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 > The MBP had a spec bump

The MBP had a spec bump (Page 2)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 05:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
We saw dozens of reports on the Aperture forums in the PPC days. The very strongest fully-equipped G5 towers provided essentially unusable Aperture performance with the stock video card.
You need to keep in mind that the current iPhone has the same CPU power as a single-core G5. (I'm not sure about the graphics performance, but I reckon it is comparable as well.) The question is »whether this is true of today's Macs as well?«
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
BareFeats.com has tests showing large benefits to having stronger graphics in different situations. Games obviously, but also Aperture and othe apps. From BareFeats.com:
barefeats is a very bad source for benchmark results. I've detailed my reasons in several previous posts, so I don't think I need to rehash them. They make claims without properly backing them up (games are an exception, but it's obvious for people interested in games that they need a good GPU). In particular, they have never checked how much you actually gain from a better GPU on Intel Macs by running the same benchmark twice, once using the integrated GPU and once using the dedicated GPU.
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
"most" remains the whole point here I think. No one suggests that most users' needs are not mundane and easily filled by basic Macs. However "most" is not "all" and therefore there is a need to fill that space between "most" users and all the rest.
… and the percentage is steadily shrinking. Instead of merely believing I need a discrete GPU (which I do have at the moment), I'd rather rely on facts to make an informed decision. Taking a 10 % performance hit on Aperture is fine for me if my MacBook (Pro/Air/Whatever) has a longer battery life.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Nov 3, 2011 at 06:41 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 05:48 AM
 
Apple has spent the last few years shifting its focus almost entirely to consumers (or do you plan to disagree with that?)
Photoshop is a very expensive piece of pro software which costs about the same as the average Mac sold. Even if you assume the use of PS Elements instead you are overestimating the number of people who actually use photoshop at all and then overestimating the proportion of those who actually do more than cut and paste someone's head onto some else's body for a laugh. In all seriousness, they might adjust colour levels a bit or run the sharpen filter.

I'm very sorry that I didn't take a documented poll, but I sold Macs on the high street for 5 years (from a reseller where I was also an engineer and did onsite work so I suspect we had more business users than most Apple Stores) and I can assure you that the vast majority of people who came in to buy a Mac went away with an entry level iMac or MacBook and didn't buy any kind of Photoshop for it. The ones with a bit more cash went for iMacs or laptops with larger screens, but again many of them were overbuying kit they weren't likely to stretch. We are talking about people who don't know what a graphics card is or that their computer even has one. Don't forget people buy Macs because you don't need to know how to take them to bits and rebuild them. You and I are not the average customer for Apple and we wouldn't be if we used PCs either.

I'm sure there are others with Apple retail experience who can corroborate my assertions here.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 05:53 AM
 
^ 100% corroborated.

Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Show me the data that supports the claim that "most users don't know or care".
It's directly inferrable from the data that show that the GPU doesn't make a difference for any of the things most users do most of the time.

If those users care, they've probably either been lied to or come from a PC-buyers' history of having to spend extra for a bunch of bogus options they'll never need or feel. (That, or they're generally in the habit of getting the best they can afford, because their needs might change.)
( Last edited by Spheric Harlot; Nov 3, 2011 at 06:02 AM. )
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 07:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You need to keep in mind that the current iPhone has the same CPU power as a single-core G5.
Do you have a link on that? Just curious. I suspect that you are right when it comes to threaded integer performance, but the G5 was a floating point monster for its time.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 09:19 AM
 
I was only referring to integer performance, of course. The G5 has better fp performance, but lacks all the dedicated hardware the ARM chip has (which enables it to decode HD h.264 video and such).

