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.
How will the intel integrated graphics chips stack up against current ibooks?
- Thread starter Megatron
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LethalWolfe said:
Ya, what he said. Never, EVER buy a computer with integrated graphics- they just steal away your computers processing power.
Its like putting a 4 cylinder engine in a Ferrari.
Hopefully we'll see 64 MB's on the iBook, 128 MB on the low end PowerBooks and 256 MB on the high end ones.
Eidorian said:
That sounds about right.
Steve is too smart to put any integrated graphics crap in a Mac (I hope).
dmw007 said:That sounds about right.
Steve is too smart to put any integrated graphics crap in a Mac (I hope).
We all "hope". I also hope firewire is not dead.
I bet the iBooks will cut corners and include it on the motherboard. It will be designed to be very small and inexpensive. The powerbooks will have the real stuff. To be honest, having it on the motherboard won't make a difference for some buyers. It didn't see that bad running some older games.
BornAgainMac said:
Well I guess thats true. But if you plan on doing anything besides playing solitaire- avoid integrated graphics.
From what I've heard the 915 chipset can run Battlefield 1942 for Windows. No fancy shaders but it can run it.dmw007 said:Well I guess thats true. But if you plan on doing anything besides playing solitaire- avoid integrated graphics.
I hope that we see a real embedded GPU in the Intel portables, no integrated crap for me please. At least make a real GPU optional.
There's a difference between having integrated graphics and having the GPU on the logic/motherboard. iMacs, eMacs, laptops, and some PowerMacs have a GPU on the logic board, but do not have integrated graphics.BornAgainMac said:
Megatron said:
to give a great example. My parents have a HP Athelon 2800+ with 1GB Ram, Windows XP but intergrated Graphics card.
What they say u need is
I easily have all those requirments but what im missing is the graphics card, I just have an onboard 64mb and the game, on the min. min min setting runs choppy as all hell. it just cannot be played.
Integrated graphics has come a long way recently but it's still far from a good GPU replacement.
Surely Apple wont be that cheap to save a few measly dollars. It isnt like a 32mb or 64mb graphics card is going to push the productions costs of an Intel iBook up is it?
iBook - 64mb
Powerbook - 128/256mb
Apple should not forget we already pay a premium for the iBook and thus should not take the piss by making it a garbage laptop. Or, if they want to go down that route then introduce a real budget line of notebooks. Integrated graphics, no bluetooth, small harddrive, no firewire, no video out. Must include wireless though! Go directly against the lower priced laptops that sell a bucketload. Make it good enough to do your basic tasks, and run the iLife suite well. Bundle iWork and with OSX you are good to go. $600. Then keep the iBook pretty much as it is now. A consumer line with the various niceties that separate it from being a basic system, ie the bluetooth, video out, firewire, video card, nice build etc. Make it 6oGb standard. Keep the same price.
I think Apples notebook product line doesnt reach out to every market there, and while its like that, it wont be seen as competitive. There may be concerns about keeping Apples prestige as a brand, but honestly Jobs through that out of the Window with the Mini and Shuffle. He wants in for real this time.
While theyre aT it, make a sexy display cheap enough for a broke student like me to buy!
iBook - 64mb
Powerbook - 128/256mb
Apple should not forget we already pay a premium for the iBook and thus should not take the piss by making it a garbage laptop. Or, if they want to go down that route then introduce a real budget line of notebooks. Integrated graphics, no bluetooth, small harddrive, no firewire, no video out. Must include wireless though! Go directly against the lower priced laptops that sell a bucketload. Make it good enough to do your basic tasks, and run the iLife suite well. Bundle iWork and with OSX you are good to go. $600. Then keep the iBook pretty much as it is now. A consumer line with the various niceties that separate it from being a basic system, ie the bluetooth, video out, firewire, video card, nice build etc. Make it 6oGb standard. Keep the same price.
I think Apples notebook product line doesnt reach out to every market there, and while its like that, it wont be seen as competitive. There may be concerns about keeping Apples prestige as a brand, but honestly Jobs through that out of the Window with the Mini and Shuffle. He wants in for real this time.
While theyre aT it, make a sexy display cheap enough for a broke student like me to buy!
Megatron said:
Ok it was probably my post in the forums that your refering to. And yes it is my prediction that the ibook will use intel 915 chipset.
Developer Intel macs already use them. They're cheap to produce, fully support Intel OSX and are ready to go now.
They offer a clear distinct advantage to the the powerbook which will have seperate gfx card. The distinction between budget/educational & pro has to put back in place. That line has gone fuzzy of late and apple will re-address this.
Why would Apple not use it in the ibook? Seriously! What makes you think that they wouldn't be happy with the power the 915 chipset brings. It runs a good share of 3D games on windows and as there aren't exactly a huge number of Intel Mac games out there for at least a year, its a non issue on Intel iBooks.
As long as they run hte full iLife suite of apps and stuff like Office, and surf the net, then Apple are going to be happy to go with it. It's proven technology with them as it stands and it can run pretty much all the apps out there currently anyway.
If you want to run more intensive 3D applications and FC-Studio 2 then Apple will encourage you to go and buy the more powerful Intel Powerbook.
At last a clear distinct pro/consumer division and justification in that price difference.
I'm not debating that onboard graphics are worse than standalone graphics cards, but come on guy's. Apples loyalties are NOT to the consumer, but to its Shareholders at the end of the day.
If they can release an ibook which we all know the processor is going to be more expensive than the G4, then it has to cut a few corners here and there. If there's already discussions about Firewire being dropped, then do you honestly think theyre going to add a more powerful graphics card onto the ibook than they need to?
Project- you say surely apple isn't that cheap to save a few dollars... Well a few dollars times a few hundred thousand units is a good saving. They already started using cheaper click wheels in the ipods to save a few dollars, they didn't have to did they?
The iBook will do it's job, no more, no less.
Catfish_Man said:I'll trade you a 256MB Radeon 9200 for a 128MB Radeon 9800...
I was about to post something similar
I've yet to understand why people insist on measuring the GPUs that Apple use in terms of Video RAM. What is much more imporatant (once VRAM hits a sensible size) is the capabilities of the GPU itself. I'd much rather have a modern, powerful GPU with 128Mb of VRAM (or even 64) in my next powerbook than another Radeon Mobility 9700 with 256.
robbieduncan said:
I agree with you and can see where you're coming from but admittedly it's much easier to use a single measurement to compare processing units. It's similar to measuring CPUs solely by their clock speed, sure it's a factor involved in performance but it's not the only one. Having said that, VRAM is still a pretty good indicator when comparing two modern GPUs IMO.
Project said:
With no FireWire how would you capture video to iMovie?
You guys speak of integrated graphics as of something "not bad", but you seem to forget about Quartz Exteme and CoreImage! What about them? OSX has pretty heavy interface to me rendered by CPU.
Developer intelPowerMacs have inegr. graph. cuz it made them cheap (999$ right? - thats for PowerMac!) Seriously, developers dont play games/ or use mulimedia apps (Motion etc.)
eXan said:
Well, kinda. It's not quite that bad though because a GPU isn't as complicated as a computer, it's a component of a computer. Therefore, we can get away with simplifying things a bit by measuring them by VRAM. I'm not by any means saying it's a good way of measuring performance, but it's a good compromise IMO.