WoW has been getting consistent engine upgrades that make it hardly easy to run.
With each expansion the Game Engine has recieved major upgrades. In all likely hood the 330M is gonna chug playing WoW in a Lich King and beyond enviroment.
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.
Thanks Apple, for the three year old Graphics Chip...
- Thread starter jsnuff1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
WoW has been getting consistent engine upgrades that make it hardly easy to run.
With each expansion the Game Engine has recieved major upgrades. In all likely hood the 330M is gonna chug playing WoW in a Lich King and beyond enviroment.
The iPad can't play any of the games I'm really interested in.
What ever happened to them selling computers?
In other words, they are not targeting the high end of the computer market, but the high end of the wallet market.
They aren't trying to make powerful computers, they're trying to make expensive computers. That's what you're telling me. And I believe you, really, I do!
I'm pointing out to someone that he's being a jerk to me for not adapting my lifestyle, hobbies, and interests to fit Apple's marketing plans.
It is not my job to "understand what Apple's intent is".
It is their job to make computers which people buy. Different people want different kinds of computers.
I happen to want a good Unix-based system which can run applications and video games.
And that's why absolutely no one has complained about the poor video card in the MBP.
Hint: If people on your fan sites are griping about the specs, then obviously there is a market.
The "long battery life" market is not the high end market to begin with. It's the low-end market. If you want super long battery life, get an atom.
The point I'm making is that there is, demonstrably, a noticeable market of people who are gadget geeks, who understand hardware, and who like Apple's stuff for the operating system. I work in embedded software development, and of four people in my local office, four of us use macs; in the rest of the company, most of the engineers I work with use either Linux or mac.
And all of us would rather have a better GPU, and find it frustrating that Apple isn't catering to the "I actually need this machine to have decent speed, and I'll run it plugged in" market. At all.
The problem with your post, and the other guy's, is that you're starting from the premise that Apple is the universal and sole authority on what computers should be like, and customers should either buy what Apple wants to sell them, or shut the **** up and go away.
This is why Apple has a reputation for having elitist jerk users, and has a tiny market share -- because their response to "this is a neat computer, but there's a few million of us who'd like something meatier" is to sit around telling us how we're not important, we're not cool, and we're not as influential as some guy who's supposedly filming movies but is too stupid to FIND A POWER OUTLET. (Hint: Movie studios are full of power outlets.)
Why not slow down a bit and ask this:
If Apple made a genuinely high-end, but less sleek, notebook, do you think there would be a market? Not "the current market Apple targets with their most expensive stuff". A market, somewhere, large enough to justify it?
Most of the gamers I know buy machines just to game. Most of them have said something to the effect of "I wish Apple had a laptop with decent specs." There's a lot of apple fans in the gaming community, who are mostly using imacs or mac pros and getting a PC for their portable stuff.
I've spent $3k-4k on every (non-netbook) laptop I've gotten in the last ten years. I usually buy two or three computers a year. I know a lot of other people like me.
And if Apple were to ship a laptop with good specs for gaming, most of us would buy one immediately. Ignoring that market is a bit silly. Telling them to go buy an ipad is stupid. Being rude to them for wanting something other than to make movies is ridiculous. (Hint: Do you think there are more film producers or people who play World of Warcraft on Macs? Answers on the back of a postcard, please.)
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-330M.22437.0.html
That about sums it up.
Look...Im typing this from my new 15" Macbook Pro (my company went in for half so I happily upgraded form the 13"). I probably buy more Apple products than PC (and of course spend a lot more money on them).
I understand what a Macbook Pro is. I just don't understand why they don't wake it what it "can be".
Sure, me designing 3D models of orthopedic implants isn't as sexy as the guy editing a hip music commercial, but I am still a customer. Its not like I am demanding quad cores and dual GPUs. I was just disappointed Apple couldn't a least match what was being used in many products that cost half as much.
As for battery life...I am plugged in 95% of the time and really never need a battery to last more than 2 hours. A 10 hour batter is not even close to a selling point for me.