I've based my claim on the following DMIPS benchmarks: a single-core 1.8 GHz PowerPC 970 achieves 5220 DMIPS while Apple's A5 scores 2.5 DMIPS per MHz and core. That means a dual-core Apple A5 will score roughly 2*2,500 DMIPS = 5,000 DMIPS. I'd like to see SPECmarks for the A5, but I'm not aware of any.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
You have not read this thread I guess. There are several Apps that take advantage of GPU acceleration. Safari and Quicktime, as pointed out, do. Tests demonstrate the benefits for all users. Any further discussion on this is just a waste of time.
QuickTime uses the GPU for video decode acceleration. Even the most basic Intel integrated graphics can handle 1080 HD H.264 decode. A better GPU doesn't improve anything there.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
^ 100% corroborated.
It's directly inferrable from the data that show that the GPU doesn't make a difference for any of the things most users do most of the time.
Show me the data.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Taking a 10 % performance hit on Aperture is fine for me if my MacBook (Pro/Air/Whatever) has a longer battery life.
Wow. Clearly you do not run a pro Aperture workflow. In a pro's workflow 10% performance difference is a very big deal worth all kinds of tradeoffs or dollars. The heavy Aperture editing work is invariably done on a/c power anyway. Battery-only usage is important, but the critical amount of battery-only usage time for Aperture (IMO ~2 hours for field review, client presentations, etc.) is far exceeded by all 2011 Mac laptops. Even a large difference between 4 hours and 5 hours would be an easy tradeoff for 10% more performance.

In any event I believe that generally folks are just too cheap to buy the strongest graphics rather than "saving battery life." Anyway Apple could configure Energy Saver settings to drop the discrete GPU under max battery life setting if battery life was of such concern (maybe they already do).

But we agree that "most" users can get by with the low end. There are however many users not in the "most" users group.

E.g. if I could have optioned an even stronger GPU in my early 2011 17" MBP I would have happily paid to do so. Odds are that either GPU or RAM will be the limiters that cause this MBP to be replaced in a couple of years - - not the CPU or overall architecture of the box.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Nov 3, 2011 at 02:36 PM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 02:30 PM
 
Your claims against mine, freudling.

But honestly: since it should be patently obvious even to you, now that actual real-world numbers have been posted, that GPU power is pretty much completely irrelevant to daily tasks, why SHOULD they care? And if you can't find a good reason for that, why do you believe that they DO care?
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
QuickTime uses the GPU for video decode acceleration. Even the most basic Intel integrated graphics can handle 1080 HD H.264 decode. A better GPU doesn't improve anything there.
Yes, it does. And you're oversimplifying it. You'll get better FPS, and since the GPU can handle the load, multi-tasking stuff going on in the background will be handled better since things aren't being as offloaded to the CPU as they would with a worse graphics card.

I couldn't play 1080 p properly on an older Intel Mac Mini at the time because the graphics card wasn't enough to properly support it. When I did use VLC, etc. to play 1080 p videos it skipped at times, and nothing else was really that possible because it stressed the CPU so much.

To actually believe anything you're saying... I know you don't. You're just trolling.

As Ars and MacRumors' forum users have noticed, the new MacBooks don't break nearly as much of a sweat when playing large H.264 files at 1080p. While previous generations (by no means slouches in the hardware department) can crank the CPU to 100 percent when playing a file, that same file appears to only require around 20-30 percent of the CPU on a new MacBook.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Apple has spent the last few years shifting its focus almost entirely to consumers (or do you plan to disagree with that?)
Photoshop is a very expensive piece of pro software which costs about the same as the average Mac sold. Even if you assume the use of PS Elements instead you are overestimating the number of people who actually use photoshop at all and then overestimating the proportion of those who actually do more than cut and paste someone's head onto some else's body for a laugh. In all seriousness, they might adjust colour levels a bit or run the sharpen filter.

I'm very sorry that I didn't take a documented poll, but I sold Macs on the high street for 5 years (from a reseller where I was also an engineer and did onsite work so I suspect we had more business users than most Apple Stores) and I can assure you that the vast majority of people who came in to buy a Mac went away with an entry level iMac or MacBook and didn't buy any kind of Photoshop for it. The ones with a bit more cash went for iMacs or laptops with larger screens, but again many of them were overbuying kit they weren't likely to stretch. We are talking about people who don't know what a graphics card is or that their computer even has one. Don't forget people buy Macs because you don't need to know how to take them to bits and rebuild them. You and I are not the average customer for Apple and we wouldn't be if we used PCs either.

