[gorgesailor]

Pretty much asking exactly what the post headline is. I'm about two months away from purchasing, and want a MacBook. Not crazy about the silver Pro's, nor anything larger than 13", but I'm stumped on the graphics abilities of the MB. It seems that you can pretty much upgrade everything on a MB to equate it to a Pro, except for it's graphics (and some RAM, but 2 gigs should do it)...

I'm going to be running X-Plane (flight simulator), and that's about it for gaming. So, do you folks know if the integrated card will perform well enough on the MB? I'm also going to be using a large external LCD for when working on the computer at home, so will the graphics be able to hold it's own on a larger than 13" screen without losing too much picture quality??

Hence, my question: Will the MacBook ever have the option of a dedicated graphics card instead of it's current integrated graphics abilities???

Thanks!

GS

[Ag3ntS]

Right now, the integrated Intel graphics are one of the few things, more RAM space, slightly faster CPU's, and bigger screens being the big ones, that seperate the MB and MBP, so my guess is that it will remain integrated for a while. Intel does have a video new chipset, the Intel GMA X3000, that promises much better video performance on their intergrated GPUs, which will hopefully make its way into new MB revisions.

[imitchellg5]

No. Non-integrated graphics are for the MacBook Pro. Xplane won't do so hot on the MacBook or anything with only 64Mb of VRAM.

[ChasingApple]

I would be using a Macbook right now if it had dedicated graphics. I was in the market for a modern notebook (using an old ibook clamshell for a long time) so when the Macbook came out I was excited, but then horrified to find Apple did the evil and went with integrated crap graphics. All these years they boasted against that, then they did it. BOO APPLE!

I wanted an everything Mac, OS X and Windows machine because I wanted to play some of the newer PC games as well as just have a new machine. But since Apple did the nasty I instead bought myself a very nice Alienware m5550 laptop for $1082 shipped. More powerful then the original Macbook that was out at the time and alot cheaper. I cannot have OS X on it but gaming is very nice, everything is fast, and honestly the modern Windows XP isnt that bad. I would have rather had a Mac, but Apple let me down.

Perhaps the next time I go to buy a new notebook Apple will have something better.

[pyrite]

not a chance.. there would be little or no reason to buy a MBP if this was included (other than a very expensive screen upgrade!)
apple would never suicide their pro line by doing this unfortunately

[pyrite]

Originally Posted by ChasingApple 

I would be using a Macbook right now if it had dedicated graphics. I was in the market for a modern notebook (using an old ibook clamshell for a long time) so when the Macbook came out I was excited, but then horrified to find Apple did the evil and went with integrated crap graphics. All these years they boasted against that, then they did it. BOO APPLE!

I wanted an everything Mac, OS X and Windows machine because I wanted to play some of the newer PC games as well as just have a new machine. But since Apple did the nasty I instead bought myself a very nice Alienware m5550 laptop for $1082 shipped. More powerful then the original Macbook that was out at the time and alot cheaper. I cannot have OS X on it but gaming is very nice, everything is fast, and honestly the modern Windows XP isnt that bad. I would have rather had a Mac, but Apple let me down.

Perhaps the next time I go to buy a new notebook Apple will have something better.

integrated graphics really aren't that bad unless you do serious 3d work or games (buy a console!), in which case they're obviously insufficient. for general OS/home use, the difference incredibly minimal. even for OS X's 3d elements, including core animation in Leopard and openGL, integrated graphics come very close to dedicated cards in terms of performance

[volcano]

What are you complaining about? The MacBook kicks some serious ass, no matter how you look at it. Apple held out on a dedicated graphics card because they wanted it to be a definitive selling point of the pro models.

The specs of the consumer grade MacBook are just slightly below those of the professional grade MacBook Pro. They could've: 1) Kept the older Intel Core Duo processor in it. 2) Not made it widescreen and hardly improve the resolution over the old iBook 3) Could've made them without the 6x DL Superdrive on the higher-end models 4) Put slower RAM in the machines.... the list goes on and on.

If you want your dedicated graphics back, go back to the 12" 1.33GHz iBook G4. There's the solution to your problem.

