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

[tyua]

Some people obviously doesn't realize that without benchmarks, you can't tell different GPUs apart.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

3DMark06

330M - 6539
9600M GT - 5063
8600M GT - 3269

The 330M is 2x the 8600GT and 33% more than the 9600GT.

But its no GTX 285M.

you are wrong, the bench says 6126 for the 330. its around 20% more than the 9600gt.

anyhow mbp are pro machines, not gamer machines. and their drivers are a way better than pc laptops, which implies better performances than pcs for an equivalent hardware. not so simple to compare. i also have a m15x with a gt240m and my mbp runs much smoother than my m15x when gaming.

 

[therealseebs]

That's not quite it. Buy an atom based netbook I dare you.

I have one right now. It's based on the crappiest processor -- the z520.

It works fine. I do software development, browse the web, read Usenet, and it handles everything fine.

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.

I don't care about video playback.

As I said, the only application I care about, at all, that the atom won't do well, is World of Warcraft. That's application, singular. No other application that the crappy atom can't handle actually interests me. The 1366x768 display on it is fine for what I do on it.

I want a Mac because, while I do okay with WoW under Linux, it's a bit of a hassle. (I don't think I need to explain to people here why I'm not running Windows, right?)

So the only thing I care about, that at all justifies having a machine with over 2GB of memory or a processor with more than one core, is gaming. And Apple's pretty much uninterested in gamers.

 

[IntelliUser]

It's just a ****ing GPU. Who CARES! It's more than enough to run everything that isn't a game (or some ultra high end 3D, in which case a laptop wouldn't be the best choice anyway) perfectly.

If you want to play games, buy a console.

 

[therealseebs]

It's just a ****ing GPU. Who CARES!

Obviously, I do.

It's more than enough to run everything that isn't a game

Right.

And since no one but about 95% of the population plays games, obviously, this is a non-issue as long as Apple's committed to keeping a 5% market share, right?

If you want to play games, buy a console.

This is the kind of idiocy that gives Apple users a bad name.

Consoles can't play the games I'm interested in, for the most part.

But here's the thing. Why are you so purposefully committed to being a jerk to anyone who likes things that you don't? Why is your ego tied up in Apple's products being flawless, and anyone who doesn't like them being worthless people whose money Apple should never want to begin with?

What's wrong with liking Apple for the things they do well, without having to pretend that they don't ever screw anything up?

I like Apple's stuff, for the most part, but I really wish they cared more about the high-end market. They don't. They're not going to. It's unlikely to change. But, it sorta screws me, because I really like their environment in many ways, but I want to be able to play games on my computer.

 

[darkplanets]

Good thing I did not wait out for these MBPs. Those new cards aren't the best but they are certainly capable but why Apple doesn't even include 1GB of dedicated memory is beyond me. I bought a Toshiba with the same card (but 1GB) and it's decent but not the best for gaming.

I just wish I had seen this laptop before though...

MSi GX640 from Amazon with Core i5, 15" (1680 x1050), ATI 5850 with 1GB memory for 1099 with a 3 year warranty.

http://www.amazon.com/MSI-GX640-098US-15-6-Inch-Laptop/dp/B0036OR9DI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=pc&qid=1271184812&sr=1-1

One problem there... that lappy has a 3 hour battery life, long enough for... nothing useful. I still have yet to see a current gen laptop that balances power/tech specs with battery life. It seems like apple took the ipad approach here-- great battery life, abysmal to mediocre performance.

 

[mgacam2]

I have one right now. It's based on the crappiest processor -- the z520.

It works fine. I do software development, browse the web, read Usenet, and it handles everything fine.



I don't care about video playback.

As I said, the only application I care about, at all, that the atom won't do well, is World of Warcraft. That's application, singular. No other application that the crappy atom can't handle actually interests me. The 1366x768 display on it is fine for what I do on it.

I want a Mac because, while I do okay with WoW under Linux, it's a bit of a hassle. (I don't think I need to explain to people here why I'm not running Windows, right?)

So the only thing I care about, that at all justifies having a machine with over 2GB of memory or a processor with more than one core, is gaming. And Apple's pretty much uninterested in gamers.

But you did say all you care about is wow and all the current line has no problem pumping wow out at decent frame rate. Even the old line could do it.

 

[therealseebs]

One problem there... that lappy has a 3 hour battery life, long enough for... nothing useful.

