Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > New Macbooks?

New Macbooks? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2007, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Gee, I wonder if this new MB will play UT3? Minimum requirements are 2GHz single core with Radeon 9600+. I'm sure the X3100 will match an old chip like the 9600, no?
GMA X3100 is about twice as fast as the ATi Mobility Radeon 9700 or ATi Mobility Radeon X600 and about the same as the nVidia GeForce Go 7300 or ATi Mobility Radeon X1300.
     
cheery7upper
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2007, 09:30 PM
 
I'm the unlucky loser who bought the macbook on the 12th. I am so pissed. All because my ibook pretty much broke in half.


- grumpy
     
mavherzog
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbus, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 05:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by cheery7upper View Post
I'm the unlucky loser who bought the macbook on the 12th. I am so pissed. All because my ibook pretty much broke in half.
Well then. You are a meager restocking fee away from a brand new MacBook. (maybe not even that if the folks at your local Apple Store are feeling generous.)
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 05:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by vtboyarc View Post
damn!!! this sucks!!! I'm pulling my hair out of my head in anger and distress!! And I see from the apple web site that the new card has 144MB!!!! arrghh!! is there anything I can do?
If you're so hell-bent on getting the updated MB, just put your 'old' MB on eBay or something and buy the new MB. It's quite simple really.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 05:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Placid Casual View Post
You can get a Dell better than the Macbook in every way apart from the processor speed for cheaper or the same money if you spec it right...
That's exactly the point. With many PC vendors if you wanna go cheap that means getting a crap CPU. Since that's a soldered piece you're stuck with the crap forever. Trading an extra GB of RAM for a Celeron? Bad idea.

Apple's approach is to give everybody (even the $1099 MB buyer) a top notch CPU. Getting more RAM, a larger disk, etc. is something people can do either later on or they can CTO and pay for it themselves. This makes a lot of sense and it's the reason we Mac users don't have to put up with stuff like Celerons or the Mac OS X Home Edition.

I think that is a perfectly sensible approach. The only thing that bothers me about it is that Apple's not being entirely consequent. On the MB there should at least be a BTO option for a 'real' GPU with dedicated VRAM - although I admit the new X3100 makes that a much less severe problem than it used to be with the 950.
     
Gamoe
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
The only thing that bothers me about it is that Apple's not being entirely consequent. On the MB there should at least be a BTO option for a 'real' GPU with dedicated VRAM - although I admit the new X3100 makes that a much less severe problem than it used to be with the 950.
Like I said, I think the situation may ultimately change as far as integrated graphics as they get more powerful and if the Intel/NVIDIA and AMD/ATI mergers are at all fruitful.

I understand why Apple went with integrated graphics. It was less money, less complexity, and more differentiation with the "Pro" models. But this was something Apple openly boasted about not doing pre-Intel switch. And for good reason.

The situation will slowly improve, I think, to the point where integrated graphics will not be an issue even for decent low-end 3D gaming (or maybe I'm just being hopeful?). But it means that all of us buying MacBooks now will have to suffer, albeit each time a little less than the last time.
     
rach
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 11:12 AM
 
This X3100 is slightly better than the GMA 950 but it still a class 5 graphics card and it still ranks lower than the graphics card that was used in the last revision of the iBook G4.
Notebookcheck: Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100
Also Simon the Dell's are not more expensive. The Dell Insprion 1420 is cheaper and the Dell XPS M1330 is about the same price as the MB but the XPS M1330 has more features and is lighter and it also is part made out of magnesium alloy.
The Sony CR's are also cheaper. Still though i don't think that the MB's are a bad deal.


