Will Macbook ever get independent graphical memory?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by macgeek77, Jun 28, 2007.

  1. macgeek77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    #1
    My question is exactly what the title says. I was curious about that for when I get my new laptop in a year. Thanks.
     
  2. dartzorichalcos macrumors 65816

    dartzorichalcos

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    Atlantis
    #2
    The iBook G4 had a dedicated graphics card so I don't see why wouldn't the MacBook have a dedicated graphics card.
     
  3. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #3
    I doubt it, it's been all integrated graphics since the intel move.
     
  4. Mr. MacBook macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    #4
    Hope apple will come to its senses. Stop taking all the money from MacBook sales, get guts, and put like a radeon x1600 in there or something... cheaper, maybe, like nvidia's geforce 7400, or maybe radeon x700
     
  5. heySparky macrumors regular

    heySparky

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #5
    I don't think it will happen. Macbook is a consumer product, budget is a big issue for consumers. Having a independent graphics processor/memory is a "pro" feature. You get it with a Macbook Pro. It is one of the things that differentiates the two.
     
  6. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #6
    Apple's relationship with Intel is too strong. The MacBook will transition to the X3100 next. That will bring it just under the Radeon X1300 in performance (funny coincidence, no?).
     
  7. Fayler macrumors regular

    Fayler

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    #7
    Thats not bad. It'll at least play HL2.
     
  8. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #8
    I think that they will continue to use integrated graphics, since it is a consumer notebook and most of what consumers use doesn't require dedicated graphics, except for gsming which is the main place where Apple lacks good hardware.
     
  9. Sopranino macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    #9
    Yuck!! I don't think that this question really has an answer that you could work with. The main reason is that Apple NEVER lets anyone know what is coming up or what kind of upgrades are planned. Using historical patterns to predict the future may offer some sort of an indication, but with Apple I wouldn't want to make any kind of a bet based on that.

    You might consider consulting a fortune teller.......;)

    Sopranino
     
  10. miniConvert macrumors 68040

    miniConvert

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Location:
    Kent, UK - the 'Garden of England'.
    #10
    Just another voice thinking Apple will remain with Intel graphics for the Macbook (and Mac mini) from now on. The graphical performance is, well, similar to the dedicated cards they used to use, and the X1300 will be a good improvement. It just works out so much better for Apple this way, not to mention that it's an appropriate graphics solution for a notebook of this size aimed at this market.
     
  11. Igantius macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    #11
    Further to what miniConvert said, at the time Apple explained that the move to Intel integrated graphics was made because improvement in the technology; when the Mac mini got the GMA950, it was able to display the Core Image components, whereas the previous version which had an ATI card couldn’t.

    Compared to video cards, integrated graphics are cheaper, less power-hungry/better battery life and take up less space in the enclosure – which are not inconsiderable advantages when you’re producing a consumer laptop.

    The MB’s have been amazing sellers for Apple (the machines were the major factor for last quarter’s 88% rise in profits) and I’ve not read one feasible explanation (not being able to play Quake 4 doesn't count) why Apple was wrong to choose the GMA950 over a dedicated video card or how this has impacted negatively in terms of sales.

    Of course, there are who say that they will never get a MB for that reason and have said explicitly that that’s why they opted for a MBP… even though the most taxing thing they’ll use it for is WoW or surfing.

    It’s worth remembering how much rubbish is posted about the GMA950.

    From a business point of view, why would it do that?
     
  12. psychofreak Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #12
    Blurry CoverFlow scrollbar...with CoverFlow in Leopard's Finder, this better be fixed...

    Some apps have things I can't use, like Disco...
     
  13. Igantius macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    #13
    I’ve read some people reporting about that issue with Coverflow, but thought it had been fixed with an update. If it’s not fixed when incorporated in Leopard, there’s gonna be some unhappy people… and yes, I am in the same boat as you!

    Don’t know Disco, but assume the MB’s doesn’t meet it’s the graphical requirements.

    When I said “how this has impacted negatively” I left out “in terms of sales” on the end – sorry about that! I'll edit my post as stupidly missing out those words gives a different sense.

    What I meant in the line you quoted, there have been quite a few posters (on forums generally) that stated that integrated graphics are totally useless (the inference being that this is because by the very virtue of being integrated) and Apple shot themselves in the foot by using them rather than a dedicated video card.

    Another point I’ve seen people make is that the GMA950 is simply trash so they’ve opted to go for the MBP even though some are using it for little more than surfing or playing WoW. Potentially, I think giving the MBs a half decent graphics a few months back would have damaged MBP sales for this reason and also because some MB reviews in publications that target creatives, concluded that the MB was a surprisingly capable machine and worth a look -make it good for 3D work as well and I think it would have come even more highly recommended.


    Although I have read people give excellent detailed technical reasons why various dedicated graphics solutions are better, no one’s managed to show how using them would have increased MB sales or not using them has severely stuffed Apple.

    Certainly, the GMA950 isn’t perfect – I’ve never claimed that and never will – but I think by using it, Apple has displayed reasonable business sense and not insanity. But something else is always round the corner...
     
  14. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #14
    That's a ridiculous way to think. I'm sorry, but you have drank too much of the Apple kool-aid if you actually believe that.

    I guess you never used an iBook. It had a video card despite being the "consumer" level laptop. Apple could shove in an older graphics card if they wished.....one that doesn't come close to the ones used in the MBP.

