[jimbosyn]

Hello all. I currently have a macbook pro with the 2.16 processor. I have been extremely happy with the system. I have had none of the whine problems that others have described. The only thing that I regret about my system is the SIZE. Now, the macbook seems to solve this issue for me. So here is my question, it revolves around the integrated video in the macbook vs the discrete video in the macbook pro. Other than gaming and aperature, what else will I miss by switching to integrated graphics? I am thinking of selling my MBP and buying a MB for size reasons, but do not want to suffer down the road if applications like iPhoto and iMovie begin to require beefier graphics than the integrated GMA 950 can deliver. Any thoughts or concerns relative to video? I am aware of the other diffrences in the models, but the only one that gives me pause is the video. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[harrisjamieh]

It looks as though FInal Cut Studio is a no. If you go to the lounge, there is a thread about the MacBook there, with some 'developers' aparently saying how iMovie etc are relying more on graphics.. Take a look, though be warned, its a bit messy in there

Also, something I didn't think of when ordering (but won't make me cancel my order) is that with 10.5 coming soon, one has to wonder weather the GMA950 will handle everything 10.5 has to offer - ie the G4 mac mini did not support Tiger Core Image.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

If you go to the lounge, there is a thread about the MacBook there, with some 'developers' aparently saying how iMovie etc are relying more on graphics.

It's not some 'developers'. It's just goMac.

Apple says iMovie is 1.5x faster than on the previous iBook with dedicated graphics.

http://www.apple.com/macbook/intelcoreduo.html

[Eug Wanker]

Some of the iLife apps are now using CoreImage type features, but not *that* heavily. Dunno about iLife '07 though.

I guess the bigger question is what apps do you use regularly? I use iMovie, but not that much so a few slowdowns here and there isn't a huge deal. Most of iMovie is CPU anyways.

[tycheung]

what I'm curious about is whether that thing is beefy enough to drive an external 1600x1200 display or larger without feeling painfully slow (as my iBook 800/ati7500 does w/ the spanning hack). With a 2nd display....does the system reallot another 64mg vram for that display?

[jimbosyn]

I'm a unix admin who writes code and uses web apps. I use iPhoto and iMove extensively though for personal family videos attached to a Dell 2001FPW. I really like the portability of a macbook, but am somewhat worried about the integrated graphics.

[jamil5454]

To the OP:

Keep your MacBook Pro. You would be losing in the long run...

My iBook feels slow as ever at this point in time, and I could sell it and save about $600 or so to get a MacBook, but I don't need to. For recording lectures, office, and a little web development this iBook is fine. I'll probably get something new in October '07 when the AppleCare expires.

What I'm trying to say is... don't live with regrets. Enjoy your MacBook Pro in its entirety. Unless you only use it in cramped quarters, I don't think selling and getting a MacBook is worth it.

[tillin]

I agree, i have a 17" powerbook, which i love, but it is enormous. i am a photographer though and i need a decent graphics card for using photoshop.

i had a hands on with the macbook yesterday morning. and if it wasnt for the graphics issue, i would sell my powerbook right now and put one on order. it really is a great little machine. ( except for the achillies heel )

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by AGoglanian

I agree, i have a 17" powerbook, which i love, but it is enormous. i am a photographer though and i need a decent graphics card for using photoshop.

No you don't. The GPU is irrelevant for Photoshop.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

No you don't. The GPU is irrelevant for Photoshop.

yup, It is needed for Aperture though.

[Jerome]

Photoshop needs 3 things to run well: a fast CPU, lots of ram and to get Universal!

[quangdiggity]

so would it be worse than the one on my eMac g4 ATI-Radeon 9600 : 64MB vRAM ???

just wondering, cause the price of the MacBook seems awesum for a mmac laptop

[lookmark]

For games and GPU-dependent applications (like Aperture)? It will be a little worse than the eMac.

For everything else, it will be better.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

The 950 is good enough for this guy who got arrested trying to steal a MacBook from an Apple Store

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

The 950 is good enough for this guy who got arrested trying to steal a MacBook from an Apple Store

Heh. Awesome.

"The new MacBook®, the choice of thieves around the world.™"

P.S. I've been to that store. They almost threw me out when they saw me taking pix of their cool glass staircase.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

The 950 is good enough for this guy who got arrested trying to steal a MacBook from an Apple Store

Nice pics. The guy actually tried to steal iPod related items.

[jimbosyn]

That is freaking jank. I thought apple users were smarter than that.

