cuz obvioulsy the only spec that is important is price which by his statement leads one to believe that apple makes much much better computers than others you can buy
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.
why do macs use lower end video chips etc?
- Thread starter ranmart
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
cuz obvioulsy the only spec that is important is price which by his statement leads one to believe that apple makes much much better computers than others you can buy
oh. yeah, i realize he was trying to mislead people, but I still wonder, disregard the price, what graphic card, cpu and ram in that alienware that perform "far worse" than his spanking new MBP.
Be careful on what you say here!
I know a couple of applications that were the P4 running at 3GHz would out perform the C2D 2.0GHz easily. It does depend on the application that you are using the Processors.
On the other hand a Core i7 running at 3.0GHz verse a C2D running at 3.0GHz. The i7 would kick the C2Ds ass every single time in any application.
(Comparing apples to apples no pun intended)
Your argument is lame when comes the graphics cards... I reminds me of Computer catalogs that I receive at home.
Yes the ATi 2400 has 512MB More VRAM than the 4870
But. The 4870 Memory Runs at 3600MHz which is 2000MHz faster than the 2400.
The 4870 Core runs at 750MHz. 50MHz faster than the 2400's Core.(Which is a lot for a GPU)
You are only Showing one part of the Information neglecting many other Details.
Too much of one thing is really bad. A even spread on them all, makes a Balanced Computer.
I find Apple has done a really good job in this area. They build really balanced computers. People are complaining about the GPU but what about the rest of the computer? Laptops Need a lower powered GPU for extended battery life.
I did read a review recently a company made a laptop which is really powerful but it had only 15minutes of battery life.. which is useless.
My argument was hypothetically showing that Graphics RAM doesnt mean a lot compared to other things the graphics chips have to offer, which i did in the simplest and most effective way possible for a noob. I didnt really care about the technical details, %'s etc between the 2400 and 4870, it didnt matter about the cores between them because i was trying to show a simplified version of what you wrote, that the RAM isnt important because even though the 4870 has less its stil way way faster than the 2400.
i wasn't trying to mislead anyone, i just think you have trouble understanding my post.
28 posts in, and nobody has answered the OP's question.
It all comes down to the bottom line. How can Apple make the most money, which really is the point in a public corporation.
Until people demand better, Apple will keep selling most of its Macs with inferior components. I do love my MBA, but I admit it's fairly sick to spend $2499 on a Mac notebook that doesn't even have a dedicated graphics card. Sure the Nvidia GPU does ok, but I expect more for my money at this price point. However, I may expect better, but I reward Apple by buying the Macs with inferior components.
One other thing I have noticed, everyone waits for component upgrades and model changes and jumps at the new product buying them up. Even when, most of the time, the power is already outdated. Take the new MBPs, are the CPUs really progressing in the MBP the same as in other computer manufacturers computers? The dual graphics are sorta cool on the low end for battery life, but shouldn't people expect a little nicer dedicated graphics card? Especially at $1999 and $2499.
I would be happy if Apple just gave us more BTO options which would include higher-grade graphics cards, and Applecould make more money on upsales. That doesn't really fit the Apple model either. Because Apple believes it knows best for all of us. And, what's best in Apple's eyes for the majority, is what everyone will get.
Until sales DROP, Apple is going to keep serving up mediocre computers, with OS X which is why we buy them, and charging us too much for the technology we get. Until Apple sales DROP across the board, we will keep getting medium grade graphics cards in our High Priced Macs.
But we will all just keep buying, never demanding more, and acting like we love the deal we are getting.
It all comes down to the bottom line. How can Apple make the most money, which really is the point in a public corporation.
Until people demand better, Apple will keep selling most of its Macs with inferior components. I do love my MBA, but I admit it's fairly sick to spend $2499 on a Mac notebook that doesn't even have a dedicated graphics card. Sure the Nvidia GPU does ok, but I expect more for my money at this price point. However, I may expect better, but I reward Apple by buying the Macs with inferior components.
One other thing I have noticed, everyone waits for component upgrades and model changes and jumps at the new product buying them up. Even when, most of the time, the power is already outdated. Take the new MBPs, are the CPUs really progressing in the MBP the same as in other computer manufacturers computers? The dual graphics are sorta cool on the low end for battery life, but shouldn't people expect a little nicer dedicated graphics card? Especially at $1999 and $2499.
I would be happy if Apple just gave us more BTO options which would include higher-grade graphics cards, and Applecould make more money on upsales. That doesn't really fit the Apple model either. Because Apple believes it knows best for all of us. And, what's best in Apple's eyes for the majority, is what everyone will get.
Until sales DROP, Apple is going to keep serving up mediocre computers, with OS X which is why we buy them, and charging us too much for the technology we get. Until Apple sales DROP across the board, we will keep getting medium grade graphics cards in our High Priced Macs.
