Very Good And Possible Graphics Update For The Mb!!!!

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by Winter Charm, Aug 28, 2008.

  1. Winter Charm macrumors 6502a

    Winter Charm

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    #1
    Hey, so i was looking, and people are guessing that the next graphics chip to go into the MB is the X4500HD. (intels new integrated chip) - now here's the excited thing

    it has a TOTAL OF 1759 MB Graphics MEMORY under windows Vista (actualy shared from RAM)

    OK heres how: 3 things need to happen for this to work.

    You need:

    1. a 64Bit Vista Home Premium, or Ultimate

    2. 4 GB of RAM

    3. Intel GMA X4500HD - the new chip that goes with the montevina chipset.

    i was looking at several windows laptops that met these requirements, and they all had the above, and they all had 1759 MB of graphics MEM. which is great for playing many games =)

    looks like the future is bright for mac users that use bootcamp to play games.:apple:

    here's one of the configurations that i looked at:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...vilion_dv5_1000us_Entertainment_Notebook.html
     
  2. minicoop503 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #2
    The amount of graphics memory doesn't really mean anything though....
     
  3. bartzilla macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #3
    As Minicoop says, this doesn't mean much for games playing. You need "enough" memory on / allocated to the graphics adapter, sure, but there comes a point where turning the dial up doesn't improve performance.
     
  4. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #4
    That much memory means nothing. Absolutely nothing.

    The X4500, when paired with a faster CPU, still gets roughly half the frame-rate as a GeForce 8400M GS.

    When paired with the same CPU, the performance of the X4500 is roughly 1/3 of the GeForce 8400M GS.

    Its not about how much memory a GPU has available to it, its all about the performance of the actual chip.

    Look at the AMD/ATI 3200 IGP. It performs nearly as good as the GeForce 8400M GS. Its integrated and shares memory with the CPU!

    If Apple must give people the shaft and use integrated graphics, there are higher quality solutions out there than Intel. Nvidia and AMD/ATI both make IGPs that put Intel GPUs to shame and include all of the video features that their dedicated counterparts do.
     
  5. Winter Charm thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Winter Charm

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    #5
    that's true the chip does make a difference... but i have heard that the GMA X4500 is comparable to the GeForce 8400M
     
  6. Cabbit macrumors 68020

    Cabbit

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Location:
    Scotland
    #6
    It is indeed about equal to a 8400M unfortunately however Intel are not known for making great and stable graphics drivers, Intel GPU's have notorious game support with some games having rendering issues and glitches with some games failing to open at all. And of course Intel GPU's never get the optimization that ATi and Nvidea GPU's get from game developers.
     
  7. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #7
    Sorry, but the X4500 is only equal to the 8400M in Intel's words.

    The benchmarks so far have shown a completely different story. Using modern drivers, even with a faster processor, the X4500 usually only comes about half way up to the 8400M GS.

    With the same processor its about 1/3 the performance.

    Even the old benchmarks done by some Apple fans using desktop hardware and ridiculously outdated drivers for the GeForce (purposely trying to hinder its performance) show a similar story.

    The X4500 also doesn't have the other benefits of a GeForce 8400M GS. Like dedicated memory and advanced video features. Sure the X4500 can decode an H.264 stream, but it doesn't have the other features the GeForce line is known for, like deblocking and such.

    The X4500 is just another failed attempt by Intel to make a respectable IGP. They fall way short of their claims of equal to dedicated GPUs and still fall short of IGPs made by nvidia and especially AMD/ATI.
     
  8. dnguyen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    #8
    maybe a bit unrelated but whats up with the onboard gpus now in macbooks? i don't really know how comparable the performance is, but the ibook g4 had a radeon 9550 w/ 32mb. what's up with newer macbooks going with onboard?
     
  9. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #9
    Profit margins. Its all about Apple making money.

