRAM class, power constraints... there much more.

Also, I hope Fermi doesn't make it into Apple laptops, that would be such a pain to have.... 8-9 hrs would become 2-3 hrs and your legs will be burnt to a crisp.

 

[Eidorian]

OP stated frequencies only for the GPU and citing those as performance factors... a GPU has other factors like shader count, shader clocks, bus width, VRAM speed, VRAM class, power constraints... there much more.

I believe the OP covered enough of the specifications of nVidia mobile GPUs for the expected thermal profile for the Macbook Pro.

ATI would have offered a much better solution.

 

[jav6454]

I believe the OP covered enough of the specifications of nVidia mobile GPUs for the expected thermal profile for the Macbook Pro.

ATI would have offered a much better solution.

True. A mobile 5870 would have been nice

Also, this:

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

means nothing without the rest of the specs to back it up.

 

[Eidorian]

True. A mobile 5870 would have been nice

Sarcasm aside other viable ATI options have already been mentioned that fit into the 20-25W thermal profile of the Macbook Pro's previous hardware.

means nothing without the rest of the specs to back it up.

What would you have included beyond the base core clock speeds and effective fillrates? Additional information would not be of any significant benefit in my opinion.

 

[jav6454]

Sarcasm aside other viable ATI options have already been mentioned that fit into the 20-25W thermal profile of the Macbook Pro's previous hardware.

Couldn't agree more, but I bet nvidia signed some sort of contract with Apple.

What would you have included beyond the base core clock speeds and effective fillrates? Additional information would not be of any significant benefit in my opinion.

Shaders would be nice, a bus width is nice. Stuff like that are more performance determiners than a clock speed.

 

[Eidorian]

Couldn't agree more, but I bet nvidia signed some sort of contract with Apple.

I wouldn't be surprised.

Shaders would be nice, a bus width is nice. Stuff like that are more performance determiners than a clock speed.

We already have the values derived from those though. How informative would the addition be?

 

[jav6454]

We already have the values derived from those though. How informative would the addition be?

Better understanding from what you get a performance hike. I can see 9 GTexel/s and that means what to me if I don't know what's pushing it. If you tell me a 96 shader GPU is pushing that, I can tell you right away its crap. If you tell me those 9Gtexel/s are being pushed by 16 shaders, I will be very surprised and inclined to suggest the GPU that does that. Obviously, so on and so on with other features such at heat, power, fab process

 

[cathyy]

OP stated frequencies only for the GPU and citing those as performance factors... a GPU has other factors like shader count, shader clocks, bus width, VRAM speed, VRAM class, power constraints... there much more.

Also, I hope Fermi doesn't make it into Apple laptops, that would be such a pain to have.... 8-9 hrs would become 2-3 hrs and your legs will be burnt to a crisp.

Overall though, it's still based on technology that's 3 years old. Pretty much the only thing that Nvidia has done in all these 3 years was to throw in 16 more cores and more transistors into the 8600M GT, and shrinking it down to 40nm. While adding 50% more cores is quite a significant boost, it's rather pathetic for something that's 3 years newer.

The clock speeds are higher too, but that doesn't count as a technological advancement.

The bus width is the same, the VRAM type is the same (DDR2, DDR3, GDDR3), the power constraint is the same (both are MXM-II).

 

[jav6454]

Overall though, it's still based on technology that's 3 years old. Pretty much the only thing that Nvidia has done in all these 3 years was to throw in 16 more cores and more transistors into the 8600M GT, and shrinking it down to 40nm.

The clock speeds are higher too, but that doesn't count as a technological advancement.

The bus width is the same, the VRAM type is the same (DDR2, DDR3, GDDR3), the power constraint is the same (both are MXM-II).

Welcome to the world of nVidia, rebranding of a rebrand of a rebrand.

 

[Eidorian]

Better understanding from what you get a performance hike. I can see 9 GTexel/s and that means what to me if I don't know what's pushing it. If you tell me a 96 shader GPU is pushing that, I can tell you right away its crap. If you tell me those 9Gtexel/s are being pushed by 16 shaders, I will be very surprised and inclined to suggest the GPU that does that. Obviously, so on and so on with other features such at heat, power, fab process

I see your point and I agree.

