[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

You think it sucks, but you'd like to get one? Is "GMA950" a codename for "women" or what?

The graphics suck. The rest of the computer rocks. Especially for that price.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Anti-Spam

There is a difference between 9200 mobility and 9550 in an ibook.

http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/firs...php?lsrc=mwrss

Unreal Tournament 2004 AVERAGE FRAME RATE

MacBook/1.83GHz Intel Core Duo: 17.8
14-inch iBook/1.42GHz G4: 14.1

If you found your iBook fast enough for gaming, a MacBook will be so as well.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Wow other than games the MacBook slaughters the G4 iBook.

http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/firs...php?lsrc=mwrss

Well, that's a big surprise, considering that the MacBook has a massively faster processor and hard disk.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

You think it sucks, but you'd like to get one? Is "GMA950" a codename for "women" or what?

I'd like to get a Mac laptop, more specifically one that can run Windows and OS X. I'd like a better graphics card, but I don't want to pay an extra $700 for it. What do you suggest that I do? Besides, the MBP is too big - I'd like something smaller.

Given the choices, it's basically a MacBook. Yeah, I'd like a better graphics card, but the size it what I'm looking for and the price is much better. I might play a 3D game two times in an entire year, so I'm not paying extra for that feature. I fail to see how I should care that much about the card. It may not be what *you* want, but that doesn't mean it doesn't suit anyone else. I've long since gotten over using my CPU & GPU as a substitute for a large dick, so I just buy things that get the job done.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Whine whine whine. Yes, we all agree that the GMA950 sucks. But I'd still get one.

I'd just like to see some WoW benchmarks, as long as they surpass my three year old Rev A. 17" PowerBook with a GeForce 4MX I'd be happy, because it's more than adequate to run WoW as is

Interesting post from Tigerclaw over on the WoW Mac forums:

"WoW has a bit of a tough time on Intel graphics, but we expect this to improve after a round of future display driver updates.

More concretely, we see higher FPS in XP than in OSX on that class of GPU, so we know the hardware is capable of more than the current OSX drivers achieve. It's something Apple is actively working on."

[Anti-Spam]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/firs...php?lsrc=mwrss

Unreal Tournament 2004 AVERAGE FRAME RATE

MacBook/1.83GHz Intel Core Duo: 17.8
14-inch iBook/1.42GHz G4: 14.1

If you found your iBook fast enough for gaming, a MacBook will be so as well.

Im not saying that the iBook is faster than the Macbook's GPU, im saying that by today's standards, the new GPU in Macbook's are completely outdated in performance. 3 frames more, is a joke, and sure UT may use smaller maps, but when you play WOW and the upcoming WOW-expansion, slow memory and integrated graphics is just not gonna cut it. Radeon 9550 at the time of the iBook was good, VERY GOOD, this integrated crap is beyond bottom line.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Well, that's a big surprise, considering that the MacBook has a massively faster processor and hard disk.

Yet only $100 more. Nicely done apple!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

"The MacBook's 1.83GHz and 2GHz Intel Core Duo processors are comfortably powerful enough to playback Apple's HD QuickTime content and support Elgato's EyeTV 500 or Miglia's TVMini HD."

http://www.the-hdtv-tuner.com/mobile...ia-center.html

Who cares?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Yet only $100 more. Nicely done apple!

and yet, it runs almost every game 75% WORSE... indeed, kudos to Apple. What an incredible piece of sh*t.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/firs...php?lsrc=mwrss

Unreal Tournament 2004 AVERAGE FRAME RATE

MacBook/1.83GHz Intel Core Duo: 17.8
14-inch iBook/1.42GHz G4: 14.1

If you found your iBook fast enough for gaming, a MacBook will be so as well.

Unless, of course, we're talking about WoW (you know, the most popular Mac game). Which it won't run at all.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

I don't give a hoot about laptop gaming anyway. My concern is the keyboard and black spray on matte finish. I wanted my BlacBook to be shiny gloss black plastic.

[Kerrigan]

The MacBook haters should seriously switch to PCs. You can go out and configure a 13" vaio or dell to have everything your heart desires, including ati gfx. It'll cost you more, but you'll get what you want.

