How will the intel integrated graphics chips stack up against current ibooks?

[Project]

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.

Because the iBook will be clearly going backwards. The iBook has had a dedicated graphics chip for a while now, so to go backwards yet charge the same price isnt that cool, given that technology is moving forwards so fast all the time.

Plus there is the issue of much of OSX's niceties relying on the GPU...

 

[MRU]

Because the iBook will be clearly going backwards. The iBook has had a dedicated graphics chip for a while now, so to go backwards yet charge the same price isnt that cool, given that technology is moving forwards so fast all the time.

Plus there is the issue of much of OSX's niceties relying on the GPU...

But those nicities are all there and working on developer macs and thats the 915 chipset.

Going backwards isn't a big deal with apple. The'yll come out with some other marketing to divert your attention from what theyve removed. They are very good at that. They give with one had and taketh away with the other.

If rumors are true :-

If they launch ibook, new form factor and 13" widescreen with new intel processor, that's a lot of High Gloss to hide the fact that you now have onboard gfx instead of seperate one.

 

[caveman_uk]

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.)

The developer machines ARE RENTED. You have to give it back at the end of 2006. So they're not that cheap.

 

[gekko513]

According to Intel, the new integrated graphics solution, GMA900, gives twice the performance of the previous one as well as supporting OpenGL 1.4 and pixel shaders. And according to anandtech, the old Intel integrated graphics solution, GMA950, gave less than half the performance of the Geforce 6200 with dedicated memory. In games based on older technology, the performance was only a little less than half.

I would therefore guess that a new Intel integrated graphics solution would perform slightly worse than a Geforce 6200 with 32MB / 64MB of dedicated memory.

 

[MRU]

I would therefore guess that a new Intel integrated graphics solution would perform slightly worse than a Geforce 6200 with 32MB / 64MB of dedicated memory.

Which is ok in a education/consumer laptop.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

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.

VRAM is a simple measuring tool, but the class of the GPU is far more indicative of performance. For example, My G4 has a Radeon 9600 Pro with 64MB of VRAM. It has significantly higher performance in 3D apps than a Radeon 9200 with 256MB VRAM, because it has a much newer GPU. Also, unlike the 9200, it is Core Image compatible (though this is not an issue in any new laptops).

It's best to refer to the basic class of the GPU to best understand what performance range you're talking about. For instance, Many GeForce 4 class GPUS have 128MB VRAM, but a GeForce 6 class card with the same amoutn of VRAM is a world away in performance

 

[NYmacAttack]

Which is ok in a education/consumer laptop.

However going from a 9550 to integrated 915 chipset graphics will be a noticable slowdown especially since the graphics will eat away at the systems memory. This would be unfortunate because OS X loves the extra memory, whihc would now how to be used for the graphics.

 

[ravenvii]

However going from a 9550 to integrated 915 chipset graphics will be a noticable slowdown especially since the graphics will eat away at the systems memory. This would be unfortunate because OS X loves the extra memory, whihc would now how to be used for the graphics.

Just a thought, but maybe that's why they're going Intel with the iBooks first (at least that's what the rumors say), even though the Intel chips blow the G4s away. Maybe this is what slows the iBooks down enough to have it still be "inferior" to the PowerBooks.

 

[ReanimationLP]

I personally dont think they will after sitting there on the Mac Mini's graphics page making fun of PCs and their Intel Integrated Graphics chipsets.

 

[MRU]

I personally dont think they will after sitting there on the Mac Mini's graphics page making fun of PCs and their Intel Integrated Graphics chipsets.

Yeah and apple have never made a backtrack have they The move to Intel from PowerPC would have seen as a serious backtrack a year or two ago and even the thought of it would have sent shivers up any apple efficiando's back.

Seriously it's almost a certainty that thats how they will cripple the 'ibook' over the powerbook and don't tell me for 1 second that apple dont do that as all their consumer hardware has been artifically crippled in 1 regard or another. They are notorious for it (dual spanning in imacs/ibooks etc...)

If they dont use the 915 chipset then it'll be the slightly more robust 930. But it will be onboard.

What software they currently aim at consumer market would not work on it? The 930 chipset is more powerful than the crap Radeon 9250 they currently use.

 

[enginerd]

The Radeon 9550 has a max memory bandwidth of 6.4gb/sec, 250mhz core speed, 4 pixel pipelines and fill rate of 1gigapixel/sec. These are the specs for the desktop 9550; I guess it's the same as the one in the iBook.

The Intel GMA 900 has a max memory bandwidth of 8.5gb/sec (using DDR2 533mhz ram), 333mhz core speed, 4 pixel pipelines and fill rate of 1.3gigapixels/sec.

(For comparison, the GF 7800GTX has 38.4gb/sec bandwidth, 430mhz core, 24 pipelines and fill rate over 10 gigapixels/sec)

But for the Intel, the memory bandwidth is shared with system ram so the actual max available would be a bit less.
On the other hand, the current iBook is stuck with only 32mb ram--if more vram is needed, it has to use main system ram over the slow 133/142mhz bus. The intel GMA can use up to 128mb of memory all with the same speed.

Overall verdict--both will be too slow for gaming--you would only want to run old games with reduced detail.

If you just want to see the nice ripple effect on your dashboard and other OS X goodies, either will be fine. If Apple puts in integrated graphics, I would be fine. Maybe overall graphics performance would be a bit slower but it's fine for the target market and it should add some battery life over discreet graphics too.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

What software they currently aim at consumer market would not work on it? The 930 chipset is more powerful than the crap Radeon 9250 they currently use.