But we will all just keep buying, never demanding more, and acting like we love the deal we are getting.
An overall better computer
The Apple philosophy goes for fiablity and stability, and the best compromise for the intended use.
The worst enemy of a portable computer is heat. It damages components and means energy lost which means shorter life for batteries.
In other words, you can't have it both ways, you have to make choices. It's up to the consummer to decide if you made the wise one.
The Apple philosophy goes for fiablity and stability, and the best compromise for the intended use.
The worst enemy of a portable computer is heat. It damages components and means energy lost which means shorter life for batteries.
In other words, you can't have it both ways, you have to make choices. It's up to the consummer to decide if you made the wise one.
Because OS X is not made for games, but for real work. There are gaming consoles for games, you know.
It's kinda like having a Honda Civic and a Ferrari F430. You could strip out all the excess weight from the Honda (adding VRAM), but it still won't be as fast as the Ferrari. The superior engine (graphics card with more shaders, high clock, better bandwidth blah blah blah) will still win easily. More VRAM can increase performance (to a certain point), but doesn't make too much of a difference once you're at 512 MB compared to other things.
Problem is that Apple only really updates components together, so if they don't feel like updating the processor, they won't update the graphics card. If the iMac had today's equivalent graphics cards (so replace the 2600 Pro with a 4670), it would be very reasonable. It's a shame really because everyone except Apple suffers. Hopefully, with OpenCL around the corner, Apple will be encouraged to use better graphics cards.
well he has a point here, in Belgium a mac is only sold to architects, designers of some kind, ...
i support his opinion here. Altough my brandnew macbook runs every game without any problem =D but for the real deal i got an xbox360 & a desktop PC (intel Q8200, 3GB DDR800, 8800GTX)
So in Belgium you have to be an architect to be able to buy a Mac?
Macs are common in design workplaces because designers care about how things look. A big ugly desktop system doesn't look sleek at all. Where as an iMac or Mac Pro with Cinema Display looks really sexy. It fits perfectly in a design environment.
Doesn't mean Macs are "better" for designing stuff or doing "real" work - but generally people enjoy using Macs more because of OS X. The keyboard commands, the layout (Dock, Finder) and the way Apple thinks the system should work.
No because the goal is to have computers that are not loud, don't burn people, and certainly thin and light; things that can't be achieved with quad core CPUs and enthusiast graphics cards.
ok, enough with the $4000 PC discussion. It was a passing comment and it has nothing to do with this thread. Seriously - just stop it.
To the original point - thye use lower end video cards because they are cheaper and yet perfectly good for 99% of users. The radeon 2600 in my imac is a pretty old/low-mid range card at this point, but my imac can still run damn near every game out there. Ok maybe it can't do Crysis at full settings, but it can do Crysis at low settings, and that game is about as demanding as there is.
And this is the mid-range imac card.
I can see how really high-end options would be nice for those few people who actually care about getting 100 fps with everything maxed in Crysis, but frankly, those people are going to build their own PCs anyway.
Bottom line, find me a game that the high end imac/mac pro with 8800 can't run pretty darn well and then we'll talk. (and keep in mind that both of those machines are well overdue for an update)
To the original point - thye use lower end video cards because they are cheaper and yet perfectly good for 99% of users. The radeon 2600 in my imac is a pretty old/low-mid range card at this point, but my imac can still run damn near every game out there. Ok maybe it can't do Crysis at full settings, but it can do Crysis at low settings, and that game is about as demanding as there is.
And this is the mid-range imac card.
I can see how really high-end options would be nice for those few people who actually care about getting 100 fps with everything maxed in Crysis, but frankly, those people are going to build their own PCs anyway.
Bottom line, find me a game that the high end imac/mac pro with 8800 can't run pretty darn well and then we'll talk. (and keep in mind that both of those machines are well overdue for an update)
Since this topic has already gone so far off topic...
All I know is that for the $1200 dollars I spent on my iMac a year ago, it would've been nice to have a slightly better GPU in it. If Apple can't keep up with hardware technology, there's a good chance my next computer will be built by myself. I love OS X, but I appreciate value even more.
All I know is that for the $1200 dollars I spent on my iMac a year ago, it would've been nice to have a slightly better GPU in it. If Apple can't keep up with hardware technology, there's a good chance my next computer will be built by myself. I love OS X, but I appreciate value even more.
im sure architects, designers uses windows too
i don't think only 5% of computer users are doing "real work", while 95% are just playing.
There is absolutely no valid point there.
since Im not research very well, help me find a 2009 pc laptop at $4000 that runs game crappier than 2009 MBP.
You macbook air is the thinest lightest notebook on the planet. It's got great components when you think of it that way.