You guys are making such a big deal over gaming that it's a wonder why you ever became Mac users in the first place.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/firs...php?lsrc=mwrss

Unreal Tournament 2004 AVERAGE FRAME RATE

MacBook/1.83GHz Intel Core Duo: 17.8
14-inch iBook/1.42GHz G4: 14.1

If you found your iBook fast enough for gaming, a MacBook will be so as well.

So yes, UT2004 does poorly on both the MacBook and the iBook.

Originally Posted by Anti-Spam

There is a difference between 9200 mobility and 9550 in an ibook.

Yes, but his point was that Quake 3 would run terribly in a MacBook. That is not the case, as even the lowly 1.42 GHz Mac mini with Radeon 9200 seems to run Quake 3 acceptably well, and Core Duo 1.66 is much faster in Quake 3. And the MacBook is even faster.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The MacBook haters should seriously switch to PCs. You can go out and configure a 13" vaio or dell to have everything your heart desires, including ati gfx. It'll cost you more, but you'll get what you want.

You guys are making such a big deal over gaming that it's a wonder why you ever became Mac users in the first place.

Because Mac users don't play games? There's something wrong with wanting a computer that does work AND doubles as a decent game machine?

Probably will buy a Vaio or a Lenovo for my next notebook, at least with those I can get what I actually want and not what Apple THINKS I should have.

[ort888]

I'm waiting for rev 2. I can wait.

I like the direction Apple is going in though. I'm hoping that they make the black model more reasonable the second time around.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Probably will buy a Vaio or a Lenovo for my next notebook, at least with those I can get what I actually want and not what Apple THINKS I should have.

In all seriousness, those are two good choices. Were I not buying a Macbook, I would go with either the SZ or any of the mid-range Thinkpads.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

SYes, but his point was that Quake 3 would run terribly in a MacBook. That is not the case, as even the lowly 1.42 GHz Mac mini with Radeon 9200 seems to run Quake 3 acceptably well, and Core Duo 1.66 is much faster in Quake 3. And the MacBook is even faster.

Yup, just shows once again that GoMac has no friggin' clue what he is talking about

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Well people are reporting the MB's have the whine but when plugged in.

Great

[Eug Wanker]

If Apple were to send me some cheese, I'd forgive them.



(All Lounge threads should have at least one mention of cheese.)

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Well people are reporting the MB's have the whine but when plugged in.

Great

The whine goes away when they're booted in Windows, right? I hope Apple fixes the whine in 10.5. Anyone with a 10.5 beta that can comment on whines?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The MacBook haters should seriously switch to PCs. You can go out and configure a 13" vaio or dell to have everything your heart desires, including ati gfx. It'll cost you more, but you'll get what you want.

You guys are making such a big deal over gaming that it's a wonder why you ever became Mac users in the first place.

Except that it has been consistently shown that Apple uses the graphics card to enable new OS features.

You buy a Mac with integrated graphics, a few years down the line it could be completely unusable...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The MacBook haters should seriously switch to PCs. You can go out and configure a 13" vaio or dell to have everything your heart desires, including ati gfx. It'll cost you more, but you'll get what you want.

You guys are making such a big deal over gaming that it's a wonder why you ever became Mac users in the first place.

You realize I was being sarcastic when I made that "consumer-level buyers and students never want to play games," right? Because they actually do. It's stupid to me that you have to buy a pro machine to do consumer-level tasks.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

You realize I was being sarcastic when I made that "consumer-level buyers and students never want to play games," right? Because they actually do. It's stupid to me that you have to buy a pro machine to do consumer-level tasks.

Well good. Because the last posted benchmarks show it does better than the last iBook with a video card.

[greenamp]

Well, I got a black one yesterday. Upgraded to 1 gig ram. Been at work using it all morning. Runs Photoshop CS very well! (this is through Rosetta no doubt) I have lots of crap open and it's been awesome so far.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Well, I got a black one yesterday. Upgraded to 1 gig ram. Been at work using it all morning. Runs Photoshop CS very well! (this is through Rosetta no doubt) I have lots of crap open and it's been awesome so far.

Whine? pealing paint?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Except that it has been consistently shown that Apple uses the graphics card to enable new OS features.