 

[Merakko]

well...we are talking about laptops, i don't really know how many of you (us) do really need an extreme vga.
If you are a "pro" you are supposed to own a desktop, for intensive tasks, and use your laptop for anything else..and these macbooks are good enough for almost everyone.
We have always known how's Apple about that..i would rather prefer a macbook pro without an optical drive, and a just a "decent" gpu for 1.30 hour extra of autonomhy.
What i don't really like about these laptops is that i'm supposed to pay 135€ extras for an hi-def matte display.

I'm happy with my early 2008 MBP with its 256mb gt8600, it's enough for my tasks, and i don't feel the need to change it so far.

 

[jav6454]

well...we are talking about laptops, i don't really know how many of you (us) do really need an extreme vga.
If you are a "pro" you are supposed to own a desktop, for intensive tasks, and use your laptop for anything else..and these macbooks are good enough for almost everyone.
We have always known how's Apple about that..i would rather prefer a macbook pro without an optical drive, and a just a "decent" gpu for 1.30 hour extra of autonomhy.
What i don't really like about these laptops is that i'm supposed to pay 135€ extras for an hi-def matte display.

I'm happy with my early 2008 MBP with its 256mb gt8600, it's enough for my tasks, and i don't feel the need to change it so far.

Exactly, if you need a serious data crunching on the GPU side, it's best to go with a OEM pre-built with the exact GPU you want, or build your own desktop and add the GPU that best suits you.

All in all, a desktop with a 5870 or 5850 should do fine for a quite a while. I would not recommend GTX 480/470 due to high power consumption and heat.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I rate the MBPs GPU options as "adequate". Apple clearly could have done better, but I'm not going to be up in arms over it.

 

[therealseebs]

I'm pretty disappointed. I'm probably gonna get one anyway, since my current box has an 8600, but...

The only reason I care is WoW; I want a machine that plays that smoothly. It is really disappointing that the best Apple has to offer in laptop gaming is well under half the performance of a cheaper PC laptop. Nothing else I do on my computers is particularly performance-bound to begin with. (And before you tell me how stupid I am to spend real money on a hobby, talk to the people with boats.)

I like the battery life, I guess, but I don't really care much. I actively uncare about the thickness; if a machine another 1/4" thicker could have enough heat sinks to use a decent GPU, I'd be overjoyed with that.

I'm probably gonna get one of these, but... I have to say, Apple's done a great job of making me think seriously about getting a PC laptop. If WoW ran a little faster/more reliably under WINE, I don't think I'd get a MBP. The marginal advantages are too small, and most of them are things (looks, thinness) that I just don't care about at all.

 

[therealseebs]

OP stated frequencies only for the GPU and citing those as performance factors... a GPU has other factors like shader count, shader clocks, bus width, VRAM speed, VRAM class, power constraints... there much more.

bus bandwidth tells you everything you need about bus width, vram speed, and vram "class". Shader count is up, but the texture and pixel counts we were given already tell us that in practice, it's not making a significant difference.

Power constraints? The ATI 5xxx mobile chips use less power than the 330, so far as I can tell. Unless Apple's also underclocking the 330, making it even slower.

 

[vasuba]

bus bandwidth tells you everything you need about bus width, vram speed, and vram "class". Shader count is up, but the texture and pixel counts we were given already tell us that in practice, it's not making a significant difference.

Power constraints? The ATI 5xxx mobile chips use less power than the 330, so far as I can tell. Unless Apple's also underclocking the 330, making it even slower.

Apple is probably getting a super sweet deal to keep using these antiques in ther new systems.

As you said brand new mobile GPUs use less power etc and can rival decent desktop GPUs but are being left out because it would eat into their already large profit margin.

 

[jav6454]

bus bandwidth tells you everything you need about bus width, vram speed, and vram "class".

Power constraints? The ATI 5xxx mobile chips use less power than the 330, so far as I can tell. Unless Apple's also underclocking the 330, making it even slower.

1. No it doesn't.
2. I know that, Apple knows that, nVidia knows that. Which is why I stated I smell lock-in contract between Apple and nVidia. With ATI, I bet Apple could reach the 10hrs they want across the entire line-up. However, I bet they made a mistake back in the 9400M graphics.

 

[reverend green]

In the end it doesnt come down to spec fetishism though. It comes down to the fact the "Apple Tax" is becoming more and more an obsolete joke.