The same hardware will run on the Mac OS better than on a PC? That is pure crap. Again...2+2 doesn't = 5 just because it is on Mac OS. Don't ever fall for that.
That about sums it up.
Look...Im typing this from my new 15" Macbook Pro (my company went in for half so I happily upgraded form the 13"). I probably buy more Apple products than PC (and of course spend a lot more money on them).
I understand what a Macbook Pro is. I just don't understand why they don't wake it what it "can be".
Sure, me designing 3D models of orthopedic implants isn't as sexy as the guy editing a hip music commercial, but I am still a customer. Its not like I am demanding quad cores and dual GPUs. I was just disappointed Apple couldn't a least match what was being used in many products that cost half as much.
As for battery life...I am plugged in 95% of the time and really never need a battery to last more than 2 hours. A 10 hour batter is not even close to a selling point for me.
The same hardware will run on the Mac OS better than on a PC? That is pure crap. Again...2+2 doesn't = 5 just because it is on Mac OS. Don't ever fall for that.
I am seriously curious about the possibility to *cough* manually *cough* upgrade the discrete GPU in the new 15" MPB to a 335M or 360M. The power requirements of the 360 might be too hight, but the 335 should definitely be doable. Now if only I can figure out how to purchase a 335M. The GPU was really the only truly disappointing thing to me about the refresh.
No, sorry. Most laptops have graphics soldiered straight onto the motherboard, though a few do have the MXM slot that allows for upgradeable graphics. Unfortunately, no MXM slot on any Apple laptop.
You and me are on the same wavelength.
But as I said, they do a mid-range GPU on purpose: profitability and planned obsolescence. And they want to protect desktop sales, I bet their profits are even higher on those. So if you're a prosumer and they offered a really powerful laptop, how could they sell you a desktop as well as a laptop?Apple doesn't want people like you using their laptops and promoting their brand. They want trend setters, they want the creative class. They want people who wear Elie Tahari jackets and sit in hotel lounges and coffee shops tapping away on MacBooks — both in real life, and on the big screen. The creative class sets the standard for what the consumer class wants. By having the creative class on lock down, they create icons of cool who use Apple products; whether in music videos, tv shows, etc... and this makes people want to go out and buy iPhones, and iPads, and buy their media using iTunes.
They don't want to be known as a nerd platform; they'll take the hip web 2.0 founders and engineers, but not the magic nerds, the WoW players, and the guys who aren't at fashion events on Tuesday night and complimentary screenings on Thursday.
Now you may think this is offensive or closed minded, but its Apple's brand identity, and they have never tried to hide it since they went i with the first iMac— others tend to project their idea of what Apple should be, or once was, but who's running the company. Black t-shirt steve jobs, not Woz.
What you think may be a big market, may only be 3-4000, in the country, maybe even in the world — at most, maybe 50,000 — is tiny. And they're not going to risk complicating their product line to support a class of user that is not their target market. It's the same way Fratelli Rosetti doesn't make a high end running shoe — they don't care if you're running. It's not what they do. There are not that many people who spend 12k/year on laptops — I mean, not even the best photographers in the world do that. And as part of their target market, I honestly can't imagine what anyone would need with a higher end graphics card. My performance limitation comments from my previous post stand. If you need the card and will plug it in to run it, I don't understand why you're on a Mac Laptop — if you need robust mobile high end 3d visualization a Mac is the wrong device — at least get a 17 and stick some custom silicon in the xpressport before you complain, or get on a Nehalem and use a portable graid.
Sure, when you create a false dilemma about WoW players versus film producers, sure, you've got more. But all of LA, all of NYC, and all of everyone who wants to be any of those people, is a huge market. When you take into account the entire ad industry, all of hollywood, all of the music, and entertainment industries, writers, producers, directors, editors, photographers, designers, etc.. not even close. You're talking about a global market in the hundreds of millions.
Just because you want to project your idea of what Apple could or should be, doesn't mean Apple has any responsibility to live up to it.