I think the 9550 in the iBook is better than the 915, possibly the 930 too due to its dedicated memory. The latest GPUs from Intel aren't that bad, but an embedded GPU with it's own RAM is a much better solution than the shared memory arrangement the the integrated stuff.

 

[kingcrowing]

Im just not a fan of integrated graphics at all, and I refuse to buy a computer , espically apple, with integrated, but the powerbooks will always have dedicated vRAM, they are pro machines and all graphic machines need that extra vRAM to really to serious editing

 

[NYmacAttack]

Im just not a fan of integrated graphics at all, and I refuse to buy a computer , espically apple, with integrated, but the powerbooks will always have dedicated vRAM, they are pro machines and all graphic machines need that extra vRAM to really to serious editing

Agreed, the intergrated video may have similar specs on paper, but in real world uses the fact that it must share with the main system memory is cripling even if the bus speed is faster. Most people who do anything graphic intesive would rather have a 9550 as oppsed to a 915chipset video.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

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.

The Intel integrated graphics in the developer Mac supports QE and CoreImage. The Mac Mini's Radeon 9200 still doesn't.

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.)

$999 to RENT it for a year and a half. If you consider that cheap, fine. It's not the final product. It is cheaper than it otherwise should be simply becuase they don't want to truly give them away. As for why it uses Intel graphics? Because they collaborated with Intel first. They probably didn't want to let nVidia or ATI in on the secret because both are notoriously leaky. The original release of OSx86 only supported Intel integrated graphics, the newer builds also support nVidia. I'm sure ATI support will show up before there is a shipping product.

As for a comparison? Doom 3 barely runs on my 1.25GHz G4, Radeon 9200 eMac. Doom 3 runs faster on my 1.4GHz Celeron-M, Intel 915 integrated graphics laptop. (Even though Intel Integrated Graphics is *NOT* an officially supported chipset, when the Radeon is.) Still not quite acceptable, but it is faster.

 

[lordmac]

When recently looking at the sims 2 spec requirements i really found one of the best examples of the craptastic nature of intel integrated graphics.

System requirements


With a T and L; capable video card with at least 32 MB of video RAM:
800 MHz processor or better
256 MB RAM if Windows XP, Windows ME, Windows 98 or Windows 2000
At least 3.5 GB of hard drive space
With a non-T and L; capable video card (an Intel Extreme Graphics or a Radeon 7000/VE Series):
2.0 GHz processor or better
256 MB RAM if Windows XP, Windows ME, Windows 98, or Windows 2000
At least 3.5 GB of hard drive space
Supported video cards:
ATI Radeon series (7000 or better)
NNvidia Quadro series
Nvidia Geforce series (GeForce2 and better)
Intel Extreme Graphics (non-T and L; requires 2.0 GHz processor)

800mhz vs 2ghz thats more then double speed to run the game. Sims 2 isn't even that much of a hardcore game in terms of its graphics and everything. Also thats exactly the kind of game your less hardcore consumer (the kind of person who would buy an ibook) would want to play considering how the game has a much more diverse audience the say your average FPS.

 

[generik]

Just a thought, but maybe that's why they're going Intel with the iBooks first (at least that's what the rumors say), even though the Intel chips blow the G4s away. Maybe this is what slows the iBooks down enough to have it still be "inferior" to the PowerBooks.

It doesn't matter, so what if a Mac has a 7800GT in it? You game on a Mac? Ha! Don't make me laugh.

 

[Flynnstone]

Integrated gfx suck major @ss, IIRC.
Lethal

Understatement of the year award !

 

[Flynnstone]

Steve is too smart to put any integrated graphics crap in a Mac (I hope).

We can only hope.
But the Intel OS X development systems use integrated graphics

 

[Flynnstone]

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?

If I recall correctly ... No current shipping production Mac use integrated graphics. So that shouldn't push the price up. My understanding is that Intel processor are more expensive than PowerPC. So putting Intel inside may push the price up. But Intel pricing is complex.

 

[generik]

It really doesn't matter, apart from the little UI effects

1) you generally can't game on a Mac due to its weak OpenGL implementation
2) if you need to do something massive like power dual 23" displays or something, do yourself a favor and actually spend more coin on your processing "thing" then on your displays

Integrated graphics is more than enough for things people would use an iBook for.

 

[Eidorian]

Meh, I remember a quote from Jobs along the lines of, "You can add new features but you can't take them away."

The original iBook had dedicated video memory, the white Dual USB iBook had dedicated video memory, and the iBook G4 has dedicated video memory.

The Integrated Intel chips are capable but not as much as having a real video card with dedicated memory. Then again if it happens, we won't buy it.

 

[generik]

Come on, integrated graphics is not bad!

Besides it saves power.. longer mojo for your battery life.

 

[Crikey]

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.)

Heh. The developers I know play lots of games.

I hadn't thought about this, but it makes a lot of sense for Apple to put Intel's integrapted graphics on the iBook motherboard to differentiate it from the PowerBook. The real differentiator will be the Celeron CPU, though.

Hard to picture a dual-core Yonah-based Celeron. Maybe the iBook will use the current-generation Pentium M, and the PowerBook get the Yonah?


Crikey

 

[pknz]

I don't think the mighty Mr Jobs is silly enough to put 'older' technology into Macs, he doesn't usually take backwards steps in the computers he has put out through his time at Apple. So I wouldn't be expecting integrated (suxz0r gfx) graphics with the main RAM.