Jump to content

Intel Integrated Graphics aren't a bad thing


24 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

I am sick and tired of hearing people wanting a MacBook Pro for everyday use "because the other model has integrated graphics." Consistent testing has shown that a MacBook is just as good as its pro cousin for everything except gaming. You can surf the web, do emails, listen to music, and use Photoshop just as well on either system.

 

I don't know why the hell you think you need a dedicated graphics system to edit Excel worksheets, but it just isn't needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% agree.

i'm pure anti gamer.

and some months ago build a GMA950 based Hackintosh, and planned to buy a MacBook - it's the best notebook on the market for my opinion.

for the work sure. not for kids =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people on the net never build a computer. No offense to the Mac only fans, but us PC users that build our machines and KNOW what is in them, KNOW what hardware does and doesn't do. If I got a mac notebook, I would get a Macbook, hands down. I would game on a desktop system anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

those people that want the mac book pro for every day use will have everday 3rd degree burns on their laps, regardless of what kind of software they are running.

 

This is why I think AMD ATI is a good thing, in addition the so called GPU artifacts that exist on the MB vs MBP (which use ATI underclocked by the way) is the the MB GPU is very close to the CPU (on top or below if I am not mistaken) and any heat, or two much causes either artifacts or the system to restart....

 

While the transistion to Intel is great for Apple, they still need to get the GPU's down in heat and here is where I think ATI's use of AMD's ala IBM's SOI (Silicon Insulator) process will keep the heat way down. Also, keep in mind, many PRO MAC users never ever gave WINDOWS a second look until GIGASTUDIO (audio program for PC only) came out and AMD proved that the megahertz myth was a farce and due to the long pipelines in the older P4's, Intel needed at least 1000 HZ more just to compete with AMD/APPLE (PPC).

 

I said in one of my first ever posts on this board to think about this....

 

There is nothing stopping Apple from using AMD and if and when AMD makes the move to .65 and now owns a chipset company (besides just GPU's, major deal there), Apple was smart to use Intel as their R&D as they have deep pockets and can switch to AMD any time they want as just like windows, OSX can be made to run on AMD quite simply now that everything is coded to x86. It's not a matter or if, but rather a matter of when.

 

AMD has always had a surprise and their new 4x4 use looks to be a great workstation, not just for gaming, and then of course they have 8 core CPU's. One last thing and I can't mention the source is that AMD also has a working 4 core CPU that needs NO heatsink let alone a fan....and that was two years ago.

 

It only gets better from here. Pretty soon there will be no more desktops, and everything will be laptop power and the sort. Speaking of which, there is also as I posted in one of my blogs, the new external GPU boxes that allows you to tap into better graphics for older machines or laptops, in addition, on the audio side, there are also devices that you can attach to your laptop/desktop that has CPU's in it to add more horsepower for audio plug-ins, so it's just a matter of time when we will come home with a quad or 8 core x 2 laptop and plug it into a 8x8x8 whatever that makes rendering a movie like toy story machines (rendermen/solaris i.e. SUN), look like an old x86 66.6 hz CPU.

 

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sick and tired of hearing people wanting a MacBook Pro for everyday use "because the other model has integrated graphics." Consistent testing has shown that a MacBook is just as good as its pro cousin for everything except gaming. You can surf the web, do emails, listen to music, and use Photoshop just as well on either system.

 

I don't know why the hell you think you need a dedicated graphics system to edit Excel worksheets, but it just isn't needed.

 

I had ati integrated, upgraded to an x800xl and i cant tell the dif (well... a little bit on hl2, but thats it) and also, the advantage of integrated graphics on a notebook is battery life ;)

 

max

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hey, just sifting through the forums looking for opinions on the macbook. I've recently made myself get a grip and realize that 1) I can't afford a Macbook pro and 2) I don' need a Macbook pro.

 

One thing I am concerned about however is plugging in an external monitor, say a 23" cinema display for watching movies. Does anyone know if integrated graphics would cut it in this case? (I realize that the intel graphics meet the minimum requirement for a 23", but I'm talking about full screen (insert fav blockbuster sci-fi special effects laden filled movie) DVD playback)

 

Also, how does the virtualization perform on the macbook as compared to the mackbook pro, any differance?

 

I apologize if there is another thread that might be discussing this, any points in that direction would be helpful in that case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, just sifting through the forums looking for opinions on the macbook. I've recently made myself get a grip and realize that 1) I can't afford a Macbook pro and 2) I don' need a Macbook pro.

 

One thing I am concerned about however is plugging in an external monitor, say a 23" cinema display for watching movies. Does anyone know if integrated graphics would cut it in this case? (I realize that the intel graphics meet the minimum requirement for a 23", but I'm talking about full screen (insert fav blockbuster sci-fi special effects laden filled movie) DVD playback)

 

Also, how does the virtualization perform on the macbook as compared to the mackbook pro, any differance?