So on my lunch break, I dropped into the apple store to check out the macbooks. I'll have to say that I was impressed. The only problem I saw was some warping on the left side of the body where the i/o ports are. It was bowed out and you could see between the side and top piece of the system into it's innards. I saw the same behavior on 4 of the macbooks on display. The crack between the two pieces was indeed small, but it was still there. It could be the way all ibooks are, being plastic and all, but I'm just used to the rigid aluminum cases, being a powerbook come MBP owner. It was not too much to keep me from seriously consider plopping down my cc on the spot. The screen was amazing. The colors were rich and bright. The system also seems much much cooler than my MBP. I picked it up and felt the bottom and it was only slightly warm. I am very very tempted to go by and pick one up. Decreased size, increased battery life, cheaper price. I could sell my MBP on EBAY, pick up a white macbook, and come out 1,000 ahead. The only stopping point is that freaking integrated video card.

[macdummy]

is it possible to scale up the memory bandwidth on the gma 950? i was reading some of the specs on intel's website last night and came accross something interesting.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

It states within the 'Optimization of System Resources' chart that,
"Dynamic Video Memory Technology (DVMT) 3.0 supports up to 224MB of video memory; system memory is allocated where it is needed dynamically."
Does that mean that this is done automatically with in our case, OS X? i.e. when using OS X, it gets enough of what it needs from the 950 to offer great real-time GUI results, or when one fires up a modern game with high 3d graphics the GMA 950 automatically optimizes itself and actually scales up to 224mb of VRAM to get the max benefit for gameplay? i understand that everything is also dependent on the amount of physical RAM one has. in this case lets assume the RAM is maxed out at 2 gigs.

i guess the big question is, is the scaling (or does it not scale, maybe i'm reading into the whole thing incorrectly) done manually or automatically?

[NightEyes]

unless you're going to be playing Quake 4 or doing pro photo work, you should be fine with the MacBook.

[Jerome]

I need it to be able to handle FCP, After Effects, Photoshop and Illustrator once in a while. I know only FCP is Intel ready but when the others will, am I right to think only AE will suffer from the integrated graphics?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Jerome

I need it to be able to handle FCP, After Effects, Photoshop and Illustrator once in a while. I know only FCP is Intel ready but when the others will, am I right to think only AE will suffer from the integrated graphics?

Anything with the word "Pro" in it means you should not be buying low end consumer hardware.

Photoshop and illustrator will be fine as they don't use the video card much if at all. As for Final cut pro I wouldn't bet on it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by macdummy

is it possible to scale up the memory bandwidth on the gma 950? i was reading some of the specs on intel's website last night and came accross something interesting.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

It states within the 'Optimization of System Resources' chart that,
"Dynamic Video Memory Technology (DVMT) 3.0 supports up to 224MB of video memory; system memory is allocated where it is needed dynamically."
Does that mean that this is done automatically with in our case, OS X? i.e. when using OS X, it gets enough of what it needs from the 950 to offer great real-time GUI results, or when one fires up a modern game with high 3d graphics the GMA 950 automatically optimizes itself and actually scales up to 224mb of VRAM to get the max benefit for gameplay? i understand that everything is also dependent on the amount of physical RAM one has. in this case lets assume the RAM is maxed out at 2 gigs.

i guess the big question is, is the scaling (or does it not scale, maybe i'm reading into the whole thing incorrectly) done manually or automatically?

Memory bandwidth is not changed.

Memory amount can change, but Apple has locked it to 64 MB. (I think it uses 80 MB, at least on the Mac mini. 64 MB for the GPU, and 16 MB for overhead.)

Originally Posted by Jerome

I need it to be able to handle FCP, After Effects, Photoshop and Illustrator once in a while. I know only FCP is Intel ready but when the others will, am I right to think only AE will suffer from the integrated graphics?

Are you not going to be running Motion with Final Cut? Motion relies heavily on the GPU.

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Anything with the word "Pro" in it means you should not be buying low end consumer hardware.

I guess that why Apple demos Shake on iMacs then. Oh wait. Shake doesn't have "Pro" in it.

I guess you could argue iMacs are not the lowest end consumer machines, but before the Core Duo arrived Shake was never demo'd on an iMac.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Memory amount can change, but Apple has locked it to 64 MB. (I think it uses 80 MB, at least on the Mac mini. 64 MB for the GPU, and 16 MB for overhead.)

Can this be hacked?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Anything with the word "Pro" in it means you should not be buying low end consumer hardware.

Photoshop and illustrator will be fine as they don't use the video card much if at all. As for Final cut pro I wouldn't bet on it.