Originally Posted by mduell View Post
GMA X3100 is about twice as fast as the ATi Mobility Radeon 9700 or ATi Mobility Radeon X600 and about the same as the nVidia GeForce Go 7300 or ATi Mobility Radeon X1300.
( Last edited by rach; Nov 3, 2007 at 11:20 AM. )
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by rach View Post
Also Simon the Dell's are not more expensive.
No idea where you got that from, it's certainly not what I said. What I actually did say was
• when you go for the cheapest Dell you can find, the CPU is usually crap
• the MB is a very sweet deal (great case, good form factor, good performance, and obviously the best overall available OS)
     
Flagheimer
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 12:25 PM
 
Should I even care for this update? I'm not a gamer but I do do some video editing for school projects and maybe some photo editing once I get a decent camera, other than that, I just write school papers, surf the web and download music.

Like a few people in this thread, I *just* bought a MacBook a few days before the updated MacBooks were released, but the only people who are considering returning their MacBooks for the updated MacBooks seem to be gamers, which I am not.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Flagheimer View Post
Should I even care for this update? I'm not a gamer but I do do some video editing for school projects and maybe some photo editing once I get a decent camera, other than that, I just write school papers, surf the web and download music.

Like a few people in this thread, I *just* bought a MacBook a few days before the updated MacBooks were released, but the only people who are considering returning their MacBooks for the updated MacBooks seem to be gamers, which I am not.
If you are within the 15 days I would still upgrade if you plan on keeping the MacBook for a while. While the graphics update and RAM updates won't be a huge issue for you right now, in the future the extra RAM will be especially nice as well as the increased graphics performance.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
That's exactly the point. With many PC vendors if you wanna go cheap that means getting a crap CPU. Since that's a soldered piece you're stuck with the crap forever. Trading an extra GB of RAM for a Celeron? Bad idea.

Apple's approach is to give everybody (even the $1099 MB buyer) a top notch CPU. Getting more RAM, a larger disk, etc. is something people can do either later on or they can CTO and pay for it themselves. This makes a lot of sense and it's the reason we Mac users don't have to put up with stuff like Celerons or the Mac OS X Home Edition.
I think there's an argument to made each way. Would I want to see a Celeron in a MacBook? No way. But would my family (2-3 Office/email/web/iTunes/iPhoto users) be better served with 2GB/1.8Ghz than 1GB/2Ghz? Sure. Would they even notice it if they had 1.6Ghz? Probably not, but they would notice the extra 40GB disk space they could get instead. I don't have any real complaints* about the way Apple has set up their models, but I would like to see more options because for some people trading CPU/RAM/disk for CPU/RAM/disk is a good compromise.

* Except that the 2.0 and 2.2Ghz C2D (800FSB) are both the same price, yet Apple charges a premium for the 2.2.

Originally Posted by rach View Post
This X3100 is slightly better than the GMA 950 but it still a class 5 graphics card and it still ranks lower than the graphics card that was used in the last revision of the iBook G4.
The X3100 is 'slightly' better than 950? It scores 250% faster in 3DMark 06, which should translate to similar performance gains in today's games.
I'm not sure why that site puts X3100 in Class 5, when it performs close to cards in Class 3... perhaps they're using the old pre-T&L Windows drivers? Even GMA950 was a step up from 9550, since it supports more features (like the ones necessary for Core Image/Video) even if it can't push quite as many pixels.
( Last edited by mduell; Nov 3, 2007 at 12:42 PM. )
     
Flagheimer
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
If you are within the 15 days I would still upgrade if you plan on keeping the MacBook for a while. While the graphics update and RAM updates won't be a huge issue for you right now, in the future the extra RAM will be especially nice as well as the increased graphics performance.
Yes, I am well within the 14 days. Actually, I got 30 days. I'm on my 3rd MacBook book in the past week, as the first two were defective. I brought this one in yesterday, as I was concerned about a noise coming from the drive, the Genius said I shouldn't worry about it, but he extended my return policy from 14 to 30.

I bought the MacBook at an Apple Store in Cherry Creek -- noticed you lived in the Springs -- have you done business there? If there's nothing wrong with this MacBook, I assume I would have to pay a restocking fee in order to receive the updated MacBook, right?