I've had my MBP for just shy of three years.

Occasions on which I've run it on battery for more than half an hour: Maybe five.

Occasions on which I've run it on battery for more than half an hour, and it wasn't because I accidentally knocked the power thing out: Zero.

Seriously, this NEVER comes up in my world. I just go places that have power outlets. I want a laptop because I can take it with me to other places with power. I doubt I'd ever notice if they swapped the battery for one that lasted twenty minutes.

 

[therealseebs]

But you did say all you care about is wow and all the current line has no problem pumping wow out at decent frame rate. Even the old line could do it.

Could it? On my current system (2007), I can't clear more than about 15fps, and well under 10 in busy areas. The 9600M is supposed to be about a 15% upgrade, the 330M is supposed to be maybe a 60% upgrade.

15 * 1.6 = 24. 24fps is not "decent", it's "shabby". 40fps is "decent". 60fps is "good".

I've yet to see anything suggesting that the new MBP will be able to do WoW at a decent framerate. (Keep in mind, 1920x1200 so I can read all the little text...) I certainly don't expect it to be particularly good after the next expansion pack, which usually updates graphics noticably.

 

[tyua]

One problem there... that lappy has a 3 hour battery life, long enough for... nothing useful. I still have yet to see a current gen laptop that balances power/tech specs with battery life. It seems like apple took the ipad approach here-- great battery life, abysmal to mediocre performance.

about battery life, i dont think you can find some better laptops than macbook for that, and if you install linux or windows on a mbp you will have the same battery life than any other good laptop. and if you build a hackintosh you wont have the mbp battery life under macOS. its purely about hardware consumption optimization implemented in the OS.

 

[jav6454]

Could it? On my current system (2007), I can't clear more than about 15fps, and well under 10 in busy areas. The 9600M is supposed to be about a 15% upgrade, the 330M is supposed to be maybe a 60% upgrade.

15 * 1.6 = 24. 24fps is not "decent", it's "shabby". 40fps is "decent". 60fps is "good".

I've yet to see anything suggesting that the new MBP will be able to do WoW at a decent framerate. (Keep in mind, 1920x1200 so I can read all the little text...) I certainly don't expect it to be particularly good after the next expansion pack, which usually updates graphics noticably.

You do know that the average human eye can see 24-26 fps? So anything over 32fps is already too much and you will NOT notice it.

 

[mgacam2]

Could it? On my current system (2007), I can't clear more than about 15fps, and well under 10 in busy areas. The 9600M is supposed to be about a 15% upgrade, the 330M is supposed to be maybe a 60% upgrade.

15 * 1.6 = 24. 24fps is not "decent", it's "shabby". 40fps is "decent". 60fps is "good".

I've yet to see anything suggesting that the new MBP will be able to do WoW at a decent framerate. (Keep in mind, 1920x1200 so I can read all the little text...) I certainly don't expect it to be particularly good after the next expansion pack, which usually updates graphics noticably.

My old 2007 SR Macbook Pro ran WoW at 40 FPS majority of the time and higher but I also haven't played WoW in a long time so you may be correct. Also I ran it at the 1440x900 resolution, didn't have the 17 inch.I would still say the current line with the 330m gt should run wow decently. But Alas

 

[panzer06]

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.

Perhaps so but at this price point I expect more than adequete

 

[Bill Gates]

You do know that the average human eye can see 24-26 fps? So anything over 32fps is already too much and you will NOT notice it.

That's a ******** statistic.

 

[jav6454]

That's a ******** statistic.

No it's not. Can you tell the difference between 50fps and 100fps?

 

[Jarcrew]

You do know that the average human eye can see 24-26 fps? So anything over 32fps is already too much and you will NOT notice it.

The "frame rate" of a human eye is open to debate - it depends on the kind of image you're looking at, how concentrated you are, and countless other factors - and while I'd say that most humans would not be able to tell the difference between a 100fps game of Counter Strike and a 200fps game, the higher fps you start with, the less likely you are to run into spots that are below that of the human eye; consider any superfluous frames as a buffer between you and intolerably jittery gameplay.

 

[Yixian]

The "frame rate" of a human eye is open to debate - it depends on the kind of image you're looking at, how concentrated you are, and countless other factors - and while I'd say that most humans would not be able to tell the difference between a 100fps game of Counter Strike and a 200fps game, the higher fps you start with, the less likely you are to run into spots that are below that of the human eye; consider any superfluous frames as a buffer between you and intolerably jittery gameplay.