I think they're just fine, my bank account thinks their stock price is doing just fine, and the entire world seems to think they have their **** together.
I don't think SJ is losing any sleep about his choice in graphics cards, and you didn't address my point about going a day without power, either on a plane or a shoot — your movie studios and film producer notes show how clearly you don't understand the market Apple is catering to. I didn't realize what a limitation laptop battery life was until after college.
The only only thing I can see this gfx card having a problem with is high end 3d work, in which case, you should be on a workstation or you're going to be hindered no matter what.
This whole thread is silly.
Nope, not possible. It's almost certainly physically incompatible, and anyway, soldered onto the board.
You and me are on the same wavelength.
LOL I have this exact issue I started another thread if anyone is interested in my problem of a 15" MBP i7 OR the high end iMac and low end MBP. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/896924/
If this is going to be Apple's business plan I'm going to have upgrade issues forever....
Why are people getting bent out of shape about people who are willing to spend a significant premium for an Apple laptop wanting a modern graphics card? I have to disagree that there isn't a large group of Mac users who really want to game, I think the people at Steam/Valve would disagree as well.
I will never understand the anger that people feel for Apple, somehow these people think that they're being cheated. If you don't like their product offerings, don't buy them.
I just dropped $2K for a new MBP. Base model, + 1680x1050 antiglare screen. I'm upgrading from a 3.5 yr old MBP.
This new machine will be, I'm sure, exactly what I want.
If you are a PC gamer, you don't want these laptops. We get it. Get something else. Please.
Also -- it's not all about profit. You don't get 9 hours of battery life by putting the fastest GPU & CPU in there. It's a delicate balance.
I just dropped $2K for a new MBP. Base model, + 1680x1050 antiglare screen. I'm upgrading from a 3.5 yr old MBP.
This new machine will be, I'm sure, exactly what I want.
- More pixels - FINALLY
- More CPU power - I transcode video sometimes, and run music software
- Max RAM 8GB - I run at least one Linux VM at all times. As soon as prices hit $200 for 8GB, I'll upgrade
- Great battery life - huge win for me. I can't wait to be stuck in a 4 hour meeting and be able to work the whole time
- More GPU power - I have an ATI x1600 w/ 128MB. This new one will be fine for me. No complaints. Hell, maybe I'll even run BootCamp w/ Windows, crank up my unused-for-4-years Steam acct.
If you are a PC gamer, you don't want these laptops. We get it. Get something else. Please.
Also -- it's not all about profit. You don't get 9 hours of battery life by putting the fastest GPU & CPU in there. It's a delicate balance.
I agree with this entire post.. couldn't have said it any better. Apple is very strategic in their offerings and they understand the market better than anyone. It is all about brand image like this ^^^ guy said, I think they prefer spec nerds and hardcore gamers to stick with pc.
I agree with what you're saying, these computers are definitely not for the PC gamer.
However, there were options that Apple could have pursued that had similar wattage and much more performance than the 330m that could have allowed for an 8-9 hour battery life. I believe that's the reason people are complaining.
I really don't care as I'm buying my first Mac as I type this, and this decision doesn't really affect my decisions.
Well that's pretty much the purpose of switchable GPUs: have a high-end one you can use while plugged in, and an integrated one that gives you the best battery life.
Also an i7 quad option would be nice. Contrary to popular belief, some people would sacrifice battery life for performance, and hence want an i7 quad option (especially on the 17 inch, which will really have the exact same performance as a 3lb 13inch Sony Vaio Z).
In short, they want flash over substance, and they are actively trying to exclude 95% of the population from their customer base?
This is, I kid you not, one of the stupidest posts I have ever read. You are arguing that Apple wants only people who are a vanishingly small fraction of one percent of the population using their laptops... And you're trying to make it out like it's a good thing to want to be flashy instead of trying to get work done.
This is a great example of how people move from "fans" to "fanboys".
So, you think Apple will be better off with 2% of the population even qualified to use their laptops, than they would with 20% or 50%?
