What motivates Apple's choice of MBP GPUs?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by fpsBeaTt, Apr 18, 2010.

  1. fpsBeaTt Suspended

    fpsBeaTt

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    #1
    Hi all. New to this forum, and about to purchase a 17". I'm not getting it for gaming, but primarily as a work/study/entertainment machine. However, if one were to be programming and testing games on this machine, one would want a suitably powerful GPU. Apple has again not done this, as they did with the 9600m GT.

    What I have done is compare the GT330m with two other candidates, ones which are far more powerful and use less than or the same power as the 330m (which also produce less heat). These candidates are the mobility HD5650 and HD5730, using 15-19 and 26 watts respectively (the 330m using 26 watts). The 5650, let alone the 5730 blow the 330m into the weeds using less power, and producing less heat. So I ask; WTF APPLE?!?!
     
  2. Anonymous Freak macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #2
    At present, the only conclusion I can come up with is that nVidia has spent more time/effort in getting a workable "on demand" GPU switching solution working in conjunction with the Intel HD Graphics.

    AMD has said they have similar technology, but it's possible that nVidia was more willing to work with Apple, so Apple went with nVidia again.
     
  3. Dwalls90 macrumors 601

    Dwalls90

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    #3
    They've never used the latest or greatest, never-mind the best performing GPU's ... they almost always use the previous generation low-middle of the range mobile GPU's. It's been that way nearly forever, and will probably be forever :mad:
     
  4. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
  5. fpsBeaTt thread starter Suspended

    fpsBeaTt

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    #5
    You're kidding right? Do you know how cheaply Apple would get those GPUs for? Even if they had to pay full retail, they'd still make a hefty profit on the MBPs. But anyway, I thought Apple had decided to dump NVidia, not only because they're getting creamed, but because of the trouble Apple had with them.
    Also, I might want to emphasise, they should have chosen a 5650. It uses up to 40% less power, produces less heat and creams the GT330. They'd be able to replace the 330 with that for a very small capital. I'm not sure how NVidia would have made themselves seem more available to Apple than AMD; AMD's a guaranteed winner with the current gen of GPUs and would boost MBP sales considerably.
     
  6. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #6
    No, that's why I asked? Do you know?
     
  7. fpsBeaTt thread starter Suspended

    fpsBeaTt

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    #7
    lol, not exactly. However, based on the desktop GPU market probably for around the same price. ATI is absolutely creaming NVidia in every shape/form. Price to performance, raw power, power consumption, across the board. Which is why I don't understand, if AMD/ATI has an equivalent to hybrid power, why Apple chose NVidia:p It's just stupid.
     
  8. Sn0wball macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Location:
    England
    #8
    Considering how overly priced the Macbook Pro's are, Apple should put better GPUs in them.
     
  9. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #9
    What motivates Apple's choice of MBP GPUs?


    TDP, I.E. it can fit in a stunning less then 1 inch thick laptop. Battery life.
    Apples commitment to it's suppliers. This is why I think they have gone for Intel and Nvidia still rather then ATI plus the fact they have made there own optimus technology which works better, again this is for battery life as well as ease of use which is what Mac's are all about.
     
  10. Horseapple macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    #10
    size?

    Are those other models physically larger in size?
     
  11. fpsBeaTt thread starter Suspended

    fpsBeaTt

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    #11

    1. OK then; size, the 5650 < GT330m = 5730. Battery life, 5650 < GT330m >=5730. Commitment to their suppliers? They've had ATI cards in the MBPs before, and currently have an ATI card in their top end desktop products. Also ATI have never given Apple trouble like NVidia did with the 8600m GTs. Optimus technology? ATI have an equivalent of that. Ease of use? How would putting a more powerful, more energy efficient, cooler and possibly cheaper GPU which has all the features and more of the GT330m hinder ease of use? That makes no sense @ all, and ATI actually make more stable drivers for their GPUs. Sounds like ATI win for ease of use and battery life to me:p

    2. No, the 5650 is actually smaller than the 330m, and the 5730 about the same.
     
  12. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #12
    Ah I see, you have thrown your toys out of your pram because they chose to use Nvidia instead of ATI. Oh well tough :rolleyes:.

    Oh and your first posts question:
    However, if one were to be programming and testing games on this machine

    One, a MB Pro would not be used for this task and two, Mac's use Open GL remember, to which point the Nvidia will be the same as ATI anyway. They both use OpenGL 3.2 support and also Wikipedia states a TDP of 23 for the 30 and

    Unless Steve is holding a loaded gun to your head why do you even care?
     
  13. therealseebs macrumors 65816

    therealseebs

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    #13
    Why not? If I have to travel, what am I gonna do, lug around a Mac Pro?

    No, it won't. It'll be a lot slower. ATI's been good about OpenGL all along.

    Well, I can't speak for him, but I care because:
    1. I really do need a Unix-based laptop.
    2. I like a lot of things OS X offers enough to pay for them.
    3. I would really like good graphics performance.
    4. I'd be quite willing to pay $2499 instead of $2299 as a base price if it got me that decent performance.

    Basically, if the only people selling something that I can use insist on selling something I can use, but which will be sort of lame, when they could easily and cheaply sell me something which would be awesome, I don't see why I should pretend not to dislike it.

    Sure, the alternatives are, for my purposes, worse. Doesn't mean this one's very good. I would not recommend these machines to someone who doesn't have my specific and fairly unusual requirements, because the graphics hardware in them is, well, unimpressive, and certainly not appropriate for the top-of-the-line flagship models.
     
  14. joina macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bath,uk
    #14
    CHEAP....i think that is the only reason..elsewise they gonna get ATI 5XXX for much powerful and more battery life
     
  15. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #15
    OpenCL? nVidia's CUDA is far more advanced then ATI's version right now for that.
     