[gooser]

well, maybe they will and maybe they won't. life is like a beanstalk isn't it?

[ChasingApple]

Originally Posted by pyrite 

not a chance.. there would be little or no reason to buy a MBP if this was included (other than a very expensive screen upgrade!)
apple would never suicide their pro line by doing this unfortunately

There are so many different levels of dedicated graphics out there that your arguement is just plain wrong. Apple went for the cheap.

[stefanicotine]

Originally Posted by ChasingApple 

I would be using a Macbook right now if it had dedicated graphics. I was in the market for a modern notebook (using an old ibook clamshell for a long time) so when the Macbook came out I was excited, but then horrified to find Apple did the evil and went with integrated crap graphics. All these years they boasted against that, then they did it. BOO APPLE!

I wanted an everything Mac, OS X and Windows machine because I wanted to play some of the newer PC games as well as just have a new machine. But since Apple did the nasty I instead bought myself a very nice Alienware m5550 laptop for $1082 shipped. More powerful then the original Macbook that was out at the time and alot cheaper. I cannot have OS X on it but gaming is very nice, everything is fast, and honestly the modern Windows XP isnt that bad. I would have rather had a Mac, but Apple let me down.

Perhaps the next time I go to buy a new notebook Apple will have something better.

You can run COD 2 on a MacBook at medium settings (high, if you don't mind lag). How much more modern do the games have to be?

[ChasingApple]

Originally Posted by stefanicotine 

You can run COD 2 on a MacBook at medium settings (high, if you don't mind lag). How much more modern do the games have to be?

I can run COD 2 with high everything and get outstanding framerates on my Alienware, and my Alienware cost less then a Macbook. Not to mention came with a Dual Layer 8x DVD-RW

Nuff said.

[Ag3ntS]

Originally Posted by ChasingApple 

I can run COD 2 with high everything and get outstanding framerates on my Alienware, and my Alienware cost less then a Macbook. Not to mention came with a Dual Layer 8x DVD-RW

Nuff said.

And I'll bet you're lucky to get 2.5 hours of battery life out of it, and it weights a ton. Alienware is infamous for overpriced, overhyped products. I also noticed that ti coems with a Go 6600, which is really noting to boast about.

[ChasingApple]

Originally Posted by Ag3ntS 

And I'll bet you're lucky to get 2.5 hours of battery life out of it, and it weights a ton. Alienware is infamous for overpriced, overhyped products. I also noticed that ti coems with a Go 6600, which is really noting to boast about.

Actually they have changed the video since I purchased mine (read where I bought it when the FIRST Macbook surfaced), I have a rather nice ATI Radeon X1400 256MB card. It weighs 6 pounds which is not bad at all (My clamshell ibook weighs more), and battery life is better then your 2.5 hour quess.

So stop talking if you don't know what your talking about. And please, focus on the subject this thread started with, Macbooks and dedicated graphics, not my Alienware.

I swear people get so pissy when you mention you bought something other then a mighty Apple computer. STOP being fanboys! Read my sig, we got Macs in this here house!

Oh and let's be clear on this weight thing. A Macbook Pro 15" weighs 5.6 pounds and a 17" Macbook Pro weighs 6.8 pounds. That puts me at .4 pounds more then a 15" Macbook. My arm might get ripped out of its socket with that kind of added weight!!! *rolls eyes*

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by ChasingApple 

So stop talking if you don't know what your talking about. And please, focus on the subject this thread started with, Macbooks and dedicated graphics, not my Alienware.

You're joking, right? Look back and see who brought up the Alienware in the first place...

Apple had iBooks with dedicated graphics and still managed to sell a couple Powerbooks, too, so although that might be the main reason, it's not necessarily a good one. I'm waiting for Leopard to come out to pick up a MacBook and it would just be dandy if they had something better than the GMA950 by then.

[GSixZero]

The fact of the matter is that the MacBook probably won't come with dedicated graphics anytime soon. If you need that, look at MacBook Pro or something from another manufacturer.

That's not so hard, is it?

[Naaaaak]

Nope: Apple hates GPUs.