So, basically, small marketshare is better? It would absolutely be better to sell 10,000 laptops to film producers than to sell 10,000 laptops to film producers and 10,000,000 laptops to college kids and programmers?
Okay, another try at explaining this in tiny little words.
If something is all about brand image, then it's a crappy product. If what you're saying is that Apple computer has nothing to offer, no competence, no expertise, no skill, no decent hardware, no software worth using...
You're full of crap.
But that's your whole argument. It's all about being flashy and having style, to you. That's so pathetic. Class is a bunch of crap. Do stuff you enjoy, have fun, make money, and enjoy your life; don't spend it sitting around admiring people because you think they're higher class than you are.
Apple's products have a good reputation among technical people because OS X is a solid operating system. Making a high-end heavy-duty laptop would in no way drive away or offend any of the "creative types" -- they wouldn't use it, they'd get one of the thin ones. You don't see people who want a MacBook Air saying "oh, no, Apple made another machine that's bigger than this, I can't use it".
Apple has been trying, and trying hard, to penetrate other markets. They make Xserves and Mac Pros because they believe that people are willing to pay a premium for actually good software -- good in ways that the "creative class" (I cannot *believe* that you actually wrote that, do you spend your life reading supermarket tabloids and fantasizing about having a life as messed up as whoever's on the cover this week?) cannot comprehend and doesn't care about.
If Apple were really all about brand image, they wouldn't be working on high-performance. They wouldn't have gone 64-bit. They wouldn't care about all that stuff, because it wouldn't appeal to the people you seem to think are their only concern.
If something is all about brand image, then it's a crappy product. If what you're saying is that Apple computer has nothing to offer, no competence, no expertise, no skill, no decent hardware, no software worth using...
You're full of crap.
But that's your whole argument. It's all about being flashy and having style, to you. That's so pathetic. Class is a bunch of crap. Do stuff you enjoy, have fun, make money, and enjoy your life; don't spend it sitting around admiring people because you think they're higher class than you are.
Apple's products have a good reputation among technical people because OS X is a solid operating system. Making a high-end heavy-duty laptop would in no way drive away or offend any of the "creative types" -- they wouldn't use it, they'd get one of the thin ones. You don't see people who want a MacBook Air saying "oh, no, Apple made another machine that's bigger than this, I can't use it".
Apple has been trying, and trying hard, to penetrate other markets. They make Xserves and Mac Pros because they believe that people are willing to pay a premium for actually good software -- good in ways that the "creative class" (I cannot *believe* that you actually wrote that, do you spend your life reading supermarket tabloids and fantasizing about having a life as messed up as whoever's on the cover this week?) cannot comprehend and doesn't care about.
If Apple were really all about brand image, they wouldn't be working on high-performance. They wouldn't have gone 64-bit. They wouldn't care about all that stuff, because it wouldn't appeal to the people you seem to think are their only concern.
I have a first gen MBP and can play WoW just fine on it. Granted I have most everything turned down to bare minimum on the graphics side but I get over 30FPS most of the time which seems fine for WoW. I don't do Arena though, so I don't know if FPS matters there. During raids I've never had a problem though. So these new machines should perform just fine. BTW, I also am able to play while doing things in a browser, listening to music, and running the occasional Terminal Services session.
Playing FPS games will probably not be the best choice, but I can imagine most other games being fine. I've run numerous other non-FPS games and haven't had any real issues, just needing to turn down the graphics options most of the time.
As for the rest of this thread and most of the PC vs Mac threads which I have always stayed away from. I also wish Apple would give us better graphics options but this MBP I'm using right now has lasted longer than any computer I've ever owned. I do Windows development from it and it has lasted twice as long as any other PC we've had in the company. I don't hate Windows, but I like OS X better. (Plus the fact that I've probably spent more on software than the actual computer through the years.