I'm sure there are others with Apple retail experience who can corroborate my assertions here.
You actually believe first that because of your experience in that place it's like that across the whole world? Second, you actually believe that because people aren't buying Photoshop in the store you worked they don't use it?

You do realize something called free trials that can be downloaded from the Internet, as well as software piracy? According to the BSA, 41% of all software on personal computers is pirated. Adobe and Quark sent out millions of take down notices to peer-to-peer file networks/users in the first 6 months of 2009 alone.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 02:45 PM
 
What do Adobe and Quark have to do with GPU acceleration?

(and especially those 41% pirated versions, the vast majority of which are probably running on Windows?)
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You need to keep in mind that the current iPhone has the same CPU power as a single-core G5. (I'm not sure about the graphics performance, but I reckon it is comparable as well.) The question is »whether this is true of today's Macs as well?«

barefeats is a very bad source for benchmark results. I've detailed my reasons in several previous posts, so I don't think I need to rehash them. They make claims without properly backing them up (games are an exception, but it's obvious for people interested in games that they need a good GPU). In particular, they have never checked how much you actually gain from a better GPU on Intel Macs by running the same benchmark twice, once using the integrated GPU and once using the dedicated GPU.

… and the percentage is steadily shrinking. Instead of merely believing I need a discrete GPU (which I do have at the moment), I'd rather rely on facts to make an informed decision. Taking a 10 % performance hit on Aperture is fine for me if my MacBook (Pro/Air/Whatever) has a longer battery life.
Whatever Oreo. You haven't really raised any tangible criticism against BareFeats that's worth looking at. You talked about FCP and how you weren't sure if things were the result of more cores, or better GPUs.

Yes, it's all over the Web, in lots of different places... about how GPU performance is playing a huge role in the better performance of the program. Mark Spencer, one of many on the topic:

Mark Spencer at Mac Break Studio shows you exactly how:

Final Cut Pro X takes advantage of your Mac's GPU (graphics processing unit) to export your projects in record time. He also shows how the new Compressor 4 can take full advantage of the multiple cores in your computer's CPU for a significant increase in speeds with multiple encodes.
All of you are simply incredulous if you think GPU is not important. It is. No argument. Safari takes advantage of it. Quicktime does. Photoshop does. And if you want to make the argument that Photoshop is too expensive whilst ignoring software piracy, then go for Pixelmator. It uses GPU acceleration, namely, Core Image, "that uses your Mac’s graphics card to ensure blistering-fast image processing."

But nobody uses any of this stuff! Ya, right.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Yes, it does. And you're oversimplifying it. You'll get better FPS, and since the GPU can handle the load, multi-tasking stuff going on in the background will be handled better since things aren't being as offloaded to the CPU as they would with a worse graphics card.

I couldn't play 1080 p properly on an older Intel Mac Mini at the time because the graphics card wasn't enough to properly support it. When I did use VLC, etc. to play 1080 p videos it skipped at times, and nothing else was really that possible because it stressed the CPU so much.

To actually believe anything you're saying... I know you don't. You're just trolling.
I've read that three times, and it STILL makes no sense in the context of this discussion.

TODAY, the lowest-end graphics solution available on Macintosh has full hardware decoding of h.264 video, full-HD.

What does your experience on an elderly Mac mini have to do with that?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
You actually believe first that because of your experience in that place it's like that across the whole world? Second, you actually believe that because people aren't buying Photoshop in the store you worked they don't use it?
Yes, I do believe my experience is representative of the general population. My customers varied in age and profession from school kids to businessmen to pensioners. I dealt with advertising houses, video editors, TV execs, writers, general office people, musicians, millionaires and paupers. a real spectrum of users. I also repaired people's machines so I have a very good idea of what they used them for and what software they had installed, legal or otherwise. As I say, many many people who have CS installed don't use it for anything that would benefit from the GPU.