[ChasingApple]

I just don't think Apple made a good decision here. Having to pay $1999 for a notebook with a dedicated graphics card is ridiculous. Also considering the lowest end Macbook will cost a minimum of $1099 you would think at least a 64MB or 128MB dedicated card could be added here. Especially in a market where the $499 laptop exists from any number of competitors. Now had the Macbook with integrated graphics ran around $799 or so I would completely understand, but at $1099 I expected more from Apple.

Also remember it was Apple themselves that used to bash the competition for using integrated graphics as a selling point to the iBooks having a "dedicated" graphics card. I think when Leapord comes out the Macbook will probably have something a little beefier in there then a GMA 950. At least I hope so.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

The MacBook was made for the consumer AND the beginner maket. Apple should come out with a 15" MacBook with some good graphics

[volcano]

Originally Posted by ChasingApple 

I can run COD 2 with high everything and get outstanding framerates on my Alienware, and my Alienware cost less then a Macbook. Not to mention came with a Dual Layer 8x DVD-RW

Nuff said.

Um, the superdrive in the $1299 model is a 6x DL DVD-RW drive. Big whoop about yours. Also, you're comparing the weight of your current, newer laptop to that of the clamshell iBook which was released in 1999? Your point is moot.

[gorgesailor]

Well, thank you all for your input. I didn't mean for the topic to get into a pissing contest though... I understand what was said though about there having to be a real difference in MB's from the Pro models, otherwise why have the Pro line at all.

I guess then the next thing I should ask is for Apple itself: Can you please make a Macbook Pro in a 13", and in black and white models, please? The silver looks like crap, and detracts from the signature look of a Mac, and what is the point of a LAPTOP if it's HUGE!? Otherwise, let people pay for upgrades to a Macbook in order to bring it up to the full capacity of a Pro.

End of rant.

GS

[Peter]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

The MacBook was made for the consumer AND the beginner maket. Apple should come out with a 15" MacBook with some good graphics

thats a MBP.

The differences are there for a reason.

[mduell]

Integrated graphics costs less than $4 and takes up no logic board space... that's really tempting in a budget notebook.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Integrated graphics costs less than $4 and takes up no logic board space... that's really tempting in a budget notebook.

Is an $1100 notebook 'budget' though?

Originally Posted by gorgesailor 

Well, thank you all for your input. I didn't mean for the topic to get into a pissing contest though... I understand what was said though about there having to be a real difference in MB's from the Pro models, otherwise why have the Pro line at all.

It worked with the iBook/Powerbook for...what...6 or 7 years?
The iBook had a GPU, just a crappy one. The Powerbooks got the mobility 9600 in '03, and when the iBooks were discontinued this year, they still had no better than a 9550.

Originally Posted by Naaaak

Nope: Apple hates GPUs.

Untrue. Apple just realized that the GPU is a way to leverage people into paying more, and it works. Good business decision for them, crappy for us.

[gorgesailor]

Sorry, not really in the know with computer acronyms yet: what's a GPU? In my profession I automatically affiliate that acronym with Ground Power Unit.... Thanks!

[ChasingApple]

Originally Posted by volcano 

Um, the superdrive in the $1299 model is a 6x DL DVD-RW drive. Big whoop about yours. Also, you're comparing the weight of your current, newer laptop to that of the clamshell iBook which was released in 1999? Your point is moot.

Alienware was $1082 shipped with an 8x DVD-RW, weight of Alienware 6 LB, weight of modern 15" Macbook Pro 5.6 LB. That's a .4 LB difference. Moot point? No.

[Ag3ntS]

Originally Posted by gorgesailor 

Sorry, not really in the know with computer acronyms yet: what's a GPU? In my profession I automatically affiliate that acronym with Ground Power Unit.... Thanks!

GPU stands for Graphics Processing Unit. Its the actual chip that performs many of the video-related functions.

[stefanicotine]

Just let the PC vs Mac thing subside guys, it's ruining a perfectly good discussion.