    Barely a little over a year before the MacBook and Intel Mac mini were released, Steve Jobs stood up on stage and made fun of Intel GPUs in every way they could be made fun of. Talking about how the G4 Mac mini and its Radeon 9200 could play games and Intel GPUs could not.

    Fast forward a year and their most popular computer used Intel GPUs.

    The argument is that "with a dual-core processor, one core can do graphics and work with the graphics processor while the other core plays the games".

    The problem with that argument is that even the Radeon 9550 in the old iBook was SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the Core Duo (and Core 2 Duo) when it comes to the math required for 3D gaming.

    The difference in speed between CPUs and GPUs is even more staggering now. A GeForce 8400M GS can push blu-ray video while in a reduced power state. A Core 2 Duo at 2GHz would have to utilize both cores running at near full speed to decode the same video.

    Whats better is that the Apple TV has a GeForce Go 7200 in it! A $229 toy has dedicated graphics but a $1299 computer does not. Unbelievable.
     
  10. dnguyen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    #10
    mosx i think you're right.

    If the next macbook does not have some kind of dedicated gpu, or at least something from ati/nvidia i would be forced to make the jump to the next thing, the macbook pro.

    probably exactly what apple wants us to do. it sucks, but that's how it works, and i can understand it (but am not happy about it).
     
  11. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #11
    Or you can make the more sensible jump to cheaper and better hardware ;)

    Right now for $1200 over at HP you can get a system with the same CPU and RAM as a MBP, bigger HDD, and a GeForce 9600M GT 512MB, higher resolution screen (1680x1050) and real world 3.5 hour battery life.

    I also wanted to point out that the Apple TV actually has the GeForce Go 7300, not 7200.
     
  12. Cabbit macrumors 68020

    Cabbit

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Location:
    Scotland
    #12
    Switching to HP for people already running an OSX based computer is a costly exercise, the software investment people have can be into many thousands and then having to buy anti virus and anti spyware software then learning a different system that is not user friendly just to save a few bucks on a better paper specced computer, what else does the hp have a webcam?, wireless N?, backlight keyboard?, magnetic power adapter?(savior of many macbooks), Firewire 800?, Firewire 400?, a large touch pad that is responsive even with cookie crumbs on it(looking at you samsung), LED backlit screen?.
    To me that sounds like a lot to give up and a lot of money to put out for a bigger hard drive, higher resolution screen and equal to worse battery life, it has a GPU that benchmark a wee bit faster but will last as long as the GPU in the MBP in games as when games come that push the boundaries 10-20% is just 2FPs vs 3FPs both are unplayable. A smarter move would be to wait for the next MBP upgrade and see if it betters your needs or if you can justify buying the HP + software which is no small cost if your needs are MS Office and/or a Adobe suite its in the hundreds for windows versions to replace your Mac library, and you also have to work in things like scheduling hard drive defragmentations and the over head of running Windows Vista, including anyone with a sight problem that for quite a few due to the glow text on glass background it is impossible to tell the characters apart.
    The golden rule i would follow is unless your actively looking to change platforms it can be a very expensive process just to save some face value on hardware that seems a better deal.
     
  13. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #13
    Plus:

    Thats not necessarily true. If you bought multi-platform software, you can almost always call up the developer and have them transfer your license for either a very small fee (new discs) or free depending on the original method of purchase. Its a known fact that Adobe does this, and I can guarantee you that Microsoft would be MORE than happy to help you switch from Mac versions to Windows versions as easily as possible.

    You don't need to buy either one. If you're the type of person that visits shady websites, downloads the files they want you to despite the numerous warnings from Firefox 3 and IE7 (both of which will tell you its malware) and then you install it, despite Vista's warnings that its malware, and then run it, and then dismiss Windows Defender trying to stop it...

    You get my drift?

    And if you are the type of person who will do all of that, then there are freeware anti-virus and anti-spyware solutions for you that are generally better than their paid alternatives.

    Explain to me how Windows is not user-friendly? Keeping in mind that my Mac experience goes all the way back to System 7 in the early 90s and Windows to 3.0.

