[drnkn_stylz]

1. The GMA950 video chip can change to match the ram/software requirements
2. Windows machines (non-Apple) with 2gb system ram can have a 224mb video card
3. Apple machines with the GMA950 are capped at 64mb

Furthermore, using the Sandra test suite, it reports the Intel Mini has 228MB of video ram in XP with 2GB of RAM installed.

Source: Let's hack the GMA950! [Archive] - On Mac Forums


Apple does something to cap these in OSX, so it is more likely on the software side if it can be utilized on a MacMini.

There must be a way to uncap the GMA 950. I hope this thread can be used to find that out. If not, then at least have it as a useful source of information relating to the GMA 950.

OK go!

[Eug Wanker]

Yeah, that'd be nice. It's kinda irrelevant for me since I already have a iMac with 256 MB video card, but for those who use the MacBook with an external monitor (or with certain apps), support for 128 MB (or more) would be a bonus.

Considering it makes sense for many to get 2 GB RAM for the MacBook anyway for dual-channel RAM support, it wouldn't hurt to lose an extra 64 MB of that for the video memory (on top of the 80 MB already used currently).

1904 MB vs 1968 MB for system RAM isn't a big difference.

However, 64 MB vs 128 MB for video RAM is a big difference.

[drnkn_stylz]

It would be very beneficial for someone like me who will be using the Macbook as my main computer. The thing that bothers me is the fact that under Windows, it can use up to 224mb RAM, but OSX is being a jerk and capping it at 64mb. I think it might be because the Macbook comes with 512mb stock, and then if the GMA took 224, that's not a lot of RAM left over, so the capping makes sense. Yet, even if you max out the RAM to 2gb, it's still capped at 64mb! Why the hell is that!?

[Dork.]

Some people have speculated that Apple doesn't actually cap the GMA 950 at all, but just reports the minimum in System Profiler, no matter how much RAM is being shared.

But I decided not to get the MacBook, so I didn't look into that claim further. Civ IV runs well enough on my 12" PB.

[drnkn_stylz]

Could you possibly post those sources if you still have them? I wouldn't mind reading them and they would be beneficial to this thread as well

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Some people have speculated that Apple doesn't actually cap the GMA 950 at all, but just reports the minimum in System Profiler, no matter how much RAM is being shared.

But I decided not to get the MacBook, so I didn't look into that claim further. Civ IV runs well enough on my 12" PB.

IIRC, my 2 GB MacBook slows down in Exposé at around 15 open windows or so. That was very similar to my TiBook 1 GHz with Radeon 9000 64 MB. However, it was closer to 28 or so with my 20" iMac G5 with Radeon 9600 128 MB.

Thus, I think the 64 MB cap for the MacBook is probably real, regardless of the amount of RAM present in the machine.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by drnkn_stylz

Could you possibly post those sources if you still have them? I wouldn't mind reading them and they would be beneficial to this thread as well

Most if the discussion was here, searching on "GMA 950" would probably do the trick.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Thus, I think the 64 MB cap for the MacBook is probably real, regardless of the amount of RAM present in the machine.

If that's the case, I agree that there must be a software hack to get around this.

[drnkn_stylz]

In that case we firstly need to find out how and where the cap resides.

[drnkn_stylz]

Ok so I just searched for GMA 950 and got NOTHING, not even this thread! How wierd is that???

[mduell]

Has anyone confirmed that the Intel Macs won't use more than 64MB system memory for VRAM? I understand that the system profiler will claim it's always 64MB, but has anyone checked another way to verify that it's not using more than 80MB?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mduell

Has anyone confirmed that the Intel Macs won't use more than 64MB system memory for VRAM? I understand that the system profiler will claim it's always 64MB, but has anyone checked another way to verify that it's not using more than 80MB?

Like I said (and I agree that this isn't perfectly scientific), my 2 GB MacBook starts to get jittery in Exposé with the same number of open Safari windows (15) as my TiBook with Radeon 9000 64 MB, while my G5 iMac with 128 MB can have almost twice the number (28) of open windows.

I opened over 40 windows with my iMac with 256 MB video RAM and there was still no jitteriness.

[Javizun]

and this is why even though i love mac os x its limitations should not be considered the worlds best opertaing system in the world.

i can name about 25 reasons why i dont think it is-while the eye candy and viewing pleasure is years ahead of windows on other dpts and major ones osx lack some serious work.

[Eug Wanker]

This is not a limitation by OS X per se. This is an arbitrary limitation imposed by the powers that be.

It's like iBooks not being able to span desktops, even though they actually can.

[p0stman]

You can dooooo eeeeet!

[drnkn_stylz]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

This is not a limitation by OS X per se. This is an arbitrary limitation imposed by the powers that be.

It's like iBooks not being able to span desktops, even though they actually can.

Apple did 'something' to cap the GMA, so there is always a way to undo that 'something'. Everything can be hacked somehow.

I'm only in my first year Comp. Sci. so I don't think I'm smart enough to figure that out yet

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Like I said (and I agree that this isn't perfectly scientific), my 2 GB MacBook starts to get jittery in Exposé with the same number of open Safari windows (15) as my TiBook with Radeon 9000 64 MB, while my G5 iMac with 128 MB can have almost twice the number (28) of open windows.

I opened over 40 windows with my iMac with 256 MB video RAM and there was still no jitteriness.

I don't really see that as evidence.... could easily be limited by GPU performance or VRAM bandwidth rather than VRAM quantity.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Like I said (and I agree that this isn't perfectly scientific), my 2 GB MacBook starts to get jittery in Exposé with the same number of open Safari windows (15) as my TiBook with Radeon 9000 64 MB, while my G5 iMac with 128 MB can have almost twice the number (28) of open windows.

I opened over 40 windows with my iMac with 256 MB video RAM and there was still no jitteriness.

I don't think this can be the measure of anything. My iMac 20"CD 128mb had over 40 open and there was no sign of slowdown or jitter.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mduell

I don't really see that as evidence.... could easily be limited by GPU performance or VRAM bandwidth rather than VRAM quantity.

I agree, but I will note that I got the same results with my 64 MB Radeon 9000 (dedicated memory) and my 64 MB GMA 950 machine (shared memory).

Also, Exposé on an iBook with Radeon 9550 32 MB slows down much quicker. A Radeon 9550 is much faster than both the Radeon 9000 and GMA 950.

Originally Posted by kmkkid

I don't think this can be the measure of anything. My iMac 20"CD 128mb had over 40 open and there was no sign of slowdown or jitter.

For the purposes of the test, I stuck with Safari windows, open to the same web page. If I used smaller windows from other apps I could open more of them before the slowdown.

Anyways, I'm not saying my test is incredibly scientific. I'm just saying that there is absolutely no evidence out there that suggests there is any truth to the speculation that video RAM usage scales in OS X with amount of system RAM present. Apple system profiler says it's 64 MB regardless of the amount of RAM present, and I believe it.

[Dork.]

There's gotta be a Unix-y way to find out how much memory is being taken up by vram. Maybe 'top' would tell you?

Is there an equivalent to the Linux /proc tree in OS X? (I don't have access to a Mac at work....)