I wont be working with FCP and AE full time on that machine, but I'd like it to be able to do some once in a while. I have a loaded dual G5 at the office for that.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Are you not going to be running Motion with Final Cut? Motion relies heavily on the GPU.

I don't use Motion, I work faster on After Effects and last time I checked, Motion lacked many features I use daily on After Effects which renders it useless to me. Not a bad application at all, just not a good one for my needs. But AE is very demanding on the GPU too, 3D performance might suffer a lot on the Macbook.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Can this be hacked?

Interesting question.

Dunno, but It'd be nice to be able to set it at say 128 MB, for those users who have large external screens.

[StiZeven]

I asked (in another thread) why Apple would lock it at 64MB when the default for the GMA 950 is 128MB? Every other PC using the GMA 950 is shown as '128MB' shared except for Apple's portables? Why?

Are they going to open it up to the usual 128MB for the RevB MacBook (and Mac Mini) and call it a new and improved feature? That would be really lame.

I am not sure why they'd make a bad situation worse for themselves (in terms of graphics in the MacBooks and Mac Minis). '128MB Graphics' is more marketable than what they are listing now - shared or not.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I guess that why Apple demos Shake on iMacs then. Oh wait. Shake doesn't have "Pro" in it.

I guess you could argue iMacs are not the lowest end consumer machines, but before the Core Duo arrived Shake was never demo'd on an iMac.

The first line in the description for shake:

"Shake 4 is the only compositing software with a complete toolset for both single artists and visual effects facilities. With 3D multi-plane compositing, 32-bit Keylight and Primatte keying, cutting edge Optical Flow image processing, Final Cut Pro 5 integration and an open, extensible scripting language, Shake 4 delivers all the tools required for sophisticated film and television visual effects."

http://www.apple.com/shake/

None of that says low end consumer. Where in the world did you see it on an iMac?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I guess you could argue iMacs are not the lowest end consumer machines, but before the Core Duo arrived Shake was never demo'd on an iMac.

"not supported on Intel-based Mac computers with Rosetta"

[jreniew]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Interesting question.

Dunno, but It'd be nice to be able to set it at say 128 MB, for those users who have large external screens.

why 128? i would go to 192... the more the better...
the question is will it make a significant difference?
and can someone figer out how to hack it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

The first line in the description for shake:

"Shake 4 is the only compositing software with a complete toolset for both single artists and visual effects facilities. With 3D multi-plane compositing, 32-bit Keylight and Primatte keying, cutting edge Optical Flow image processing, Final Cut Pro 5 integration and an open, extensible scripting language, Shake 4 delivers all the tools required for sophisticated film and television visual effects."

http://www.apple.com/shake/

None of that says low end consumer. Where in the world did you see it on an iMac?

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

"not supported on Intel-based Mac computers with Rosetta"

Macworld Daily News
Tuesday - April 25, 2006
NAB 2006: Universal Shake revealed
By Jim Dalrymple Macworld.com

Shake 4.1 will ship in May and feature support for Apple's Intel Macs, Apple executives confirmed on Monday at the National Association of Broadcasters show (NAB).

Kirk Paulsen, senior director of pro applications marketing, demonstrated Apple’s high-end digital compositing software running on an Intel Duo Core iMac. This, admitted Paulsen, is not something that could have been done with the PowerPC iMac.

Typically, users of Shake have the most powerful system available to them - like a dual processor Power Mac G5 - in order to run the application. Paulsen said the processors are no longer the bottleneck when running high-end applications like Shake, now it's the speed of the hard drive.

[dialo]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

"not supported on Intel-based Mac computers with Rosetta"

It was demoed on an imac at NAB

[StiZeven]

Can someone with a MacBook with 1GB (or more) of RAM look in the system profiler and see if the memory size for the GMA 950 is still at only 64MB? I am hoping that the limitation to 64MB is due to only having 512MB of system memory installed.

I can't imagine why Apple would make an already questionable graphics option even less desirable by cutting it's normal allotted memory from the standard 128MB (like on ALL other notebooks out there using the 950) to only 64MB?

Out of ALL the Core Duo notebooks out there that are shipping with the GMA 950, Apple is the ONLY one slashing the amount of available memory in HALF!

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by StiZeven

Can someone with a MacBook with 1GB (or more) of RAM look in the system profiler and see if the memory size for the GMA 950 is still at only 64MB? I am hoping that the limitation to 64MB is due to only having 512MB of system memory installed.