) It's as simple as that, not everyone who buys a Mac needs to be pigeon whole into this fanboi label. We know what we're getting and accept it. And to be able to go sit in a park for a few hours and not have to worry about battery life is a bonus too. In the end though, it's all just personal opinion. If you like Windows that's cool, if you like OS X that's cool too. There's really no reason to attack anybody for either choice or try to make someone feel bad because of their decision either way.Also, I have a desktop PC for games and yes it is better than using the Mac. But for everything else I prefer OSX, so I'll always have a Mac
(Again, personal opinion. Some people prefer Windows.)Stop saying film producers. You're narrowing massive industries to one job title; it doesn't work the same way as saying programmer or engineer. There are maybe 1000 serious film producers in the country. There are 10,000 creatives in one ad agency, let alone the industry. Advanced producer services are basically finance, law, and advertising. Apple owns advertising, and they own media and entertainment. These are huge industries.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b00-0000
IBM targets the programmers and related; Apple does not.
Additionally, most college kids fancy themselves becoming part of the creative class and failing that, they sell them MacBooks rather than MacBook Pro's which are doing incredibly well on campuses nationwide.
I think you over estimate the number of hardcore programmers there are in the country, and then over estimate how many would actually consider getting a Mac, and then of that smaller fraction over estimate how many their are that would consider Apple's offerings inadequate.
Do that math the market isn't there.
Go back 10 years..thats where I have been.
Apple was never a mass market company, that all changed with the iPod/iPhone.
No, you're still being stupid.
It is virtually never to a company's benefit to exclude a market -- least of all for a computer company to exclude people who buy multiple computers.
All that flashy media coverage does a great job of making Macs popular for low-end stuff, but it doesn't help sell Xserves. You wanna sell Xserves, you have to appeal to the technical types.
And the fact is, Apple puts a lot of time and effort into stuff that is meaningless to the so-called "creative class", but which developers use. They do that because developers and the like are a big part of their market. That's why the Mac Pro is larger than an iMac, rather than smaller than an iMac.
Apple has certainly tried to woo people who like flashy, stylish, stuff. That doesn't mean they don't care about other markets. It doesn't mean it would be sane for them not to care about other markets.
The reason they went with a crappy chip isn't some hilariously incoherent juvenile effort at attainaing social status through willful incompetence. It's most likely that they signed a deal with nVidia. Compare with, say, the iPhone. No one thinks that Apple went with a crappy network that couldn't handle the load of actually serving pages to all the users because it would impress people. No one thinks that they did it because there's some kind of status or prestige to paying AT&T for wireless. No, they did it because they got money to do so.
They seem to have made a deal with nVidia, which probably gives them better prices, especially if they commit to using nVidia cards even when they're not the best price/performance (even including design power) on the market. No surprise there.
The problem here isn't that Apple didn't make a rational decision. It's that you're trying to rationalize it by appealing to something that, if it were true, would prove that Apple's software and hardware were crap. And that's probably a really bad argument to be advancing.
They make good kit. I'm gonna get one of the new MBPs, and it's gonna be okay (if not particularly fast), and it's gonna stay okay for a good three years, during which time I'll probably have no problems with it. By the end of those three years, the time I would have spent farting around with a Windows system to try to keep it running would have paid for the Mac three or four times over. I've had days where using Windows would have cost me more than the new MBP.
But that doesn't mean it's a fast chip, and it doesn't mean that they are trying to exclude "people like me". And it doesn't mean you have to make up stupid stuff that sounds like you're just at the first realization that "popularity" exists and that "popular kids" are better off in some ways than other kids, just to try to make excuses for it.
Go on and grow up. It's awesome. You don't have to live your life in terms of what people who will never talk to you might think of you; you can live it in terms of what you want.
It is virtually never to a company's benefit to exclude a market -- least of all for a computer company to exclude people who buy multiple computers.
All that flashy media coverage does a great job of making Macs popular for low-end stuff, but it doesn't help sell Xserves. You wanna sell Xserves, you have to appeal to the technical types.
And the fact is, Apple puts a lot of time and effort into stuff that is meaningless to the so-called "creative class", but which developers use. They do that because developers and the like are a big part of their market. That's why the Mac Pro is larger than an iMac, rather than smaller than an iMac.