  16. quackquack macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    #16
    This. I'm not a graphics guy, but I've been told that CUDA makes nvidia cards more desirable for users of adobe products (like photoshop).
     
  17. fpsBeaTt thread starter Suspended

    fpsBeaTt

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    #17
    "See the Apple fanboy in his natural environment; watch as he foams @ the mouth while vigorously attempting to fend off any attacks on Steve":rolleyes:

    You are under the assumption that I am annoyed because Apple chose NVidia over ATI. Not at all; whatever company has the superior product doesn't bother me, whether it be NVidia or ATI (like when the 8 series were out, NVidia was pwning ATI and the 8600m GT was a great choice @ the time). To simply generalise that I am annoyed @ the fact that NVidia is used simply because it's NOT ATI is asinine. Now, I shall address your hollow points one by one.

    1. Yes, people would be programming and testing games on this machine. It is marketed and always has been as a work powerhouse. You are right now contradicting Apple's own marketing.

    2.What version of Open GL is being used is irrelevant; what is in question here is the size, power usage and performance of alternate GPUs. In this category, the 5650 (16 to 19 watts) THRASHES the GT330m, while the 5730 equals it in power consumption with the performance gap being increased even further. Also, wikipedia is not a valid source for information.

    3.The 5650 @ least, is cooler, faster and more energy efficient than the GT330m. This is the best choice for maximum battery life and better performance. If one wants the same battery life with even more performance, one would choose the mobility 5730. End of story, facts irrefutable.
     
  18. fpsBeaTt thread starter Suspended

    fpsBeaTt

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    #18
    Simply put, wrong.
     
  19. cathyy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    #19
    They have actually. For most of 2007, the 8600M GT was the most powerful DX10 card around. After the introduction of the 8800M GT, the 8600M GT remained as the most powerful mid-range card until mid-2008 when the 9600M GT (rebrand) came out.

    PS: I'm fairly certain the X1600 was one of the best mid-range laptop graphic cards at it's time too.
     
  20. fpsBeaTt thread starter Suspended

    fpsBeaTt

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    #20
    HERE HERE! Someone with a reasonable memory!
     
  21. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #21
    Er, not really, you have only just made your account and the first thing you have done is make a tread bitching and moaning about the GPU's in the new MB Pro :rolleyes: If you don't like it buy something else, Jesus, is it that hard?

    Well reading your posts it's pretty clear you would rather have an ATI GPU.

    Who exactly would choose a MB Pro over a Mac Pro or imac to program games on that run on Open GL. You HAVE to be referring to OPEN GL otherwise your talking DirectX.
    And the MB Pro is the only 15" model in the range, just because it says Pro doesn't mean only Pro's can use it even though tons of Pros do.
    Actually, the last time I saw adverts for Macs laptops they certainly weren't aimed at pros.

    So you are talking in DirectX terms then? OpenGL DOES matter as it would be the language you would be programming in. And Cuda does a damn good job of it, as stated it's better at Open CL too.

    Erm, you have yet to post any links to any of your irrefutable facts, in fact you claim that the ATI chips are cheaper then admit you have no idea how much they cost.
    And I want a link to prove the ATI version of Optimus, well Apples version to be specific.
     
  22. Meever macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    #22
    If we have that switch to AMD we wouldn't have to settle. Lets hope for the best. Maybe the next revision will get us a AMD processor a 5830 replacement and a new design. Oh man, that would have me jump the fence in a heartbeat. Nvidia has been just failing horribly....
     
  23. fpsBeaTt thread starter Suspended

    fpsBeaTt

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    #23
    1. I made my account several posts earlier; LIKE THE FIRST POST I MADE, regardless of manufacturer I stated why TWO SPECIFIC CARDS WERE SUPERIOR.

    2.AS I SAID TO ANYONE WHO CAN UNDERSTAND ENGLISH, the brand is irrelevant. The fact that a different brand has two such products which would suit Apple's design paradigm better is inconsequential.

    3.By your reasoning, what is the point in having a laptop over a desktop? SO YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU DO ON A DESKTOP WHEREVER YOU ARE.

    4.What adverts have you been seeing? JUST LOOK @ THE MACBOOK PRO MAIN PAGE.

    5."And the MB Pro is the only 15" model in the range" WTF does that mean? Get off the drugs.

    6.Um, ATI stream technology is just as good as CUDA, and you'd have a more powerful, more energy efficient, cooler and smaller GPU to do the same job. So again, you choose to ignore facts and cherry pick figures WHICH HAVE NO RELATION to the argument and are UNSUBSTANTIATED and thus skew the overall point.

    7.I don't know the exact figure, but if the desktop GPUs are anything to go by then if anything the ATI solution would be cheaper. And in what screwed up logic is a minuscule difference in price of any consequence in a $2300 machine?!?

    8.ATI cards have interchangeable options (between an integrated and dedicated GPU).

    9.You are clearly a rabid Apple fanboy who wishes to skew figures and statements made by others which happen to contradict your narrow view; do you not realise that criticism is good for the consumer, which is what Apple is:p A CONSUMER BASED COMPANY. Yeah, lets just give Apple nothing but praise, then they'll just keep putting underpowered crap in their machines and everyone will be happy and stupid enough to buy them.
     
  24. grahamnp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #25
    I believe that AMD's in-house hybrid graphics solution is designed to work with AMD processors but seeing that Apple managed to make switchable graphics work with an Nvidia GPU without optimus, I'm sure they could have made it work anyway.

    I'm pretty sure it all comes down to cost. The lower power consumption of the ATI would improve the already excellent battery life and the fact that the GT 330Ms are underclocked shows that they are using too much power or running too hot, both issues would be solved by going with the 5650.

    It's not stupid, watch Apple's financial report.
     

Share This Page