Apple Event: May 7th at 7 am PT

Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

MacBook Graphics Card

I preface this question by saying my knowledge is moderate at best. I am far from a guru.

I would very much like to get one of the new 2.0 ghz MacBooks, but as someone who plays a lot of games (and is loathe to use the word "gamer"), I'm wary of buying a machine using only a 64mb graphics card, particularly one that's sort of generic-made rather than a graphics-specific company, at this stage in the game when the standard is moving rapidly upward toward 256 and 512. Is it at all possible to get a 256 card in the MacBook? Whether through factory purchase or aftermarket work?

To be fair, what I'm running now is a 933mhz G4 with a 64mb graphics card, so even just the jump in processor power would be significant, but I'm thinking of the future and being a poor almost-out-of-undergraduate-college student, I'm not going to be able to be upgrading my computer every couple years.

Posted on May 16, 2006 4:53 PM

Best reply

bullen

Level 1

5 points

Posted on May 16, 2006 5:32 PM

This is my biggest concern with the MacBook too... the anti-reflection covered glossy screen scoring a second place.

The integrated Intel graphics chip is not powerful enough (specially for 3D) and has both slow access to, and low amounts of, memory.

You won't be able to add a graphics card to this exisiting form factor. Because of space, cooling and other numerous limitations.

You might be able to play HL2 at very low settings if you're lucky. My advice is to wait for some reviews, google for 'hl2 macbook -pro' in a couple of days.

If the MacBook had an ATI card and a matte screen I would have bought one immediately.

BTW, who came up with the glossy LCD screen in the first place? :/

View in context

71 replies

May 17, 2006 1:54 PM in response to johnny_go_darkly

a technical point - there is NO graphics "CARD" in the MacBook or Intel Mac mini - it has an integrated chipset.

DavoMrMac

Level 4

1,555 points

May 17, 2006 1:59 PM in response to Rick Bolton

Good point Rick.

I am happy with the integrated, I think it will perform fine.

May 17, 2006 3:57 PM in response to DavoMrMac

Based on reading the specs on the intel 950 chipset, it looks like it maxes out allocation for video stuff at something near 224mb, so if you have 2gb of memory it doesn't seem like it would make too much difference compared to 1gb as far as allocation for the chipset.

May 17, 2006 4:00 PM in response to johnny_go_darkly

My initial worries are dealt with, but there are other open questions left in this topic so I re-opened it as unanswered in respect of those.

May 17, 2006 4:41 PM in response to johnny_go_darkly

The difference will be huge. Most modern games make heavy use of shaders and require lots of memory. It takes much longer for the graphics chip to access the system memory than dedicated onboard memory, and every megabyte reserved for graphics is just that, reserved. Especially on machines with only 512 megabyte this can be quite noticeable. Too little system memory means more has to be swapped to/from the harddisk, which will cause additional slowdowns.

People with an interest in new games should really buy a computer with a good gpu with dedicated memory, that is, a MacBook Pro. 🙂

And btw, games run way better on my boot camped MBP than on my 'old' Gaming PC ( P4 2.8 GHz, Geforce 6600 ).

May 17, 2006 4:38 PM in response to Mike Brickner

Even if it was able to reserve 512 megabytes for graphics, access to this memory will be much slower for the graphics chip, and in most modern games, bus bandwidth ( data transfer from system memory to the gpu ) is already often a bottleneck. Additionally, the graphics chip itself is way less powerful than the X1600 used in MPB or a similar GPU would be.

May 17, 2006 5:08 PM in response to johnny_go_darkly

I'm pretty sure that you can actually select between
the glossy or matte screen according to preference
when you're ordering it, so I wouldn't worry too much
about that!

I'm a big WoW player, so I'm wondering how well it'll
handle WoW graphics. Will I be able to run on
highest settings smoothly?

No and no

The MacBook comes with glossy period

And no, Wow will certainly NOT run with the highest settings. In fact, what Doug said earlier about the video ram being allocated from the system RAM contains a hidden message. Translated, this message reads

SLOW

System RAM may be fast, but it's much slower than Video RAM, especially when it's not even allocated to the card, but needs to be adressed via system calls.

I tested the MB with XBench today, and got results between 47 for the slower white one and 43 for the fast black one. My three year old 17" G4 1Ghz PB scores 46............... makes me think.

I.

Nick A

Level 4

1,522 points

May 17, 2006 5:21 PM in response to Misschief

Thanks for that perspective. Can anyone else w/ a new macbook run xbench and verify these results? My old PB 12" gets 40, and my new MBP gets 62.

nick

May 17, 2006 5:32 PM in response to johnny_go_darkly

If you want to play game avoid the integrate video chipset as it was **** itself. It totaly doesn't cut it at all. In fact the chipset s*ck your RAM for it's simily VRAM. So if the "GPU" take 64 Mb, you lose that in your RAM.

So when you try to play a game, the video reference is in the RAM (wich is slower then real VRAM by the way) and take the access to it. So the RAM bandwith is already taken by the GMA, so performance with the RAM suffer a lot from this. This Chipset take a maximum of 64 to 224 Mb. So if the programme need to access VRAM and RAM at nearly the same time it would be a real dog slow.