Spheric has seconded my experiences from a different country.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Yes, it does. And you're oversimplifying it. You'll get better FPS, and since the GPU can handle the load, multi-tasking stuff going on in the background will be handled better since things aren't being as offloaded to the CPU as they would with a worse graphics card.
You'll only get better FPS to a point. Usually 30 FPS for video. Once a cheap card can do that, there is no benefit from a better one for playing video.

I think I'm right in saying that all GPUs in shipping Macs can provide hardware decoding for .h264 nowadays.

How many average users do you think watch 1080p movies and do something else on their Mac at the same time anyway?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 03:26 PM
 
The "GPU is irrelevant" argument would suggest that Apple (which clearly does know how real-world operationally useful GPUs are or are not, as well as how useful they will or will not be a year from now) is wasting its time and our money putting progressively stronger GPUs in higher end Macs.

And the constant refrain down to the low end users' needs is a red herring; Chewbacca if you like. Everyone agrees the low end "most users" currently can get by without stronger GPUs than the integrated HDG3000.

Be aware also that the world is rapidly (like daily) evolving to huge numbers even of the "low end" shooting 8+ MP still images and capturing video on an exponential growth curve. E.g. yesterday at Occupy Oakland the number of videos being shot by everyone from children to senior citizens was well into the thousands. My point being that even low end "most users" graphics processing requirements are rapidly increasing.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Nov 3, 2011 at 03:53 PM. )
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
The "GPU is irrelevant" argument would suggest that Apple (which clearly does know how real-world operationally useful GPUs are or are not, as well as how useful they will or will not be a year from now) is wasting its time and our money putting progressively stronger GPUs in higher end Macs.

And the constant refrain down to the low end users' needs is a red herring; Chewbacca if you like. Everyone agrees the low end "most users" currently can get by without stronger GPUs than the integrated HDG3000.

Be aware also that the world is rapidly (like daily) evolving to huge numbers even of the "low end" shooting 8+ MP still images and capturing video on an exponential growth curve. E.g. yesterday at Occupy Oakland the number of videos being shot by everyone from children to senior citizens was well into the thousands. My point being that even low end "most users" graphics processing requirements are rapidly increasing.

-Allen
Yup. The entry level MacBook Pro doubled the available video memory as standard. From 256 to 512 MB. It's given so much a boost. I had the i7 2 GHz before and got this newer entry level one. I've noted major speed improvements from the graphics card.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
The "GPU is irrelevant" argument would suggest that Apple (which clearly does know how real-world operationally useful GPUs are or are not, as well as how useful they will or will not be a year from now) is wasting its time and our money putting progressively stronger GPUs in higher end Macs.

And the constant refrain down to the low end users' needs is a red herring; Chewbacca if you like. Everyone agrees the low end "most users" currently can get by without stronger GPUs than the integrated HDG3000.

Be aware also that the world is rapidly (like daily) evolving to huge numbers even of the "low end" shooting 8+ MP still images and capturing video on an exponential growth curve. E.g. yesterday at Occupy Oakland the number of videos being shot by everyone from children to senior citizens was well into the thousands. My point being that even low end "most users" graphics processing requirements are rapidly increasing.
It's not irrelevant, you certainly need one. But even the most basic Intel integrated graphics these days does everything the bottom 90% of the market needs. 6970M with 1GB doesn't make your Safari or QuickTime any faster than 6750M with 512MB or Intel HD Graphics. They're great for Aperture/FCX, but what percent of iPhone users are dumping their 8MP into Aperture? 1%? Maybe that's the 1% they keep talking about...
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
It's not irrelevant, you certainly need one. But even the most basic Intel integrated graphics these days does everything the bottom 90% of the market needs. 6970M with 1GB doesn't make your Safari or QuickTime any faster than 6750M with 512MB or Intel HD Graphics. They're great for Aperture/FCX, but what percent of iPhone users are dumping their 8MP into Aperture? 1%? Maybe that's the 1% they keep talking about...
Show the data.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 05:20 PM
 
Once again: We have data that show it's irrelevant for regular use, ON TODAY'S MACHINES (not on some aging Mac you were trying to view 1080p on).

