Why Apple doesn't use high end gfx cards?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by svalentine, Mar 7, 2009.

  1. svalentine macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #1
    I can understand using some of the cards they use in the standard MB model, but for the pro model when we are spending around 3k we should be getting the latest in graphics, such as these two cards

    http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gtx_280m_us.html

    http://ati.amd.com/products/mobilityradeonhd4800/index.html

    Why does Apple always wait for a refresh then just adding new graphics cards when they come out? We can upgrade RAM and HDDs in our laptops ourselves, but not graphics without spending another 3k.
     
  2. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #2
    Because we already have a thread on this.

    That, and they don't really care. It's better for business to make people buy new.
     
  3. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #3
    Power requirements. The 9600GT chip requires 23 watts of power, which is already up from the 8600GT using 20 watts of power. Added with a potential 35 watt max CPU, you're looking at near 60 watts of power just for two parts.
     
  4. Patriks7 macrumors 65816

    Patriks7

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #4
    And heat. The 9600M gets hot enough. I can't imagine having anything stronger. But I'm guessing one of the next updates will add the 9650M.
     
  5. cathyy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    #5
    Pardon me for being so blunt, but don't be so freaking stupid and do at least some freaking research before posting utter rubbish like this.

    No manufacturer other than Sager and Alienware puts in such powerful cards like this inside 15.4" notebooks, not even the weaker 9700M GTS. Even then, the notebooks offered by Sager and Alienware are HUGE and THICK in order to handle the amount of heat produced by powerful cards such as this. You'd probably need to double the thickness of the MBP in order to handle it, as well as add another 1.5 - 2kg to it's weight. If you don't do this, you're likely to damage your entire chassis as well as damage other electrical components of the notebook.

    Also there's the power constraint. Cards such as these requires around 75W of power. It may not sound much to you, but the 8600M GT and the 9600M GT only require 20 - 23W, whereas Intel's P series processors use up only 25W, and their T series processors use up 35W.
     
  6. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #6
    Wow, talk about an overreaction. :rolleyes:



    Personally, I think the graphics cards in the current MBP is fine when you take power consumption and cost into account.

    I guess I wouldn't mind if a 9650M GT or GT 130M was included instead of the 9600M GT, but the only difference between them is a slightly higher clock speed for the same power consumption. You wouldn't see a massive difference for gaming unless we went to the GT 130M.
     
  7. bossxii macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Location:
    Kansas City
    #7
    Clicking on the top link...

    "GeForce GTX 280M is the world’s fastest notebook GPU for extreme gamers."

    Aside from the points listed above, power, heat etc... I personally don't think Apple is chasing this market segment. Aside from a handful of of "gamers" converting to Mac's I think the general attitude of gamers/hard core gamers is all about hardware spec's and they build their own desktops with the top end components.

    Apple promotes ease of use, "green" computers, less hassle to use "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" to appeal to mainstream users, not gamers. They are targeting a wide demographic of people and putting the highest end components would drive costs higher, profit margins lower to satisfy a small segment of the market based on who all uses the MBP.
     
  8. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #8
    Considering Apple's current cards are downclocked to reduce heat and power usage -- it doesn't look good for more powerful cards.
     
  9. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #9
    That's why you overclock in Windows. :cool:

    To stock speeds. :eek:
     
  10. kastenbrust macrumors 68030

    kastenbrust

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #10
    and then two weeks later come on here and complain your graphics card isn't working, and your getting green lines on your screen :cool:
     
  11. J the Ninja macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    #11
    Then declare Charlie at the Inquirer totally correct.
     
  12. simonpickard macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    #12
    Do many people overclock their gfx cards in windows for gaming? I guess you have to set the fans anyhow so with this in mind should overclocking be ok?

    It's not like your stressing the gfx chip is it.. You're just resetting it to default.

    Regards,
    Simon
     
  13. brop52 macrumors 68000

    brop52

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Location:
    Michigan
    #13
    The way Macs are designed is to be quiet and thin. One of the perks is that they keep cool and have better battery life. Of course the power suffers, but that's just the route Apple takes.
     
  14. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #14
    Energy consumption, thermal envelope support and the insane need for a high profit margin
     
  15. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #15
    I take it you never overclocked your Mac's video card to stock speeds then? :D

    Apple has been failing hard lately with their laptop cards though.
     
  16. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #16
    It's all nVidia's fault :(
     
  17. RexTraverse macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    #17
    Only in Apple-land is bringing an underclocked GPU back to spec "overclocking". Imagine what would happen if we started playing with water cooling, refrigeration, or Cupertino-forbid... liquid nitrogen. I think Phil Schiller's head would asplode.
     
  18. kastenbrust macrumors 68030

    kastenbrust

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #18
    Apple used water cooling before it even existed for PC's, over a decade ago. They quickly realized its all one big scam and moved on.
     
  19. cathyy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    #19
    Many cards are overclockable by about 100MHz. As long as the temperatures stay cool and there are no artifacts, it should be fine. If not then you could be damaging your chip. I used to overclock my 8600M GT but I didn't really see any significant temperature gains. 80 C -> 82 C. Not enough to kill it. Could vary from user to user though.

    And no, my graphics card isn't dead yet. 11 months and still going strong. :p

    Yea, sorry. =/
     
  20. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #20
    I'd prefer more ATI cards but that's just from experience. ;)

    My X1600 in my old iMac did hit some nice clocks before bluescreening. My 4830 puts the stock 4850 to shame in clock speed and it's passively cooled.

    [sarcasm]Why on earth would anyone do that. :rolleyes: [/sarcasm]

    At least we got liquid cooled Power Mac G5 but those are dropping like flies in plenty cases. :(
     

Share This Page