[ChasingApple]

I wonder if the AMD / ATI merger-buyout has something to do with Apple not using an ATI card in the new macbooks. Either that or Intel made a sweet deal to promote the GMA 950 onboard the Intel Motherboards. Either way an $1100 notebook is not a budget notebook in any way, and Apple should have given up the goods. Even a 2-3 generation old Radeon is more powerful then the Intel solution, I wonder if nVidia will ever find themselves inside a Macbook?

Or perhaps AMD will find their way into a Macbook with an integrated ATI Radeon solution? Time will tell I suppose. I have tested the GMA 950 a lot in my wifes Macbook, I am not impressed at all in OS X or Windows.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ChasingApple 

Even a 2-3 generation old Radeon is more powerful then the Intel solution

Depends what you're looking for. The 2-3 gen old Radeon (8500 - 9200) doesn't support Core Image/Video and struggles with even Quartz and Expose on moderate resolution displays; GMA950 fully supports Core Image/Video and Quartz/Expose perform well even on HD displays. The Radeon has higher framerates in 3D games. In other words, the Radeon is better for 3D games, but GMA950 is better for the things everyone does every day.

[gorgesailor]

Thanks stefanicotine... By the way your response was very thorough in my other posting about the capabilities of the MB, so thank you for reviving it! As far as this one goes, for those talking about Alien this or that in the PC world, forget about it as it doesn't apply to my original purpose of posting this discussion.

I'm just looking for sound advice: I want a Macbook. I want a white one in a 13". I want it to perform to my needs. Is this possible? For now, I've realized that it isn't. I'm not interested in a 15" aluminum computer, so I guess that I'll just play the waiting game and see what comes of the new year...

Thanks to those of you with some great feedback! Happy holidays and all the best in the new year!!

Cheers,

GS

[ChasingApple]

Originally Posted by gorgesailor 

Thanks stefanicotine... By the way your response was very thorough in my other posting about the capabilities of the MB, so thank you for reviving it! As far as this one goes, for those talking about Alien this or that in the PC world, forget about it as it doesn't apply to my original purpose of posting this discussion.

I'm just looking for sound advice: I want a Macbook. I want a white one in a 13". I want it to perform to my needs. Is this possible? For now, I've realized that it isn't. I'm not interested in a 15" aluminum computer, so I guess that I'll just play the waiting game and see what comes of the new year...

Thanks to those of you with some great feedback! Happy holidays and all the best in the new year!!

Cheers,

GS

If you read my original responce to this thread you would see that I was also going to buy a Macbook, but the video card option in it was not what I needed either. I chose instead to get the Alienware because it fit my needs at the same or lower price.

My wife however DID get the Macbook so I have had some time with it to test out a few things. Intense 3D games just suck on it period, but moderate games like (Pangya Golf) which we all play in this house works quite well on the Macbook. All the core effects in OS X work very well, as does 720p video playback. Honestly if gaming is not an issue the Macbook is an awesome notebook, but if you DO want to take advantage of being able to install Windows and play some of the newest high end games out there forget it.

Had the Macbook Pro been a little cheaper then it is I might have considered one.

Either way, I just hope Apple addresses that an $1100 notebook should have viable graphics inside and not an extremely limited integrated solution. The iBook never had to deal with it, why should the superior Macbook?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ChasingApple 

Either way, I just hope Apple addresses that an $1100 notebook should have viable graphics inside and not an extremely limited integrated solution. The iBook never had to deal with it, why should the superior Macbook?

Look around; no one has a new $1100 laptop (with similar specs to a MacBook w/r/t CPU/RAM/disk/ports); the closest you're going to come is a used high-end laptop from a year or two ago, but of course you can't run OSX on that.
The iBook never had a gaming-worthy GPU; the final generation (9550) in 2005 came close, but at the expense of CPU performance (1.3Ghz G4) from 2002 while the Macbook is only a few percentage points of current desktops and high-end laptops.

[panzer07]

I too wanted MBP power in a Macbook but decided to wait and get a MacPro after Leopard is released. In the meantime I bought a refurb MB white 2.0 for $900 -$50 coupon and after upgrading it to 2GB ram I find it works very well for my work and the occasional game, movie or web surfing. More importantly it allowed me to retire my Dell D600 and move all my business apps (office) to OS X except Visio and Project which I use bootcamp to handle.