We have two independently corroborated reports that consumers don't give a ****, either.

You can look up the sales data, as well, but at present, the MacBook Air is Apple's best-selling Mac, by far (as was the 13" MacBook before), probably closely followed by the 13" MacBooks Pro and the low-end iMac. These people are obviously as deathly afraid of being stuck with a non-"pro" graphics card as you are.

I'll be happy to supply the data AGAIN a THIRD time if you ask again, but really, it's up to YOU to substantiate your claims, now.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Once again: We have data that show it's irrelevant for regular use, ON TODAY'S MACHINES (not on some aging Mac you were trying to view 1080p on).

We have two independently corroborated reports that consumers don't give a ****, either.

You can look up the sales data, as well, but at present, the MacBook Air is Apple's best-selling Mac, by far (as was the 13" MacBook before), probably closely followed by the 13" MacBooks Pro and the low-end iMac. These people are obviously as deathly afraid of being stuck with a non-"pro" graphics card as you are.

I'll be happy to supply the data AGAIN a THIRD time if you ask again, but really, it's up to YOU to substantiate your claims, now.
Articles, tests, data, benchmarks already posted in this thread. You're either ignorant, incredulous, trolling, etc.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 06:54 PM
 
Just ignoring OreoCookie doesn't really make your case, especially when you accuse others of trolling.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
The "GPU is irrelevant" argument would suggest that Apple (which clearly does know how real-world operationally useful GPUs are or are not, as well as how useful they will or will not be a year from now) is wasting its time and our money putting progressively stronger GPUs in higher end Macs.
Apple only cares about what makes its products better (which sometimes means prettier, rather than more useful). They certainly aren't interested in saving their customers money. You've been using Macs long enough to know this by now.

Remember we are talking about a company that just spent millions of dollars to reduce the number of panes of glass in one of its stores entrances.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2011, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Apple only cares about what makes its products better (which sometimes means prettier, rather than more useful). They certainly aren't interested in saving their customers money. You've been using Macs long enough to know this by now.

Remember we are talking about a company that just spent millions of dollars to reduce the number of panes of glass in one of its stores entrances.
This has nothing to do with reality. GPU is an important component. If it weren't nobody would bother putting anything but integrated GPUs into computers. Dedicated graphics gives the best performance within the OS, on the Web, playing high def movies, and playing games. Anymore discussion about this is borderline trollish.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2011, 07:46 PM
 
That doesn't follow. Dedicated graphics give an advantage in certain sectors (games, 3d graphics, etc), which is why they're put in computers. They don't give a measureable boost in general computing use, and you saying it over and over again doesn't change anything. If you want to change anyone's minds, bring some facts. So far you haven't.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2011, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
That doesn't follow. Dedicated graphics give an advantage in certain sectors (games, 3d graphics, etc), which is why they're put in computers. They don't give a measureable boost in general computing use, and you saying it over and over again doesn't change anything. If you want to change anyone's minds, bring some facts. So far you haven't.
Yes I have. You're incredulous and trolling. What's new?
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2011, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Yes I have. You're incredulous and trolling. What's new?
GPU MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO REGULAR USERS' EVERYDAY TASKS.

Bring those facts, please.

You have NOT, so far.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2011, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
GPU MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO REGULAR USERS' EVERYDAY TASKS.

Bring those facts, please.

You have NOT, so far.
Show me the data. Look at you getting blue in the face. You my man fit the profile of a troll. I called it earlier in this thread too. This will go on and on and on. Incredulity gets you nowhere.

By the way, I just ripped out my graphics chips and installed a GPU in my MacBook Pro from my old iBook Clamshell. I wrote Lion drivers for it so It'd be optimized.

You know what? There's zero difference in performance. Everything is as fast and smooth as before. You're right, GPU are basically irrelevant.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2011, 09:59 PM
 
Two of us have stated our professional experiences which are in agreement about what the average user does with and needs from their Mac or computer. That constitutes data.

Your only offering so far is your own non-professional opinion based solely on your own requirements, hence the onus to produce data is on you, not us.