    1.3MP and 2MP webcams are basically standard on all notebook PCs and have been since 2006.

    Mostly standard. But when you consider that, unless you live in an Asian country, most internet connections fall well short of 802.11g speeds.....

    802.11n is still a draft spec too, so I actually would prefer an option with it.

    Backlit keyboard you mean? The most popular Apple notebook does not. If you're buying a notebook and you don't yet know how to properly type (keyboard is usually lit by the display anyway) then you probably should buy a cheaper desktop computer until you learn to use one properly. Also, a $5 backlight for the keys doesn't justify the usual $1,000 premium of the MacBook Pro.

    Also a known fire hazard http://store.apple.com/us/reviews/MA938LL/A?fnode=home/shop_mac/mac_accessories/portable_gear&rp=4 and poorly reviewed. You know, the MagSafe adapters are probably the only AC adapters for notebook computers to ever require TWO support pages at the manufacturer's website for proper disconnection and storage? http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1630 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1453

    Why do I need Firewire 800 when almost nothing supports it? Why do I need Firewire 800 when eSATA is now standard on most PC notebooks and more devices support eSATA now than ever did Firewire 800?

    Firewire 400, while useless, has been standard in notebook PCs for many years now.

    Not all of us are pigs ;)

    Apple's own words when the LED backlit MBP launched last year.. they specifically stated that users would NOT notice any difference in image quality when using a LED backlight versus the old CCFL lights. Their reason for going LED was for environmental purposes, longer life, and going green. Not image quality improvements according to Apple. Only according to the fans who compared them to their old worn out screens.

    Whats unplayable? The 9600M GT in the HP can play all modern games at high settings at native resolution. The 8600M GT in the MBP has already hit a wall and the people I know with that GPU already have to lower settings to medium or low and bump the resolution down, sometimes to 1024x768 from the MBP's native 1440x900.

    For $800 less than the MacBook Pro you get a higher resolution screen, bigger HDD (that is USER replaceable!), considerably faster GPU (even the 9600M GS is faster than the 8600M GT) with double the memory. For $200 more, $600 less than the MBP, you get blu-ray. Even without the blu-ray option you still get other features the MBP at $2,000 doesn't have.HDMI output, VGA, S-Video, memory card reader, full size ExpressCard, fingerprint reader, etc. Don't bring up the DVI out on the MacBook Pro either. Any respectable display sold today (again, not Apple's!) will have HDCP certified HDMI input.

    Unlike OS X, Windows actually has a very large selection of freeware that is sometimes better than paid software. With OS X, every software developer wants $10 here $15 there, etc.

    Versus the $2,000 MBP, you can buy an HP plus any software you might, but won't, need and still have several hundred dollars left.

    Defragmenting the HDD is no more time consuming than having to run Onyx every so often or repairing disk permissions for no real reason ;)

    What overhead of running Vista? Do you only believe what Apple tells you? Well, I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but its been a known fact for a long time now that Vista SP1 with updated drivers is every bit as fast as XP SP3 on the same hardware. For some people, like me, Vista is faster than XP on the same hardware.

    Thanks to Vista's caching techniques, your most used software on Windows will load faster after a fresh boot than the same software on OS X ;)

    What? You're just pulling things out of thin air now.

    As I said, more often than not you can speak with the software developer and get the license transferred for free or for a small fee if you purchased physical media. Not only that, but you buy more powerful hardware with PCs that cost anywhere from $800 to $1000 less than a Mac in the same category (never equivalently spec'ed, the Mac is always behind). Over the course of say... 10 years, you'll get more powerful hardware and save thousands of dollars buying PCs instead of Macs.

    Even in a hypothetical situation where you did have to repurchase software, you'd most certainly make up for it in the long run. Much cheaper hardware overall, and less repair/warranty costs will save you much more money in the long run compared to the cost of owning a Mac and then maintaining it out of warranty. Sometimes even in warranty, considering how much is NOT covered by AppleCare and how Apple likes to use any excuse possible to try to weasel they're way out of their obligations.
     