It's almost like people freaking want apple to stick a mac pro in their macbook air for 2500 bucks. That's not happening people. If apple didn't charge what they did, they couldn't spend as much money on innovation. Have you realized that? It's about making money, yes of course. But innovation costs time and money.
Apple is not Dell. Apple simply cares about the products they push out the door. They are not making mediocre computers. They make the best computers in the world. It's because they match and engineer their hardware and software together.
hmpf, my macbook has a 9400M gpu i think? and my other (windows based) laptop has a 9500M with dedicated memory instead of shared like the mac.
conclusion: Mac is also better for gaming, and in theory my other laptop should be better?
apple doesnt even need better hardware, for some reason.. so dont whine you dont have the latest GPU in a mac, let them make it their way, its obviously going better than the rest.
..... is your conclusion derived from the facts? if so, can you explain abit how you reached your conclusion?
I dunno, statements like that just don't work. Apple is not Dell, that's for sure. Any problems I've had with Dell products, Dell fixed them without question, under the 4 year warranty that came with it. Apple won't talk to me about my new MBP issues. You'll find people with stories from both sides.
Apple's computer designs (as of the last few years, mind you) are incredible and people really should consider it a feature that you pay a premium for. As far as cheap components...hey, they like a buck just as much as the next company.
except its not.
I guess you are asking people to accept the fallacy and be happy about the lies.
I quoted you because you challenged the poster that challenged my post, and I am agreeing with you.
Well, this is true. And, I did not compare my Apple MacBook Air to a Dell anyways. I simply said it's tough to "WANT" to buy a Mac, yes the OS X is it for most of us, when it costs $2499 and doesn't even have dedicated graphics... my point, is Apple is really making money by offering middle grade components and charging HIGH END PRICING for them.
Also agreeing with you that I can see the problem with what is happening.
I am an Apple NUT. I buy a lot of their products. I think I have the right to state that I am paying a LOT of MONEY for a medium grade component list. Judging from ALL of their Macs, except the MAC PRO, they use low grade or medium grade components and sell them in higher priced machines, BY FAR, then PC counterparts.
That is a LOT of money to be paying for Mac OS X, and I am willing to do it, but I really wish I would get what I paid for... While stating that, I am amazingly happy about how my MBA performs and looks, but I still think it should do more AT LOWER SPEEDS... Dedicated graphics is not an "advanced" or "high-end" feature even. So the MBA is thin, BUT come ON, that is no reason.
What about the MacBook Pro? Is that really a nice high end graphics card? In a PC, what kind of graphics can you get in a computer that costs $1999 and $2499? We all agree that the MBP is high-end and does not have a high-end graphics card right? We all agree that a middle grade PC has a dedicated memory graphics card right?
Bottom line is we are paying for innovation and design of exterior but we often get the shaft when it comes to components. Let's face it, we are Mac OS X users, and there is no alternative hardware CHOICES other than Apple. Really Apple has all its bases covered. Great for a public corporation to make lots of money... and obviously it has us all really sold on the Mac OS X, because we are willing to accept less quality/speed in components for the quality of OS, the stability of Mac, and the innovation and design in trackpad, design of exterior and overall system.
There's a lot of truth to this statement although you're close to sound like an Apple apologist brushing aside the fact that they're lagging behind.
Regardless, I have a 24-inch 2.8 Ghz Aluminum iMac that runs Bioshock full screen and all graphics options cranked up high without a hitch. And yes, I know Bioshock is old news to the gaming crowd, but that's still nothing to sneeze at. The point is, even with Apple not offering top-of-the-line GPUs, you still get perfectly reasonable performance out of it.
There are some professions out there that demand high-end cards and that group is either not on Macs or buying MacPros. I don't think people demanding cutting-edge graphics performance are eyeing the iMacs or MacBooks so you can see Apple's rationale behind not staying more up-to-date.
But, there I go too, getting close to sounding like an apologist.
While the graphics cards in Macs aren't the best, they're certainly more than adequate -- and by no means does that make our computers "mediocre", as you say. Macs have many great features and always use top-of-the-line components; you'll never see a Mac with an Intel Celeron processor, because they suck. Plenty of PC manufactures will put it in there though to drive down the cost of their machines and try to attract average consumers based on the cost.
Apple does it the other way, however. They use top-of-the-line components which, when showed off to the average consumer, will make the differences between a Mac and a PC like night and day. Most average customers don't need a super powerful graphics card to do their basic work, but they do need a good processor so that everything loads quickly (i.e. Intel Core 2 Duo). And that's what the average computer user is looking for.
Any consumer who even knows how a graphics card works isn't who Apple is targeting. They're targeting the people who just want a machine that will run well, and because Apple makes the computer, the operating system, and the applications, they're all literally made for each other.
That's what makes the Mac so appealing.