By professional in this context I mean working in sales/repairs/training/installations and hence having first hand contact with a wide cross section of end users of various ages and professions.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2011, 10:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Two of us have stated our professional experiences which are in agreement about what the average user does with and needs from their Mac or computer. That constitutes data.

Your only offering so far is your own non-professional opinion based solely on your own requirements, hence the onus to produce data is on you, not us.

By professional in this context I mean working in sales/repairs/training/installations and hence having first hand contact with a wide cross section of end users of various ages and professions.
No, it does not. And I already posted a plethora of data from AnandTech, quoting: GPU does matter.

The fact that you would ignore this information shows that you are incredulous, trolling, a combination thereof, and more. You don't believe what you're writing. No rational person would.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2011, 10:46 PM
 
freudling, constantly calling others trolls is getting annoying, especially since many would regard you as one.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2011, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
freudling, constantly calling others trolls is getting annoying, especially since many would regard you as one.
Show me the data that supports the proposition that GPUs don't matter to most people. Show it to me. Convince us that they're BS components. That's what this is. None of you believe what you're writing. You just come here to argue. You keep coming back, over and over, like a drug or something. Something keeps compelling you to fit the profiles of trolls.

It's the most absurd point of discussion on a tech forum with aging nerds who know better... who know what the function of GPUs are.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 12:09 AM
 
freudling, if GPUs really mattered to common Mac buyers, some of the most popular Macs wouldn't be integrated-graphics based models. The same thing goes for PCs. Most people don't care that much about graphics performance. It's not hard to see why given that most of the usage people get out of their computers is web/social networking based, on which they play very casual games. They don't need beefy graphics hardware for that.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Nov 7, 2011 at 12:16 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 01:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
freudling, if GPUs really mattered to common Mac buyers, some of the most popular Macs wouldn't be integrated-graphics based models. The same thing goes for PCs. Most people don't care that much about graphics performance. It's not hard to see why given that most of the usage people get out of their computers is web/social networking based, on which they play very casual games. They don't need beefy graphics hardware for that.
Show the data that supports these claims.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 02:17 AM
 
The data is that the most popular Apple products (MacBook Air and MBP 13") and the most popular PCs (the cheapest models that are most popular according to sales data) are all integrated graphics based.

Why don't you show the data that contradicts that view?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 03:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
No, it does not. And I already posted a plethora of data from AnandTech, quoting: GPU does matter.
NOT FOR EVERYDAY TASKS.

It's not that hard.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 03:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by spheric harlot View Post
not for everyday tasks.

It's not that hard.
Show ME THE DATA.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 03:41 AM
 
Show US THE DATA, freudling. Does anyone around here agree with you? It doesn't look like it. So it seems the burden of showing data is on you, if anyone.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Dex13
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bay Area of San Jose
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 03:43 AM
 
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 04:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
The data is that the most popular Apple products (MacBook Air and MBP 13") and the most popular PCs (the cheapest models that are most popular according to sales data) are all integrated graphics based.

Why don't you show the data that contradicts that view?
Because people buy MacBook Airs and MBP 13" : Therefore, GPUs aren't important to people. Huge, massive, logical leap. Implicit in this is that because these machines sell well, people aren't concerned what kind of GPU is in the machine. That it's not important to their computing experience. That they don't really care, and are cool with cheaper computers and therefore cheaper GPUs.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 05:15 AM
 
freudling, if you make a claim, the onus is on you to provide information that supports your argument. The others have clearly done that (e. g. by mentioning sales numbers), now it's your turn to do the same.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 05:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
No, it does not. And I already posted a plethora of data from AnandTech, quoting: GPU does matter.

The fact that you would ignore this information shows that you are incredulous, trolling, a combination thereof, and more. You don't believe what you're writing. No rational person would.
You've linked to data which shows that GPU matters to performance of certain tasks. Most of these tasks are either higher end or eye candy. No-one is disagreeing that having a better GPU will make certain things run faster, thats just obvious.

Your claim is that Average Joe Facebook user cares about having a good GPU, which everyone else agrees he doesn't.