Apple has certainly tried to woo people who like flashy, stylish, stuff. That doesn't mean they don't care about other markets. It doesn't mean it would be sane for them not to care about other markets.
The reason they went with a crappy chip isn't some hilariously incoherent juvenile effort at attainaing social status through willful incompetence. It's most likely that they signed a deal with nVidia. Compare with, say, the iPhone. No one thinks that Apple went with a crappy network that couldn't handle the load of actually serving pages to all the users because it would impress people. No one thinks that they did it because there's some kind of status or prestige to paying AT&T for wireless. No, they did it because they got money to do so.
They seem to have made a deal with nVidia, which probably gives them better prices, especially if they commit to using nVidia cards even when they're not the best price/performance (even including design power) on the market. No surprise there.
The problem here isn't that Apple didn't make a rational decision. It's that you're trying to rationalize it by appealing to something that, if it were true, would prove that Apple's software and hardware were crap. And that's probably a really bad argument to be advancing.
They make good kit. I'm gonna get one of the new MBPs, and it's gonna be okay (if not particularly fast), and it's gonna stay okay for a good three years, during which time I'll probably have no problems with it. By the end of those three years, the time I would have spent farting around with a Windows system to try to keep it running would have paid for the Mac three or four times over. I've had days where using Windows would have cost me more than the new MBP.
But that doesn't mean it's a fast chip, and it doesn't mean that they are trying to exclude "people like me". And it doesn't mean you have to make up stupid stuff that sounds like you're just at the first realization that "popularity" exists and that "popular kids" are better off in some ways than other kids, just to try to make excuses for it.
Go on and grow up. It's awesome. You don't have to live your life in terms of what people who will never talk to you might think of you; you can live it in terms of what you want.
A couple of things, 1) I did not say I purchased because of Apple's intent. I purchased because the machine is perfect for me. Apple's intent is completely separate. I don't care that they use me as an asset to bolster their brand. I am only educating you on the facts of the situation; what Apple does, what their goals are. I was not offering a dissection of my own purchase decisions. I did in previous comments where I point out that my needs require a Mac Pro for certain things, but in a portable device, more gfx memory would go to waste as other bottlenecks would occur much earlier.
2) For me, its not about style. It's about being able to certain parts of my work, which I love, where I want to do them, and the MBP is great for that.
3) Furthermore, I did not imply any form of class heirarchy or claim any form of dominance or superiority. The fact of the mater is that sociologically, there are classes, and particularly when dealing with electronic devices, there are people who create content and people who use them to consume; Apple has segmented its market since the iMac into a consumer class who passively browses and engages, and a creative class who creates the content for the consumer class. This is once again fact, not opinion, and is divorced of all value judgement.
They make Mac Pro's because prior to the introduction of the G4 500's a long time ago, they had no participation in the workstation market and were losing ground to PC's for creatives. They had a lock in with Photoshop prior, but the hardware was rapidly outpacing Apple's until then. Since then Apple has redoubled its efforts to supply high end workstations, and many post-facilities are now able to use them exclusively without a high end Linux and SGI stations previously required for broadcast and film level work. XServe is a server counterpart, but not intended as a real challenger to IBM, HP, and Dell's economical, scalable solutions.
The research and education markets are "cool" as well, but very different than your engineering/programmer/corporate IT markets. Apple loves catering to research and education, its good marketing, get them young (are you a Crest kid?).
4) Don't put words in someone else's mouth. I said Apple's brand image is X, not that Apple is only about brand image. This means they are not about people who are not about X image, not that they are not about high performance technology, that programmers and others share an interest in but don't share X with.
This is a basic logical error. Just because there are two people both interested in high performance, doesn't mean that Apple is going to be interested in targeting you as a customer, and just because Apple doesn't care about you, doesn't mean they don't care about high performance.
My Macbook is going to be incredibly highly performing, it just can't do one specific thing as well as some PC laptops, but for damn sure it can do everything I'm going to use it for, 200 times better.