This is exactly it, with GPus, the higher the average frame rate, the higher the minimum framerate, which is what matters.

An average framerate of 30 is likely going to be choppy many times, but an average framerate of 100 is unlikely ever to drop so low that you eye would notice.

60 is a sweet spot in terms of being realistically achievable with modern games on decent tech, whilst being mostly lag free.

 

[therealseebs]

You do know that the average human eye can see 24-26 fps? So anything over 32fps is already too much and you will NOT notice it.

Wrong. The human eye can visually distinguish things far in excess of 60Hz, even though it can't see every specific frame. In movies, where objects are blurred in motion, the human eye tends to be fine at around 24fps. For discrete rendering without motion blur, it is very easy to tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

 

[LesQQmorePewPew]

Yeah I remember 5 years ago when Apple's machines were as cheap as PC's, much faster and had amazing GPU's.

Oh wait...

Apple's always been like this. In fact there profit margins now are lower than any time in the past god knows how long.

paying 1500 for a core 2 duo and integrated graphics. margins must be pretty low

 

[jaytv111]

It's simple, really...

Apple gives you one option for GPU across the 15 and 17in lineup, this keeps development costs down and profits up. And, they can do that whole planned obsolescence thing more easily. If they gave you an option to get the fastest graphics possible now, then users who buy that option won't be tempted to upgrade anytime soon.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That MSI for $1100 looks like a very decent little machine for the money. I wonder how well it might do as a hackintosh?

 

[WonkyPanda]

WoW is one of the easiest games to run. You will have ZERO problems running that game.

 

[therealseebs]

WoW is one of the easiest games to run. You will have ZERO problems running that game.

People keep saying this, but...

Right now, I get crappy frame rates in my 2007 MBP, and frankly, I've seen nothing to suggest that the 330 is more than about 60% faster. The game's apparently GPU-bound, so I don't imagine the CPU will change things much.

And WoW's about to get a spec bump, which is likely to make a more than 60% difference in GPU requirements, because they are making the (ridiculous, obviously) assumption that people will have GPUs less than 3-4 years old.

 

[ModernDemagogue]

And since no one but about 95% of the population plays games, obviously, this is a non-issue as long as Apple's committed to keeping a 5% market share, right?

This is the kind of idiocy that gives Apple users a bad name.

Consoles can't play the games I'm interested in, for the most part.

I like Apple's stuff, for the most part, but I really wish they cared more about the high-end market. They don't.

If you want to play games, go get an iPad. Honestly, Apple has made it very clear that they have content consumption devices, and content creation devices.

You're not their high-end target market if you're a gamer. Their high end target market are agency creatives, filmmakers, music producers, designers, etc... the only programs that take full advantage of a high-end graphics card don't take true advantage of anything less than a Quaddro, and honestly, you're going to bottleneck at the 8gb ram and on the FW800 first, so there's no point to anything more powerful. Other than being able to offload some tasks for FCP and AE, which need to be better, there's not THAT much the gfx card is there for in a Mac Laptop; maybe some Maya work you wouldn't choke on ram first; but who knows.

Honestly, I don't know the last time I played a game on a computer. And you're being a jerk to someone and totally misunderstanding what Apple's intent is.

They don't care about you because very few people and no companies buy Mac laptops for what you're talking about, and gaming is not where their brand identity comes from — the market is virtually no one, so few a BTO isn't even worth it. What their clients/customers do care about, is being able to work without charging all the way from the shoot in LA to the post house in NYC without charging. That's 8 hours. Lasting an entire work day without having to carry a charger around. Similar. Give me as much power as you can and the ability to do it while en route to Heathrow.

I do some of the most high end work there is, and this update was all I needed and more, purchased this morning. I don't make any representations of it being perfect, but if I need more power than this, I'll need a nehalem with a quadro and a raid anyway — I won't be able to fit that into a laptop til 2015 minimum.

 

[Yixian]

People keep saying this, but...

Right now, I get crappy frame rates in my 2007 MBP, and frankly, I've seen nothing to suggest that the 330 is more than about 60% faster.

In real terms it's a lot less, you're not going to see 60% increase in fps, more like an increase of 6fps..

 

[Pressure]

No it's not. Can you tell the difference between 50fps and 100fps?

All people can detect smoother motion.

You can clearly see a difference between 30p and 24p.