One other reason to stay away from this, it only suport OpenGl v1.4, it can mean a lot of heavy work for your processor to comput what this bad chipset can't do.

I have a Quad PowerMac at home and was looking for a little portable, but the GMA 950 will make me wait a bit. I would have love at least a descend video card like the old iBook, no?! wasn't the move to Intel to cut price? what no price change, worst video card?! what is going on?!

I'm not a fan of glossy screen, but I could have manage to pass over this easily, the GMA 950 is a real deception back to back.

By the way, why the black model cost more? at same config, the black MacBook cost more?!? what paint is it? carbon paint that cost 100$ more for a color?! an another deception over this one. I thought the MacMini would have been the only one with onboard video and I can understand cause it's goal is to get the lowest price point, but the MacBook could easily had a Radeon 9650 or something like that. I will wait rev2 or maybe 3 if they continue to have onboard video, or maybe be able to get a MacBook Pro use before it happen. I do 3D design and programming and present stuff to client on this is a no way. Sad

dwb

Level 7

32,920 points

May 17, 2006 5:47 PM in response to Jerome Godbout

If you want to play games avoid the MacBook should be revised to if you want to play graphics intensive 3D games avoid the MacBook. As the owner of a Mac Mini which uses the same chipset, as well as a Dualie G5 I can say with certainty that a game like Doom3 is going to tax the MacBook. It taxes my MacMini. OTOH I'm playing many games like Civilization which, by the way, isn't even Universal.

And no, the move to Intel wasn't to cut price. The move to Intel was because Apple couldn't put a G5 into a PowerBook and neither IBM nor Motorola was working to create a low powered G5. And no, the Cell doesn't appear to the the low powered G5 that we all hoped for.

The MacBook fills a niche, the same niche the iBook filled. Having owned 2 iBooks I know from experience that the iBook never was a game stud. It wasn't meant to be and neither is the MacBook.

Lots of people have legitimate need for a high powered graphics card - I have one in my desktop and bought that desktop for that reason. But lots of others have no need for it and the MacBook fills their needs. Stop disparaging the MacBook simply because it isn't your computer.

bullen

Level 1

5 points

May 17, 2006 6:24 PM in response to dwb

The only reason we are disappointed is that we like the design of the MB. It's kind of sad that Apple does not recognise the opportunity they had to meet the expectations of the many gamers who are forced to use ugly PC's.

They could have us all now that they have boot camp, but instead they are just satisfying their 'old' consumer base.

I'm confident they will read, learn, wait some and then give us an ATI upgrade! 🙂

hessman

Level 1

0 points

May 17, 2006 6:28 PM in response to johnny_go_darkly

I have to disagree with apple fan's logic that the macbook is simply not ment for 3d gaming. I dont think in this day and age gaming should be a pro option. A new portable might not run a game as good as it's souped up desktop counterpart, but " IT SHOULD BE PLAYABLE" to say the least.

I have not tested or seen games on these intel based graphic chips yet, but from what Im reading certain games are not playable at all. Macs have always been regarded as superior in graphics, and 3d rendering is part of that. It's deffinatly a downgrade in my opinion. Besides, dedicated graphic cards for laptops are a dime a dozen these days. I dont understand why apple couldnt integrade those in the macbook.

I was already a bit upset that the standard video ram configuration on the macbook pro was limited to 128 when it should be 256, but this takes the cake.

May 17, 2006 6:34 PM in response to johnny_go_darkly

I totally agree. They could have had my business if they would have put a decent dedicated video card in the MacBook. I now have a Sony Vaio SZ with 13.3 inch display, NVidia 7400 with 128 MB Video Ram and a Double Layer CD/DVD recorder, 1.83 Core Duo and it only weighs 4.1 pounds. Only problem...it doesn't run OSX. Still, it is a well-built, stable, full featured light notebook that can play any game I throw at it. And I do use the Double Layer DVD writer. It works perfectly. Apple could have done it, too. They could have had a lot of PC user business. If they ever do match Sony engineering, I'll buy one, but not before.

Powerbook G4, G4 Power Mac Mac OS X (10.4.6)

Nick A

Level 4

1,522 points

May 17, 2006 6:43 PM in response to dwb

All in all true, but why'd they use a integrated chip that has less performance that what it replaced? Sure the core duo is amazing, but the radeon 9550 in the old iBook is still a much better GPU than the GMA 950.

Irregardless, I don't think it matters as it is clear that this model is not for true gamers. Sure Civ 3 will run okay, but don't expect to play doom 3 or WoW with settings cranked as would be possible on the MBP.

Sure it'd be nice if Apple made a small laptop with all the trimings, but they don't. So if you need to play the latest and greatest games at an acceptable level, or if you wish to play future games at all you'll need to get a macbook pro. And if you want a small laptop and think the MBP is too big then you better start hoping and writing apple ( http://www.apple.com/feedback) and ask them to make a 13.3 pro model or you could buy a sony vaio SZ series which is identical to the macbook, in screen camera included, with real graphics and 1 pound lighter, but it'll run you $1850. The downer is it will run windows.

Nick

May 17, 2006 7:28 PM in response to johnny_go_darkly

How well would the Sims 2 run on the Macbook?

MacBook Graphics Card