 

I apologize if there is another thread that might be discussing this, any points in that direction would be helpful in that case...

Of course! Lol it's a graphics card none-the-less, dedicated or not.

It will let you play fullscreen video on both displays at the same time with them both playing different videos!

 

lol go for it, you've got nothing to fear -_-

 

And in case it matters, I'm speaking from experience.

Also, lets not forget that even if the GPU is loaded with work, there is always a powerful 64-bit dual-core processor backing it up, at all times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks!!! Much appreciated! I figured the intel graphics would be enough at least for the 13" display, but wanted another opinion in regards to larger monitors, and watching movies would be the best way to convince my significant other to pitch in for a big one :)

 

Cheers, I'll post when I get one :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, they aren't a "bad thing", unless of course, you are a gamer who plays the new 3d shooters (such as counter strike source, half life 2, or doom 3), I would see there should be no issues with it. I wouldn't worry about this. If I was a gamer, I would use boot camp instead of Paraells, since you have a dedicated enviorment for Windows XP or Windows Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, they aren't a "bad thing", unless of course, you are a gamer who plays the new 3d shooters (such as counter strike source, half life 2, or doom 3), I would see there should be no issues with it. I wouldn't worry about this. If I was a gamer, I would use boot camp instead of Paraells, since you have a dedicated enviorment for Windows XP or Windows Vista.

 

 

Yes, just for gamng, everything else is fine.

 

 

One thing though, newer programs are going to require higher GPU standards, (3d, OpenGL) for say WORD, or AEROword or something.

 

It was in an article for musicians and how the mac book (non pro) are a great deal right now for musicians, however, it went on to say down the road when programs become more 3d dependant, well, they won't run certain apps. But hey, by then your MB will have better GPU's. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, just for gamng, everything else is fine.

One thing though, newer programs are going to require higher GPU standards, (3d, OpenGL) for say WORD, or AEROword or something.

 

It was in an article for musicians and how the mac book (non pro) are a great deal right now for musicians, however, it went on to say down the road when programs become more 3d dependant, well, they won't run certain apps. But hey, by then your MB will have better GPU's. :-)

 

Do you think this will be the case with the Adobe CS3 studio suite? Probably not for in-the-works-now software?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I installed OS X on my wife's Acer laptop last night and I was very impressed by the GMA900 graphics. Animations are all smooth (expose, genie effect) and you get that cool water ripple effect when you drop a dashboard object. I even played a DVD on the second monitor whilst editing the wiki on the laptop screen. Not a stutter - and this is on a Celeron 1.5GHz.

 

If you're not into hardcore games or 3D work, then I'd say the integrated graphics are more than adequate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a 2Gb MacBook 1.83Ghz Core Duo, and recently switched to a 2Gb MacBook Pro 1.83Ghz Core Duo - ie exactly the same machine, except the graphics.

 

I have to say, I barely notice ANY difference in performance in Aperture.

 

I also have to say, the MacBook is an *excellent* machine - superb price/performance ratio - and you can get some great refurb deals just now. It has better battery life, better wireless range, and you can easily swap the hard disk. The screen is gorgeous and anyone who complains about the reflectiveness is a fool. It played Half Life 2 ok I spose, nothing great but as many have said, who buys a notebook for gaming?

 

So why did I go pro? To be honest, four main reasons, three fairly justifiable:

 

1) I got a refurb deal from Apple Store UK - £899 for the MBP which was about the same value as the MacBook I had, plus a little extra. That meant the huge difference between Pro and non-Pro basically disappeared.

 

2) I wanted the extra screen space for Aperture work. 1440x900 versus 1280x800 doesnt sound like much, but it does make a big difference.

 

3) I wanted the more accurate colour reproduction of the non-glossy screen, again for photography stuff.

 

4) I was tempted by the pro. I was lured by the aluminium sexiness.

 

 

To be honest, I am really happy with my MBP, but I probably would be just as happy with, say, a Core 2 Duo 2Ghz MacBook, so long as it had 2Gb RAM and a decent sized hard disk.

 

Consolation: Aperture is a RAM hog, more than anything. If the MacBook you tested it on had less than 2Gb that was probably the bottleneck, not the GMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i got a macbook pro because i played around on alloutmactoday's macbook. the graphics where {censored} in halo, the game i play most. i also screw around in carera allot, and his wasnt great at that either.

 

(sorry Alloutmacstoday)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize this may be a bit off topic, but I have a celeron d based hackintosh, which is VASTLY less powerful than the core duo based macbook, and i can run dvds / xvids @ 1280x800 through my 108" lumenlab projector.. and thats only with gma900 not 950.

 

The macbook is plenty powerful for 2d video.. and don't get the 23" lcd, for the same price get a projector from www.lumenlab.com - 6000 hour bulb and only 30.00 to replace.. love mine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...