You buy a Mac with integrated graphics, a few years down the line it could be completely unusable...

Just because it might not support new features at some point in the future, does not mean it will become completely unusable. My iBook G3 does not support the new CoreImage features of Tiger (despite its dedicated graphics card!) and it is still working just fine. Actually it is doing more now than it could do under Jaguar with which it came. I got four years out of this notebook and I'm sure I will get four years out of my new MacBook.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Here are the vista hardware requirements:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060518-6863.html

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Unless, of course, we're talking about WoW (you know, the most popular Mac game). Which it won't run at all.

I haven't heard of "WoW", but if it doesn't run that is a bug that should be fixed by the maker of that game or Apple (whomever that bug belongs to). Then let's see how good the MacBook does.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Here are the vista hardware requirements.

So the MacBook would work just fine with Vista (if for whatever reason you'd want that). Case closed.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Well good. Because the last posted benchmarks show it does better than the last iBook with a video card.

Yes, it's a supposedly little better than a computer which was due to be replaced, but still not as good as an old PowerBook. I suppose that would be OK.

Anyway, I'm waiting for either more benchmarks or an explanation of those benchmarks, because it doesn't seem to make sense to see such a large disparity between a 1.8 GHz iBook and a 1.6 GHz Mac mini.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Whine? pealing paint?

If I put my ear to the keyboard and turn all ambient sound off, yeah I can hear a bit of a hard drive whine I guess. Not noticeable at all really. No pealing paint though.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It's stupid to me that you have to buy a pro machine to do consumer-level tasks.

All I'm saying is that if gaming is a deal-breaker for you, then the Mac shouldn't be your first choice of platform.

[Chuckit]

How odd, because I've managed to do it fine up till now.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Yes, it's a supposedly little better than a computer which was due to be replaced, but still not as good as an old PowerBook. I suppose that would be OK.

The powerbooks cost hundreds more.

Anywho, for Vista, does the GMA950 support direct X?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Anywho, for Vista, does the GMA950 support direct X?

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

It supports DirectX 9, so all the Vista glass stuff will be there.

[Chuckit]

Yes, it supports DirectX 9.

And I bet you my PowerBook with said performance wouldn't go for "hundreds more" right now.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

The powerbooks cost hundreds more.

Anywho, for Vista, does the GMA950 support direct X?

Minimum Requirements (Vista-Capable PCs):

800 MHz Intel-compatible processor
512MB of RAM
DirectX 9.0-Capable Graphics Processor
20GB HD


Recommended Requirements (Premium-Ready PCs):

1 GHz Intel-compatible processor
1GB RAM
DirectX 9.0-Capable Graphics Processor, with 128MB graphics memory. (64MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor less than 1,310,720 pixels [no more than 1440x900]; 128MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions from 1,310,720 to 2,304,000 pixels [no more than 1920x1200]; 256MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions higher than 2,304,000 pixels [more than 1920x1200]).
40GB HD with at least 15GB "free space"


So I guess that means I'm gonna partition my drive with a little bit extra for the Windows partition. Originally I was going to allocate exactly 15 GB, but it looks like that could be a bit cramped.

The GMA 950 is sufficient for Aero. It has the 64 MB RAM needed for its 1280x800 screen, and it has full support for DirectX 9.0 (although its DX9 support is very slow).

It will be interesting to know though if GMA 950 in the MacBook can use 128 MB (or more) under Vista. Is the 64 MB limitation only under OS X?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

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

It supports DirectX 9, so all the Vista glass stuff will be there.

So once again GoMac needs to shut his pie hole.

So far he has said:

Quicktime is GPU (the MacBooks are faster at iMovie and high def trailers)
The effects in Vista will be lost on the GMA950
The MacBook will be worse than the iBook for gaming.

All were WRONG!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Well good. Because the last posted benchmarks show it does better than the last iBook with a video card.

Well, that's just wonderful! It runs as well as a 1 year old iBook in a couple games! Woohoo! Too bad it runs like sh!t compared to a $1200 Innovo w/ the same processor (and a nice 128MB Nvidia Go 7300).

[Stradlater]

Isn't UT running in Rosetta?