Edit: just called them up, I will have to pay the 10% restocking fee.
     
rach
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 01:11 PM
 
The x3100 is not as good as today's dedicated options i don't think that should be denied. It is not as good as an class 3 dedicated graphics card. Also the last graphics card that was used in the iBook G4 could support core image. Integrated graphics also do not last as long as dedicated graphics cards do before they are outdated.
Still though this card will be good enough for a lot of peoples needs. Not everybody has need for a dedicated card.

Simon maybe i misunderstood your post.

Originally Posted by mduell View Post



The X3100 is 'slightly' better than 950? It scores 250% faster in 3DMark 06, which should translate to similar performance gains in today's games.
I'm not sure why that site puts X3100 in Class 5, when it performs close to cards in Class 3... perhaps they're using the old pre-T&L Windows drivers? Even GMA950 was a step up from 9550, since it supports more features (like the ones necessary for Core Image/Video) even if it can't push quite as many pixels.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 01:20 PM
 
rach, no offense, bu I think you are completely misunderstanding this thread. Nobody here is arguing that the X3100 is serious competition for a dedicated GPU like the 8600M or the X1700. The point is that it's Intel's current integrated solution and it's a huge step up from the outdated 950. In that sense, it's nice to have. Nothing more, nothing less.
     
rach
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 01:33 PM
 
Of course it does not compete with a class 2 graphics card but if you go back and read what has been posted comments like this-
"I'm not sure why that site puts X3100 in Class 5, when it performs close to cards in Class 3..."
"GMA X3100 is about twice as fast as [snip] or the same as the ATi Mobility Radeon X1300
I guess people may interpret comments like that in different ways.
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
rach, no offense, bu I think you are completely misunderstanding this thread. Nobody here is arguing that the X3100 is serious competition for a dedicated GPU like the 8600M or the X1700. The point is that it's Intel's current integrated solution and it's a huge step up from the outdated 950. In that sense, it's nice to have. Nothing more, nothing less.
( Last edited by rach; Nov 3, 2007 at 01:43 PM. Reason: typo)
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 01:58 PM
 
In my case, there are two things that drove my new Macbook purchase:
- I want to play Civ IV.
- I always thought the 15" form factor was too big for me, preferring the smaller laptops.
The MacBook is also cheaper, of course, even when counting the RAM you'll inevitably need to buy for it.

So, I had been holding back from buying a MacBook with the integrated graphics, opting to stick with my 12" PB with a GeForce 5200. And as far as I can tell, the new MacBook is quite a bit faster than my old 12" 1.5GHz PB G4 when playing Civ IV. But that's to be expected, of course, since the 12" PB is a few years old now.

Here's the funny thing, though: Until I brought it home, I didn't realize how large the MacBook is when compared with the 12" PB. In fact, my wife's 15" MBP is only about an inch longer (and 1/2 inch wider from back to front). It makes me think that maybe the 15" form factor isn't so big after all.

I'm still happy with my MacBook purchase, but now I'm rethinking how big those 15" MBP's really are. Maybe when it's time to upgrade again instead of getting a MB I'll look for a used MBP from the current Generation. (Santa Rosa/Crestline/Whatever they're called....)
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by rach View Post
Of course it does not compete with a class 2 graphics card but if you go back and read what has been posted comments like this-
"I'm not sure why that site puts X3100 in Class 5, when it performs close to cards in Class 3..."
"GMA X3100 is about twice as fast as [snip] or the same as the ATi Mobility Radeon X1300
I guess people may interpret comments like that in different ways.
Those 'class' rankings appear to be based on severely outdated (2003?) benchmarks.
According to that site, X3100 is 'Class 5' while 9700 and X600 are 'Class 3'. The X3100 scores 499 in 3DMark 06 while the 9700 and X600 score 280... twice the score and two classes down.
And you claim X3100 is slower than 9550... so by extension 9700 is even slower than 9550... sorry dude, no credibility there.
     