Only providing evidence to something superficially related to your claim is closer to trolling than anything anyone else has said here. Its another Chewbacca Defence.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You've linked to data which shows that GPU matters to performance of certain tasks. Most of these tasks are either higher end or eye candy. No-one is disagreeing that having a better GPU will make certain things run faster, thats just obvious.

Your claim is that Average Joe Facebook user cares about having a good GPU, which everyone else agrees he doesn't.

Only providing evidence to something superficially related to your claim is closer to trolling than anything anyone else has said here. Its another Chewbacca Defence.
It would be funny if you inserted what u just said into something like a business plan.

"Investor 1": What data do you have to back up the claim that average joe consumer...? How many average joe consumers are there? So these average joe consumers buy Apple's products? What percentage of Apple's Mac sales go to average joe consumer? Can you also summarize the profile of average joe consumer? Income bracket? Part of the world? Gender...

You mean you can't get me that kind of granular information? Well then how do I know anything about them... How do I know how many of these "people" are buying Macs? How do I know if none or few care or know anything about GPUs?

You mean maybe people buying Macs know a few things about computers? Maybe? Maybe they read Engadget too? Maybe they read most of the same online sites as you? Maybe they're information sge citizens like you?

At any rate, I don't know. I look forward to data about average joe consumer.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 11:13 AM
 
This is an internet forum, not the place to get business plans approved or ask for funding ....

Oops.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 12:13 PM
 
Its not rocket science. Macs are easy to use, so they attract people who struggle with Windows.

I'd bet there are more teenage girls buying (being bought) Macs than Engadget readers but sadly there is no published data to go on. Apple doesn't even go into more detail than laptop or desktop so you only have the real world experience of people like Spheric and myself to go on.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 12:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Because people buy MacBook Airs and MBP 13" : Therefore, GPUs aren't important to people. Huge, massive, logical leap. Implicit in this is that because these machines sell well, people aren't concerned what kind of GPU is in the machine. That it's not important to their computing experience. That they don't really care, and are cool with cheaper computers and therefore cheaper GPUs.
Um, that's not a logical leap; that's a logical conclusion. There is a difference.

So it's not that we're not getting our point across; it's just that you've chosen to completely ignore it
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Show ME THE DATA.
I honestly don't know why I keep arguing with you...

We have shown sales numbers - namely that the most popular models use integrated graphics. You have my statement - and I have enough references to support, if you're interested - that the most common graphics task in the world, basic 2D drawing with Quartz, does not use the GPU at all. That is data. Now, what do you have?

You keep talking about a few scattered things:

* Quicktime being accelerated. Yes, certain Quicktime operations are accelerated - ON INTEGRATED GRAPHICS. While this might seem counterintuitive, they are not accelerated when using discrete Radeon graphics of the type common in the iMac and MBP. Sorry. Even it had been, it doesn't matter - the integrated graphics is fast enough for 1080p and beyond.

* Safari being accelerated. Not really. Animations using CoreAnimation - including Flash - are accelerated. Not much else. Videos in Flash? Same as for the Quicktime operations - integrated graphics yes, discrete no.

This gem:
I couldn't play 1080 p properly on an older Intel Mac Mini at the time because the graphics card wasn't enough to properly support it. When I did use VLC, etc. to play 1080 p videos it skipped at times, and nothing else was really that possible because it stressed the CPU so much.
That's probably true, if that mini used a GMA 950, as video wasn't accelerated on graphics that old. Current integrated graphics is miles above that. This is not a relevant piece of information for someone picking a computer to buy today.

A few other links are as absurd - a review of Mac OS X 10.4 on PowerPC (which didn't have integrated graphics, in case you didn't know) and a review of a several generations old graphics card.

And honestly: stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 02:38 PM
 
Show the data.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2011, 02:42 PM
 
Which data — the one that show that users don't care about graphics specs? Those are in the sales.

Or the ones that prove that graphics cards have little to no effect on everyday tasks? Those are more a question of technological background, and that has been amply explained.

Which data are you still missing?
     
 
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 11:31 AM.
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.,