[Chuckit]

Not if they're using the Universal Binary.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

"For those who have expressed so much concern over the built-in graphics subsystem in the MacBook, they should take a look at the specs:
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm
I think most folks are confusing the GMA950 with the previous generation of GMA chipsets that were terrible performers and offered no 3d acceleration.
The GMA950 is on par with the RADEON 9600/GeForce 5600 series."

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

"For those who have expressed so much concern over the built-in graphics subsystem in the MacBook, they should take a look at the specs:
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm
I think most folks are confusing the GMA950 with the previous generation of GMA chipsets that were terrible performers and offered no 3d acceleration.
The GMA950 is on par with the RADEON 9600/GeForce 5600 series."

You're quoting Intel's website?

The GMA950 gets 10-15 fps in World of Warcraft, not to mention it's just plain missing features that the Radeon 9600 has.

Aspyr has already said only two of their titles run usably on the GMA950. Two.

Edit: Whoever you're quoting is also plain wrong. Previous Intel GMA's did 3D acceleration. They just also sucked at it.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

"For those who have expressed so much concern over the built-in graphics subsystem in the MacBook, they should take a look at the specs:
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm
I think most folks are confusing the GMA950 with the previous generation of GMA chipsets that were terrible performers and offered no 3d acceleration.
The GMA950 is on par with the RADEON 9600/GeForce 5600 series."

Aside from the fact that that's just marketing, I don't even see the text you quoted on that site. Doing a Command-F for "GeForce" or "Radeon" turns up nothing.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Aside from the fact that that's just marketing, I don't even see the text you quoted on that site. Doing a Command-F for "GeForce" or "Radeon" turns up nothing.

I didn't quote it, the author of the letter did:

http://www.macintouch.com/readerrepo...dex.html#may18

Either way the benchmarks are showing that the graphic abilities in games are better than the last iBook and it is fully Vista compatible so

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I didn't quote it, the author of the letter did:

http://www.macintouch.com/readerrepo...dex.html#may18

Either way the benchmarks are showing that the graphic abilities in games are better than the last iBook and it is fully Vista compatible so

If a game attempts to access a modern graphics chip feature (i.e. the GMA950 doesn't have any modern graphics chip features), the software is thrown out of hardware mode into software emulation (if anything, some games just refuse to run on the GMA950), and then performance suffers.

[Salty]

OK well hearing that the HD is user upgradable. I'm seriously thinking of getting a MacBook for my next one. I think I'll just wait till the Core2 Duos are out and see what happens.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

"For those who have expressed so much concern over the built-in graphics subsystem in the MacBook, they should take a look at the specs:
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm
I think most folks are confusing the GMA950 with the previous generation of GMA chipsets that were terrible performers and offered no 3d acceleration.
The GMA950 is on par with the RADEON 9600/GeForce 5600 series."

That's bullsh!t.

The GMA950 isn't even in the same league, much less the same ballpark as the Radeon 9600. If the MacBook had the Radeon 9600 (or X600 actually for this generation), I would be ECSTATIC. The Radeon 9600 is actually reasonably capable. The GMA950 is slooooowwwww. While it does support some of the latest features... it does some via software emulation. (Think of it almost like Rosetta for Photoshop.) That's why the next gen's Intel G965 is supposed to be a bit faster. It adds hardware support absent in GMA 950.

The main reason the MacBook does better than the previous iBooks in certain games is because the Core Duo CPU is way way way way faster than the G4. If the MacBook had the Radeon 9550, 9600, or X600, the performance would be quite impressive, at least for a consumer machine.

In fact, it'd be so impressive, it would make a lot more people choose the MacBook instead of the 15" MacBook Pro IMO. Hint hint...

Actually, I didn't think we had a chance in hell of getting the X600. I had been hoping for X300, cuz it's strictly a low end part and cheap, it can use system memory like the GMA 950, but it can play previous generation games quite well. GMA 950 cannot. GMA 950 can play 7 year old games like Quake 3 OK, but that's several generations ago.

[Salty]

I still would like to see Apple add a bit more diversity to their laptop line.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Salty

I still would like to see Apple add a bit more diversity to their laptop line.

What like a gay version?