    The thing is, I don't mind that Apple is using Intel integrated graphics. Integrated graphics aren't much worse than low-end graphics cards anyway. Once Apple starts using Intel's new GMA X3000, I see even less reason to use a "real" graphics card.

    Ask anyone why they want a graphics card in a MacBook, and they'll likely say, "For gaming." The MacBook is a low end laptop, and the GMA 950 is capable of playing games with "low end" spec requirements. It really is. If you want to play the really flashy games, you need to pay for really flash hardware.

    Same thing can be said about desktops. Same can be said about other laptop brands.

    And besides, Apple isn't offering an uncompetitive pricing or specs when compared to Dell --- not in my part of the world. In fact, Dell's similarly priced laptops use a slower 1.66 GHz Core 2 Duo processor, and the GMA 950 found in the MacBook. You can upgrade it to a faster proc, but then it'd be more expensive than the MacBook. ;)
     
  15. Taylor C macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    #15
    The MacBook is a consumer laptop. It's designed for consumer tasks; web browsing, e-mail, music, some video, word processing, etc. If you need the extra functionality, get the MacBook Pro which is well worth it in my opinion. This whole argument is blown out of proportion mainly because Apple only has a two-product notebook strategy, while competitors have more options. When in reality, Apple's MacBook is perfectly capable of playing lower-spec games despite its lack of a discrete graphics card. Like other brands, if you need a "gaming" machine or the extra graphic power for creative professions, then you need to get the MacBook Pro.
     
  16. psychofreak Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #16
    OK, so iTunes 7.3 has now fixed the scrollbar issue :)
     
  17. jdechko macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    #17
    Throughout the computer industry, the consumer end generally has an integrated GPU and most people don't even notice/care. My mother only recently cared about her computer not having one and the only reason is that her GPU won't display in her new monitor's native resolution.

    I think the (slightly overused) saying applies here; that if you need a dedicated GPU, you already know you do. Gamers, professionals and enthusiasts already know they'll require a dedicated chip, so they buy the machine that works for them. Web surfers, email-ers, etc. for the most part will buy the cheapest machine that will accomplish their tasks--which usually doesn't have a dedicated GPU--which isn't needed in the first place.
     
  18. Jessy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    #18
    I'm sick of all this "consumers do this stuff only" babble. Consumers play video games and this will only become more common as old people die. I would go so far as to say that there's not a single good modern game on the Mac, though plenty of others would disagree. However, if other companies follow EA's lead, this will be changing, and then the current horrible MacBook strategy won't be sufficient.
     
  19. heySparky macrumors regular

    heySparky

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #19
    Could you be more specific. Exactly what is ridiculous?

    Then you guessed wrong. I have an iBook as well as a Macbook CD.

    If Apple "shoved" an older graphic card into the Macbook, would the slight performance improvement be worth the added cost? Probably not for most people and definitely not for me.

    I can agree with that. If someone wants high end video performance, then they'll just need to buy a high end machine.
     
  20. jdechko macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    #20
    But there's still a distinctive line separating the "casual gamer" (consumers who play games) from the "hardcore gamer". I do play some games, but I'd still consider myself a casual gamer - I can run Half-Life/Counter Strike and the original UT on my 5-year-old Sony laptop with IIG (the 845, I believe), sure it doesn't give me a great picture and only runs ~30 FPS, but I'm content and not demanding.

    The same thing goes for the casual gamers who want to play The Sims or whatnot. Apple even has a page dedicated to games and suggests games that the MacBook and MacMini are capable of handling. And the rumored upgrade to the X3000/X3100 when the MB goes to SantaRosa will make it even more capable.

    Your hardcore gamer, who's obsessed with the response time of his monitor, the resolution of his mouse, and the insane FPS@1900x1200 with FSAA, etc. knows that he will need something a little </sarcastic> more beefy than the GMA 950. I'll stick by my initial assessment that those who need it know they need it.
     
  21. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #21
    You were expecting old people to do something else? :)

    The GMA950 is quite capable of playing many games from the last 5 years at undemanding levels of detail. It ranks somewhere between a Radeon X200 and X300 in performance. The real problem with the GMA950 is not its speed as its lack of hardware T&L. If Apple goes with the X3100, and I think they will, then this will become a non-issue. Even Oblivion will be playable(ish) on the new machines.
     
  22. timestoby macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Location:
    north devon,uk
    #22
    well im not getn my macbook till oct,so they better not release ones with dedicated graphics in 2007 lol,just my luck they will.damn!

    edit:i ment in 2008.anyway like my partner said,ill have it for two years then want a new one.i only had this pc for like a year and a half lol
     
  23. aliquis- macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    #24
    Well, not to ruin your party or something, but they didn't ... They have just recently updated them remember?

    Also the X3100 are **** aswell, it isn't much snappier than 950 GMA, it sucks major ass compared to any real GPU.
     
  24. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #25
    They will be updated some time within the next 6 to 7 months and probably with the X3100 which, for a cheap, low power GPU is fairly decent. It is 3 times faster at most 3D tasks than the GMA950 and is close to the Radeon X1300 in speed. As I said, it is nearly as fast as an X1300 and has hardware T&L, which is a major change for integrated graphics.
     

Share This Page