We are paying a premium price for Lower end Laptops. I rather enjoy the Macs and what they offer overall but its becoming increasingly difficult to justify while the PC market prices continue to decrease. 800 dollar laptops are outperforming 2 grand MBP. The Reliability arguement is not applicable either as Apple isnt even considered the best company in that category anymore

People keep posting this in the discussion, but nobody ever posts any proof. What's the point?

 

[mgacam2]

I'm not here to cause any trouble and honestly I myself was a bit disappointed with the graphics since I do a bit of gaming but Apple does not tailor or make these laptops for gamers. They are made for productivity and that is where it definitely excels at. I have tons of battery life with a very powerful top of the line cpu and a gpu that is more than adequate for running things like cs4 or any other graphic design program. Everyone that is complaining is complaining because they can't run games. Apple isn't catering to you, buy a console and stop complaining. It's a great laptop for what it was made to do.

Also in terms of the cpu everyone complains there is no quad? So you want a 1.6 ghz 45 watt 45 nm "old technology" cpu with no built in graphics or a new 2.66 i7 duel core with hyperthreading and power saving features built at the new 32 nm process. Technically the 2.66 i7 is Intels top of the line and newest mobile cpu. Anyway I'm off topic, but I'm just sick and tired of the complaints, remember apples targeted demographic, if your un happy its not you but there are plenty of others that are.

 

[Retzius]

I have to agree with a lot of peoples disappointments. First it was the ipad now this new macbook pro line-up that has severely fallen behind.

Apple doesnt seem to want to please its tech-savy consumers, they would rather target the general public and milk the money by itunes with mediocre laptop specs. I am heavily considering buying a pc for my wife. I think the whole macbook lineup is too much $$$ for the upgrades they made.

 

[Yixian]

1. No it doesn't.
2. I know that, Apple knows that, nVidia knows that. Which is why I stated I smell lock-in contract between Apple and nVidia. With ATI, I bet Apple could reach the 10hrs they want across the entire line-up. However, I bet they made a mistake back in the 9400M graphics.

So how long do you think we'll be tied to that anvil?

 

[therealseebs]

1. No it doesn't.

I am unaware of anything a GPU does which doesn't come down to the rate at which it performs operations. Can you offer a clear example of in what way the other specs matter, if they aren't affecting the rate at which the GPU does texturing or writes pixels?

2. I know that, Apple knows that, nVidia knows that. Which is why I stated I smell lock-in contract between Apple and nVidia. With ATI, I bet Apple could reach the 10hrs they want across the entire line-up. However, I bet they made a mistake back in the 9400M graphics.

Yeah.

So now I'm stuck with either a sub-par GPU or a PC. Thanks, Apple.

 

[therealseebs]

I'm not here to cause any trouble and honestly I myself was a bit disappointed with the graphics since I do a bit of gaming but Apple does not tailor or make these laptops for gamers.

Right you are.

So basically, since the only reason I'm buying anything more powerful
than an Atom-based netbook is gaming, Apple's solution is that I should go buy a PC, right?

Great planning!

 

[jav6454]

So how long do you think we'll be tied to that anvil?

Don't know, Apple doesn't make public its contracts (if any).

I am unaware of anything a GPU does which doesn't come down to the rate at which it performs operations. Can you offer a clear example of in what way the other specs matter, if they aren't affecting the rate at which the GPU does texturing or writes pixels?

Didn't you read my previous post? *Sigh* here copy/paste:

Better understanding from what you get a performance hike. I can see 9 GTexel/s and that means what to me if I don't know what's pushing it. If you tell me a 96 shader GPU is pushing that, I can tell you right away its crap. If you tell me those 9Gtexel/s are being pushed by 16 shaders, I will be very surprised and inclined to suggest the GPU that does that. Obviously, so on and so on with other features such at heat, power, fab process

 

[mgacam2]

Right you are.

So basically, since the only reason I'm buying anything more powerful
than an Atom-based netbook is gaming, Apple's solution is that I should go buy a PC, right?

Great planning!

That's not quite it. Buy an atom based netbook I dare you. I'm using one now waiting for my new MBP to arrive and I cant play 720p youtube videos properly let alone 1080p. I cant multitask and I dont have anywhere close to a comfortable screen real estate. Also battery life is about 3.5 hours max on power saving mode not looking at youtube which gets me through 1 and a bit classes per day. I can't imagine doing any work and I haven't been able to do any proper recording or DJ'ing ever since my old MBP was stolen.