I can't imagine why Apple would make an already questionable graphics option even less desirable by cutting it's normal allotted memory from the standard 128MB (like on ALL other notebooks out there using the 950) to only 64MB?

Out of ALL the Core Duo notebooks out there that are shipping with the GMA 950, Apple is the ONLY one slashing the amount of available memory in HALF!

Other laptops may have variable memory amounts. Apple has locked it at 64 MB forever reason, but actually the max is 256 MB not 128 MB IIRC.

[StiZeven]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Other laptops may have variable memory amounts. Apple has locked it at 64 MB forever reason, but actually the max is 256 MB not 128 MB IIRC.

All notebooks and PCs with the Intel GMA 950 (with 512MB of system memory or more) will show 128MB for the Intel 950 Graphics memory (in system properties). No other notebook (except the MacBook and Mac Mini for that matter) will show anything less than 128MB.

What will vary is how much the 950 will actually borrow from system memory. According to the Whitepaper on this chipset from Intel, there are a number of ways the PC Maker will set this up (and this is usually done within the BIOS that the user can not see or change).

From what I've seen from the big guys (Dell, Toshiba, Sony, HP), they will have 32-64MB held as default shared graphics memory, and up to an additional 64-96MB will be borrowed when needed (but the default and overhead always = 128MB).

I believe the max amount of allocated system memory for the GMA 950 is 224MB - but that may be just for the Desktop chipset only (or, for notebooks and PCs with 1GB of memory or more).

The only reason I can think of as to why Apple locked the 128MB GMA 950 at 64MB is because OS X (with the current drivers) can not truly take advantage of Intel's DVMT technology. This is just a guess of course. But if this is true, I am wondering if OS X is truly taking advantage of other Centrino features - like dynamically changing CPU speed on the fly (instantly) like XP does. This may be the reason why MacBooks aren't getting the same battery life as PCs with similar configurations. Of course, I am merely speculating - it's late.

Another reason might be that they are going to uncap the shared memory from 64MB to 128MB in the Rev-B MacBook to make it look like a new and upgraded feature to the common user. As I've stated earlier, that would be truly lame.

I wish someone could shed some light on this mystery. All I've got are guesses and speculation!

[The Ancient One]

What do you make of the note on the tech specs page?

Graphics and Video Support
Intel GMA 950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory1

1. Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 80MB, resulting in 432MB of system memory available.

"Minimum" seems to imply more may be used "depending on graphics needs."

[Eug Wanker]

believe the max amount of allocated system memory for the GMA 950 is 224MB - but that may be just for the Desktop chipset only (or, for notebooks and PCs with 1GB of memory or more).

You're right - 224 MB not 256 MB. I had read 256 before, but this page agrees with you.

Perhaps it is 256 MB including overhead? (As you know, the Mac mini allocates 64 MB for the GPU, but uses 80 MB.)

I'd love to be able to use 128 MB. I won't miss the extra memory for the system, as I have ordered 2 GB RAM for my MacBook.

1. Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 80MB, resulting in 432MB of system memory available.

"Minimum" seems to imply more may be used "depending on graphics needs."

That is very interesting. I just checked the Mac mini page and it says the same thing.

However, I specifically remember an Apple exec stating that it would use 64/80 MB for the Mac mini, no more, no less.

[Jerome]

It HAS to be hackable to use more...

[jimbosyn]

I just don't understand why apple would intentionally cripple this card? Oh well.

So since all of the applications I use are consumer grade, ie iMovie, iPhoto, etc.. I doubt apple would leave it's customers out in the cold with consumer apps on a consumer laptop. But then again, stranger things have happened.

[Star-Fire]

All I can say I ran FCP on a 500mhz TiBook and had no problem, even some realtime effects so I have to imagine it would be fine on a Macbook, but don't quote me.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

That is very interesting. I just checked the Mac mini page and it says the same thing.

However, I specifically remember an Apple exec stating that it would use 64/80 MB for the Mac mini, no more, no less.

Macworld article:

Although on PCs the GMA950 can potentially eat up as much as 224MB of main memory for use in frame buffering, Boger told us that Apple’s implementation doesn’t work that way: on the new Mac minis, the GMA950’s memory use is locked at 64MB. In other words, graphics won’t eat up more than its allotted share of your RAM (which is actually 80MB, since in addition to the 64MB for graphics, 16MB is set aside for what Boger called “general setup of the system”).

How well does the Intel Mac mini do on 23" Cinema Displays? Does Exposé slow down when lots of windows are open?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

How well does the Intel Mac mini do on 23" Cinema Displays? Does Exposé slow down when lots of windows are open?