The dedicated video is somewhat frustrating but under windows it uses 128MB and can use up to 224MB. Haven't figured out how to change that but the Intel chipset supports up to 224MB shared video ram. Claims allocation is dynamic under windows so perhaps it does, I just don't know how to access it.

As a Windows user who switched at home (except for games) four years ago I really enjoy my Macs. I just sold my old Titanium and still have a 15in Powerbook 1.25 (not used much since the Macbook arrived). OS X is very stable. I am very careful with my Macs (they can't take the abuse my PC could) and they treat me well. The compromise for a white computer was worth it at $850 ($500 after selling the PB).

I only need to bring my lunch to work for 12 weeks to justify my little bridge Mac.

Cheers,

[mduell]

Originally Posted by panzer07 

The dedicated video is somewhat frustrating but under windows it uses 128MB and can use up to 224MB. Haven't figured out how to change that but the Intel chipset supports up to 224MB shared video ram. Claims allocation is dynamic under windows so perhaps it does, I just don't know how to access it.

Search the forums for the previous threads on GMA950. It seems that OSX can and does dynamically allocate more memory for graphics when needed, although the amount displayed in system info never changes.

[Hi I'm Ben]

Why are people trying to speculate what apple will and won't do with the integrated graphics on the MacBook? Do we ever learn from our mistakes with speculation of what apple will do next?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ben 

Why are people trying to speculate what apple will and won't do with the integrated graphics on the MacBook? Do we ever learn from our mistakes with speculation of what apple will do next?

Learn???? I sense that this is about to become educational

[freudling]

Chasing Apple:

We are talking Macbook to Alienware, not 1999 clamshell ibooks or Macbook Pros. The Macbook is 5.2 lbs, which means it comes close to being a full 1 lb ligther than your Alienware. The 15" Macbook Pro is .4 pounds lighter, which is huge when comparing notebooks: you sluff it off like it is nothing.

But nevermind, the MacBook Pro has everything a road warrier could want, but if it was $200 cheaper I would say it is the perfect buy.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ChasingApple 

Either way, I just hope Apple addresses that an $1100 notebook should have viable graphics inside and not an extremely limited integrated solution. The iBook never had to deal with it, why should the superior Macbook?

That's baloney. Obviously you never played around with an iBook. The iBook was never able to run any current 3D games decently. Its GPU always sucked at 3D games. The MB is no different there.

If you want to play high end 3D games on the Mac you'll have to suck it up an buy medium to high end Macs (MBP, 24" iMac, MP). That's a bummer, but it's just the way it is. OTOH if getting a cheap system to play 3D games on is more important than the OS you otherwise (and in my case most of the time) work with, you'll certainly be happier getting a cheap PC or better yet, building your own.

That said, the $1100 MB is probably one of the best notebook deals in terms of CPU/specs/enclosure. I challenge you to show me an equally well balanced product at that price point. There are very nice ThinkPads in that area, but they are all considerably more expensive.

[ChasingApple]

Originally Posted by Simon 

That's baloney. Obviously you never played around with an iBook. The iBook was never able to run any current 3D games decently. Its GPU always sucked at 3D games. The MB is no different there.

If you want to play high end 3D games on the Mac you'll have to suck it up an buy medium to high end Macs (MBP, 24" iMac, MP). That's a bummer, but it's just the way it is. OTOH if getting a cheap system to play 3D games on is more important than the OS you otherwise (and in my case most of the time) work with, you'll certainly be happier getting a cheap PC or better yet, building your own.

That said, the $1100 MB is probably one of the best notebook deals in terms of CPU/specs/enclosure. I challenge you to show me an equally well balanced product at that price point. There are very nice ThinkPads in that area, but they are all considerably more expensive.

I have owned 3 iBooks including the last 1.33Ghz G4 / Radeon 9550 equipped 12". World of Wacraft was heaven on it compared to the older books.

Thinkpads are very nice, I love the unique look of them and the keyboards are to die for. I just don't like the current Macbooks, they are cheap feeling (flex way to much) and speaking from experience from my 3 iBooks and my wifes Macbook start to look ugly after a year or so because they are stinking white.