rach
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 02:56 PM
 
This thread on this board is a source of good information about graphics cards.
****READ BEFORE POSTING**** Gaming General Info Sticky*****PLEASE READ***** - Notebook Forums and Laptop Discussion
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Those 'class' rankings appear to be based on severely outdated (2003?) benchmarks.
According to that site, X3100 is 'Class 5' while 9700 and X600 are 'Class 3'. The X3100 scores 499 in 3DMark 06 while the 9700 and X600 score 280... twice the score and two classes down.
And you claim X3100 is slower than 9550... so by extension 9700 is even slower than 9550... sorry dude, no credibility there.
( Last edited by rach; Nov 3, 2007 at 03:17 PM. )
     
drnkn_stylz
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Canada.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 03:27 PM
 
What I would like to know is how well the X3100 can handle things such as video editing with iMovie, working with Adobe Flash, and playing games like Bioshock (I'm pushing it, I know).

I love my wittle Macbook, but the work I do is pushing me towards a MBP...
..13" MacBook Pro | 2.53gHz | 4gb RAM | 320gb Seagate Momentus XT | OSX.6.6.. // iPhone 4 32gb
     
TheoCryst
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by drnkn_stylz View Post
What I would like to know is how well the X3100 can handle things such as video editing with iMovie, working with Adobe Flash, and playing games like Bioshock (I'm pushing it, I know).

I love my wittle Macbook, but the work I do is pushing me towards a MBP...
iMovie and Flash will be fine, as long as you don't mind the smaller screen. As for BioShock... well, there's no way in hell that it would play at all on the 950, and the X3100 is bound to struggle just to run the minimum effects.

Any ramblings are entirely my own, and do not represent those of my employers, coworkers, friends, or species
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by drnkn_stylz View Post
What I would like to know is how well the X3100 can handle things such as video editing with iMovie, working with Adobe Flash, and playing games like Bioshock (I'm pushing it, I know).
Neither iMovie nor Flash make any use of the GPU, so the X3100 MacBook is no different than the previous MB or the MBP.
Bioshock wasn't quite playable on GMA3000 (10-15fps @ 800x600), but it may be on GMAX3100 at minimum resolution/quality.

Originally Posted by rach View Post
This thread on this board is a source of good information about graphics cards.
****READ BEFORE POSTING**** Gaming General Info Sticky*****PLEASE READ***** - Notebook Forums and Laptop Discussion
How does that thread respond to any of my comments about that site's ranking methodology?
     
drnkn_stylz
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Canada.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 05:54 PM
 
I didn't really think BioShock would play, just wishful thinking

I find that Flash movies/animations make my fans kick in full blast on my current setup (sig). Also, iMovie is a bit choppy. What would be the crutch of my setup if it's not the 950?
..13" MacBook Pro | 2.53gHz | 4gb RAM | 320gb Seagate Momentus XT | OSX.6.6.. // iPhone 4 32gb
     
rach
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 06:11 PM
 
mduell the x3100 graphics card is a class 5 graphics card. It is not only the first site that i linked to that states this information. That information will be available probably on every site that is relative to graphics cards that is on the internet. Maybe just research it a bit more and look into it.
Originally Posted by mduell View Post


How does that thread respond to any of my comments about that site's ranking methodology?
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by rach View Post
mduell the x3100 graphics card is a class 5 graphics card. It is not only the first site that i linked to that states this information. That information will be available probably on every site that is relative to graphics cards that is on the internet. Maybe just research it a bit more and look into it.
According to some random site that you've linked to, which is internally inconsistent! It shows the X3100 being twice as fast as two 'Class 3' cards! 'Class 5' is just an arbitrary invention of that site; it's not an industry standard or even vendor standard.
I'm well aware of the capabilities and limitations of GMA X3100 and GMA 950.
     
TheoCryst
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 08:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by drnkn_stylz View Post
I didn't really think BioShock would play, just wishful thinking

I find that Flash movies/animations make my fans kick in full blast on my current setup (sig). Also, iMovie is a bit choppy. What would be the crutch of my setup if it's not the 950?
Flash makes the fans kick in because of Adobe's shoddy programming. Try it in Windows on the same rig - quiet as a whistle. As for iMovie, it might be anything from CPU bus speed, to available hard drive space, to iMovie itself. And of course, there is a chance that the new iMovie offloads some work to the video card that I didn't know about.