I have my mini hooked up to a 50" sony RP TV and it is smooth as silk.

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I have my mini hooked up to a 50" sony RP TV and it is smooth as silk.

But at what Res? It could be hooked up to a 100" display, and with a res of only 1024 x 768, would work just as well as on a 15" display with the same res

[Eug Wanker]

Is there any way of checking how much memory is being used?

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I have my mini hooked up to a 50" sony RP TV and it is smooth as silk.

Isn't your TV just 1360x768 (1 MP) or 1280x720 (0.9 MP) or something like that?

The 23" Cinema Display is 1920x1200 (2.3 MP).

[Eug Wanker]

http://xlr8yourmac.com/

Intel Core Solo Mini owner comments on running Final Cut Studio 5.1 - In reply to earlier posts if Final Cut Studio would run on an Intel GMA950 (graphics) based Mac:

" Just for the fun of it I installed Final Cut Studio 5.1 on my daughters Mac Mini w/1.5GHz Intel Core Solo processor with 512MB RAM. I have only tried FCP and Motion. I started SoundTrack but have not used it.
Final Cut starts and runs fine. I can capture from my VX2100 camera and edit in the timeline (just basic stuff so far).
Motion also works on this machine (it kicks the crap out of my Powerbook 1.25GHz). Ran the update for Final Cut Pro 5.1.1 and it also starts and does basic edits. So far so good on basic stuff.

(I asked if he had exercised Motion on the Core Solo Mini (i.e. rendering, previews, etc.-Mike)
Done one render of a template I edited, changes text and speed of some assets. All templates run fine. Previews are really slow on first pass but run at decent speed after. Will be testing more things this coming weekend.

Have only used the Mini on a LCD minitor at 1280x1024 will be connecting it to a Dell 2005FPW this weekend also and test at 1680 x 1050.
To say it installed and worked is an understatement, I was blown away it worked!!
I wanted to try it to see if I could use a Mini to edit some basic stuff during the summer here in Phoenix. My two 2x-2GHZz G5's create too much heat so if I could have a solution to capture and do basic edits to cut down on the heat indoors.
Next step is to test a Mini Core Duo.
-Richard M. "

[harrisjamieh]

Good News!

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

1280x720 (0.9 MP) .

ya I am pretty sure that is what it is set to. Can't test it on anything higher but at that rez at least there are no problems.

[plastiqueusa]

Eug,
The GMA950 is a capable graphics chip for high-res video. I've got the Core Duo Mini, and I'm very happy with the system; the stock 512MB RAM is the only thing which makes the out-of-box experience disappointing (multitasking really suffers).

My Mini is hooked up to a 24" Dell monitor @1920x1200, and I just got a Miglia TVMini HD hooked up yesterday--it runs OTA HDTV video very nicely, with enough processor overhead that I can easily multitask (25-35% free CPU capacity per core, est. from activity monitor). It also plays 1080 H.264 videos well and is Core Graphics capable, so I'd say the only gotcha is if you need to do heavy 3D or professional work.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by plastiqueusa

Eug,
The GMA950 is a capable graphics chip for high-res video. I've got the Core Duo Mini, and I'm very happy with the system; the stock 512MB RAM is the only thing which makes the out-of-box experience disappointing (multitasking really suffers).

My Mini is hooked up to a 24" Dell monitor @1920x1200, and I just got a Miglia TVMini HD hooked up yesterday--it runs OTA HDTV video very nicely, with enough processor overhead that I can easily multitask (25-35% free CPU capacity per core, est. from activity monitor). It also plays 1080 H.264 videos well and is Core Graphics capable, so I'd say the only gotcha is if you need to do heavy 3D or professional work.

HD TV won't stress it.

I specifically asked about Exposé because while it doesn't really stress the GPU much, it is very dependent on memory. If you have tons of large windows open, it maxes out the RAM, and becomes jittery. I could do this on my Radeon 9000 64 MB TiBook once I hit about 15 windows open or so. I was wondering if the same thing happens on a 1920x1080 screen with an Intel Mac mini, with less windows open.

[plastiqueusa]

Most of the GUI functions get jittery with stock RAM and more than 1-2 apps open, Expose included. After a memory upgrade, expose and other interface actions have been fine--I'll try opening a lot of windows when I get home and let you know if Expose is jumpy.

[plastiqueusa]

Well, Expose does get stressed out/jumpy at about 20 windows on my machine. It's acceptable to me since I really never have so many windows open at once, but for those who are interested that's my experience.