[bleee]

What your all really looking for is a 12 inch MacBook Pro which Apple decided not to release. That was my biggest beef when Apple released the new intel line was that they discontinued the 12 inch pro line. The 12 inch PowerBook and the last few revisions of the iBook were very similar G4, dedicated graphics and exact same screen resolution.

[Hi I'm Ben]

Originally Posted by bleee 

What your all really looking for is a 12 inch MacBook Pro which Apple decided not to release. That was my biggest beef when Apple released the new intel line was that they discontinued the 12 inch pro line. The 12 inch PowerBook and the last few revisions of the iBook were very similar G4, dedicated graphics and exact same screen resolution.

As you said very little was different between the 12inch Powerbook and the G4 iBook. Infact so little, that the 12inch powerbook didn't feel really pro at all. It was highly inferior to the 15/17 line due just added a few features that weren't in the iBook. They approached the computer as an entry level Powerbook. What they should have done is charged an even more insane price for it but made it have all the same sexiness that you would find in the 15/17 models.

That would things like, a better screen, a beefy processor, light up keyboard....

[gorgesailor]

Does anyone know what time of year Apple usually releases new info about their products? I've managed to save up enough for a tricked out MB, but if something newer is on the horizon (ie: a MB with a dedicated GPU, or a smaller MBP) I'll continue to save up...

Thanks,

GS

[legacyb4]

I'm just waiting for some funds to free up and I'll be looking at a MacBook in the new year sometime. Hopefully, as people have pointed out, it will have some upgraded hardware, but what I'm really looking forward to is it shipping with 10.5 and whatever upgrades to iLife that will be in place at the time.

[CharlesS]

My guess is that the black MacBook could eventually get dedicated graphics. Right now, if you spec a white MacBook exactly the same as the black one, the black one is $50 more which, granted, is less significant than the $150 gap between the white and black models on the original Core Duo MacBooks, but still noticeable. My guess is that once the novelty of the black color wears off, they'll need to either make them the same price or put something special in the black one to keep people buying it. Putting a graphics card in there, even a cheap $50 one, would accomplish that, and would make sales of the black MacBook go absolutely insane.

Of course, I have absolutely zero insider information and I've been wrong plenty of times before, so you can take that for what it's worth (probably not much).

[QuadG5Man]

The Macbook's screen is nice and wide, and deserves a better GPU for games.

The Macbook's a perfect size: the 15" MBP is too large for me. I think Apple should stay competitive and get better graphics into the Macbook.

[ChasingApple]

If Apple releases a 13" Macbook Pro I will buy it. But it better have dedicated graphics!

[dn15]

Originally Posted by pyrite 

integrated graphics really aren't that bad unless you do serious 3d work or games (buy a console!), in which case they're obviously insufficient. for general OS/home use, the difference incredibly minimal. even for OS X's 3d elements, including core animation in Leopard and openGL, integrated graphics come very close to dedicated cards in terms of performance

True. I previously had a 12" PowerBook G4, and now have a MacBook -- of the products in the current lineup it was closest to what I wanted. I was slightly apprehensive about the integrated graphics but now I couldn't care less. This machine is better than I expected and it even runs Aperture pretty well. The only place I've found it lacking is in storage, but that's OK because I have around 3/4 of a terrabyte in external hard disks.

I am definitely not trying to invalidate anyone's claims that dedicated video would be better. It would be. But the average buyer of small laptops is not a gamer. Apple surely knows that, and decided it was worth using integrated graphics for cost reasons. It's unfortunate for those who do want to play games on the MacBook, but I can't fault Apple for making that decision either.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by pyrite 

integrated graphics really aren't that bad unless you do serious 3d work or games (buy a console!), in which case they're obviously insufficient. for general OS/home use, the difference incredibly minimal. even for OS X's 3d elements, including core animation in Leopard and openGL, integrated graphics come very close to dedicated cards in terms of performance

i guess i never really understood/stand gamers and especially those that run them on a computer. i think i'm with you. if i want to game i would buy a console for it.