Any ramblings are entirely my own, and do not represent those of my employers, coworkers, friends, or species
     
drnkn_stylz
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Canada.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 09:45 PM
 
I have a feeling if I had a larger HDD it would make a difference for performance.
..13" MacBook Pro | 2.53gHz | 4gb RAM | 320gb Seagate Momentus XT | OSX.6.6.. // iPhone 4 32gb
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Flagheimer View Post
Yes, I am well within the 14 days. Actually, I got 30 days. I'm on my 3rd MacBook book in the past week, as the first two were defective. I brought this one in yesterday, as I was concerned about a noise coming from the drive, the Genius said I shouldn't worry about it, but he extended my return policy from 14 to 30.

I bought the MacBook at an Apple Store in Cherry Creek -- noticed you lived in the Springs -- have you done business there? If there's nothing wrong with this MacBook, I assume I would have to pay a restocking fee in order to receive the updated MacBook, right?

Edit: just called them up, I will have to pay the 10% restocking fee.
Even if you have to pay the fee, it is worth it in my opinion. And like a poster above said, they don't always make you pay the fee when you come into the store. They are pretty nice up in Cherry Creek to, same goes for the Park Meadows store.
     
Gamoe
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2007, 11:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by rach View Post
This X3100 is slightly better than the GMA 950 but it still a class 5 graphics card and it still ranks lower than the graphics card that was used in the last revision of the iBook G4.
I would have hoped it would have overtaken at least the iBook's GPU.

Originally Posted by drnkn_stylz View Post
I have a feeling if I had a larger HDD it would make a difference for performance.
Just upgrade to a larger 7200 RPM HDD! That's one of the great things about the MacBook; How easy it is to upgrade the HDD. And they keep on getting bigger, faster and cheaper all the time.
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2007, 07:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by rach View Post
mduell the x3100 graphics card is a class 5 graphics card. It is not only the first site that i linked to that states this information. That information will be available probably on every site that is relative to graphics cards that is on the internet. Maybe just research it a bit more and look into it.
Actually it does not matter if it is 5, 4, 3 or whatever. And of course you cannot expect miracles from integrated Intel graphics.

What matters at this point is how it performs in comparison with the previous Macbook graphics. And in this aspect the information available from Windows sites if often misleading. We have just to wait for the first graphics benchmarks under Leopard to start popping out.

EDIT: here is a first negative report. Let's hope this is just a driver issue.
( Last edited by Pierre B.; Nov 4, 2007 at 07:44 AM. )
     
drnkn_stylz
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Canada.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2007, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gamoe View Post
Just upgrade to a larger 7200 RPM HDD! That's one of the great things about the MacBook; How easy it is to upgrade the HDD. And they keep on getting bigger, faster and cheaper all the time.

The rpm speed does not affect performance the same way seek/buffer times will. Also, a 200gb 5400rpm will be faster than a 100gb 7200rpm. The storage space actually improves performance.

A Crestine C2D is better than the Napa CD I have now, so that would make a big difference. Also, the X3100 is a lot better than the 950, and if I had a larger HDD, that would increase performance as well. Now, I have 2gb of Kingston Value RAM, but I am wondering if a higher end dual channel RAM would show an increase in performance against the Kingston Value...
..13" MacBook Pro | 2.53gHz | 4gb RAM | 320gb Seagate Momentus XT | OSX.6.6.. // iPhone 4 32gb
     