  14. Drumjim85 macrumors 68030

    Drumjim85

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Location:
    DFW, TX
    #14
    here we go again.. Troll, troll, troll.

    And FireWire 400 isn't useless BECAUSE it is a standard.
     
  15. Jak3 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #15
    1759MB? Are you sure?

    that's about 1.7GB, most dedicated GFX cards have between 256-765MB, with the highest end cards having 1GB and one I think the Mac Pro has is 1.5GB...how does a integrated card get 1.7GB? I think these are theoretical numbers not achievable in RL...if so, I want to see pics...:eek:

    edit: and 2.4GHz processor would bottleneck that much GFX card memory anyway, my 3.0GHz C2D bottlenecks my 1GB GFX card memory speed...so these are not only meaningless, but useless numbers as well....
     
  16. Brien macrumors 68020

    Brien

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #16
    This is the argument from ten years ago. Yes, you can probably get more with an HP, but an HP can't run OS X (legally).

    Plus, USB 3.0 will probably make FireWire and eSATA pointless.
     
  17. Amoeba macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    #17
    Will this new graphics card be able to support a game like starcraft 2?
     
  18. Cabbit macrumors 68020

    Cabbit

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Location:
    Scotland
  19. Cabbit macrumors 68020

    Cabbit

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Location:
    Scotland
    #19
    Oh well thanks for the amusement.
     
  20. nick9191 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Britain
    #20
    No.

    USB 2 has a theoretical speed of 480mb. Firewire 400 has a theoretical speed of 400mb. However USB does not have its own dedicated controller like Firewire does and never reaches a quarter of the speed of Firewire.

    I'd estimate that USB 3 which runs at a theoretical speed of 4800mb wont even manage to keep up with Firewire 800, let alone the upcoming Firewire 3200 specification that has been approved.
     
  21. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #21
    The only device I've ever owned that had Firewire support was my very first iPod. Even all of the DV cams I've dealt with in recent years have been USB only. Every external device out there is USB 2.0 and many now have eSATA support (more than Firewire!).

    So? Thats more of an advantage than a disadvantage ;) This is a thread about graphics processors. In this case, Vista is what you want to run. I'll take an HP that costs $800 less than a Mac in the same category, when the HP has more powerful hardware and an OS that will let me take full advantage of said hardware.

    USB 3.0 is a way off though. eSATA is here now and in many PCs and products. Thanks to full size ExpressCard slots being standard in Windows notebooks, just about anyone can add an eSATA port or few.

    Thanks for giving up and realizing you were wrong ;)
     
  22. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #22
    Oh please.

    USB 2.0's speed is dependent on the speed of the device and the quality of the controllers.

    Neither USB 2.0 or Firewire currently "max out" their bandwidth with the devices they are designed for. Show me an external HDD that can write at the full 400, 800, or 480Mbps the interfaces are supposedly capable of.
     
  23. Cabbit macrumors 68020

    Cabbit

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Location:
    Scotland
    #23
    Hey i like continued amusement that is all you humans are really any good for i love it when someone things there right or makes assumptions just silly human nature i guess perhaps one day i will care to explore such things but for now i am happier not bothering about how someone can write with feeling and personal experience and not pure fact.
     
  24. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #24
    Not pure fact? I'm sorry, but it is pure fact that you can buy much faster PC hardware for sometimes as much as half the cost of a Mac.

    Again, that HP is $1200 and it ships with a faster GPU, bigger HDD, and connectivity and ports the MBP lacks. Such as full size ExpressCard, HDMI, memory card readers, VGA, S-Video, eSATA, fingerprint readers, expansion slots, etc.

    That is a fact and no amount of being silly and sarcastic can change that fact.
     
  25. jojo13 macrumors 6502

    jojo13

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008

Share This Page