mfbernstein
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Jose
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2007, 10:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
GMA X3100 is about twice as fast as the ATi Mobility Radeon 9700 or ATi Mobility Radeon X600 and about the same as the nVidia GeForce Go 7300 or ATi Mobility Radeon X1300.
Really? People are reporting 8-15 fps on UT3 with the GMA X3100 (1024x768, everything set to low...). Guess that doesn't say much for the GMA 950...
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2007, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by mfbernstein View Post
Really? People are reporting 8-15 fps on UT3 with the GMA X3100 (1024x768, everything set to low...). Guess that doesn't say much for the GMA 950...
Sounds about right... about the same framerates as HL2 on X3100, which would be unplayable on GMA950 at 1024x768.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2007, 04:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by drnkn_stylz View Post
A Crestine C2D is better than the Napa CD I have now, so that would make a big difference. Also, the X3100 is a lot better than the 950, and if I had a larger HDD, that would increase performance as well.
I agree 100% that a C2D on Crestline is a much better performer than a CD on Napa. Likewise the X3100 is far more advanced than a 950. But that said, try some real world benchmarks first before you conclude that your user experience will be a lot better. I have a 2 GHz CD MB here and I'm setting up a brand new C2D 2.2 GHz MB right next to it. For Office, web, mail, and some X11 stuff I feel zero difference to be honest. Now I have also done some benchmarks and I can see perfectly well that the new MB is more powerful than the old one, but I'm just telling you that this doesn't necessarily translate to a totally different feeling. The jump iBook->MB was something very different than when you go from a CD to a C2D MB. Or in other words, obviously the new MB is a nice upgrade over the previous models, but don't expect it to feel much faster in everyday work.
     
Flagheimer
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2007, 01:23 PM
 
I'm returning my MacBook and paying the restocking fee. I basically rented the MacBook for $120. It's not bad, it served it's purpose. Timing was just awful. My PowerBook's hard drive failed, so I had to wait for Seagate to ship the advanced replacement. I'm in college, so that PB was my only computer. I had a big presentation, as well as homework due in the same week, so I had no other alternative.

I just replaced the PB's HD and we're good to go. I was thinking, it doesn't make sense for me to own two mobile computers. So I'm returning the MacBook and save up for an iMac down the road... Always wanted a Apple desktop.

Yes, I may not have a built-in camera, and yes I'm still running with PPC and with 10.3.9 (soon to change), but I love my PB!!!

If I didn't have a PB, then I'd definitely keep MacBook. Ultimately though, I have no need for it.
     
Kestral
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2007, 01:34 PM
 
For 2D purposes, will there be any performance differences between the GMA 950 and X3100? (esp. when driving an external monitor)?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2007, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by mfbernstein View Post
Really? People are reporting 8-15 fps on UT3 with the GMA X3100 (1024x768, everything set to low...). Guess that doesn't say much for the GMA 950...
Frankly, the fact that it loads at all makes me happy!

Also, I wonder if that guy was playing at the LCD's native resolution? That's the best way to go, performance-wise.
     
Kestral
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2007, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Depends what you mean by "2D purposes"... are we talking Finder or Aperture?
Talking about Finder, using Safari, Microsoft Office, iLife. Not Aperture.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2007, 07:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kestral View Post
For 2D purposes, will there be any performance differences between the GMA 950 and X3100? (esp. when driving an external monitor)?
Depends what you mean by "2D purposes"... are we talking Finder or Aperture?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Also, I wonder if that guy was playing at the LCD's native resolution? That's the best way to go, performance-wise.
Playing at less than the native resolution helps performance-wise.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2007, 04:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kestral View Post
For 2D purposes, will there be any performance differences between the GMA 950 and X3100? (esp. when driving an external monitor)?
Finder, Office, Web, Mail: no.
Photoshop: no.
Aperture, Motion: yes.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2007, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by rach View Post
Also the last graphics card that was used in the iBook G4 could support core image.
The GMA950 and the X3100 also support CoreImage.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
rach
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2007, 03:06 PM
 
Hi that was never in doubt. Mduell believed that the graphics card in the last rev iBook could not support CoreImage and i responded and told them that the ATI 9550 card could support CoreImage.
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
The GMA950 and the X3100 also support CoreImage.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:58 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,