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 21, 2006 10:36 AM in response to Nick A

I just ran xbench on my new MacBook (Base Model) and got a very dissapointing result of 43.54 - my old PB 12" 1ghz ran much faster.

May 21, 2006 12:07 PM in response to ictiosapiens

If the next incarnation of OS X requires more than the MacBook I just bought (i.e., the purchase of a MacBook Pro), I'll ebay my MacBook and go right back to Linux and forget all about Apple.

DavoMrMac

Level 4

1,555 points

May 21, 2006 12:10 PM in response to Brian Puccio

Brian

What sort of comment is that. Hardly on topic, and not very constructive.

Besides, Leopard will run on the MacBook.

May 21, 2006 12:44 PM in response to DavoMrMac

Parent said that running Leopard wouldn't be possible on the MacBook without turning off options. If that is the case, I don't think I'd be too inclined to keep my MacBook when I can turn on all the eye candy (XGL, etc) on other OSes with a machine that costs less than a MacBook Pro.

May 21, 2006 12:47 PM in response to DavoMrMac

oh, Leopard will most definately run on a macbook, and the the whole thing about the eyecandy is all just speculation. It'd be good if someone with a macbook running boot camp could run the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor Beta tool, to see what it says about the intel 950...

KajQrd

Level 1

0 points

May 21, 2006 2:02 PM in response to VivaLaCaz

I think we should wait 3 to 6 months to see if you are actually right about Apple not wanting to make a 13" with dedicated graphics RAM. You have to consider that the MacBook series is a completely new line of computers and it takes some time to produce a full line. And I think there is a pretty good logic to which models have been introduced first. First you want to satisfy the professionals who need to have a really capable computer for use in their jobs. This is important for two very important reasons. First they are the ones willing to pay the most for their hardware and second if they can't find the equipment they need they will be the first to jump ship.

Second you want to go for the casual consumer wanting a computer for everyday tasks like text editing, web surfing, watching movies, and listening to music and maybe a little bit of gaming. For this group price is the most important and also they are the group most different to the customers for the pro line so if you want to catch them you will have to offer them a cheaper option. And for this group I think the MacBook as it is is pretty much ideal.

Third you have a lot of consumers in the middle of these two groups. Gamers who want a very mobile computer will very much like a 13" version of the MacBook Pro. I definitely fall into this group. And casual users with bad eyes (just joking, sorry) will want a 15" or maybe even a 17" MacBook. I don't think we'll ever see a 17" MacBook but I do think we'll see a 15" MacBook and a 13" MacBook pro. I see some very good reasons for these models not being the first priority when Apple decided which computers to launch first when launching their intel-based notebook line. But if we look back at the old PPC computers we pretty much had that lineup: 12" and 14" iBooks and 12", 14" and 17" Powerbooks. If I should make a guess about when we will see a 13" MacBook Pro and a 15" MacBook I would say at least before Christmas. However this is not even based on a rumour I've heard. It is purely speculation.

And regarding the slogan "the family is complete" they pretty much have to say that or everybody would wait buying until they knew if they could get something better.

Athlon 1400... Looking to switch for a MacBook Pro if they ever do a 13-inch Windows XP

May 26, 2006 10:35 PM in response to KajQrd

Ok- an 8mb ATI will run things like bejewled- cuz my iBook (what I am using right now does)

What I want to know is:
How well will thongs like Photoshop, Lightroom and Aperture (if it does) preform on a MacBook. When I say Photoshop I mean once Adobe update it.

Also can I make the GMA950 take m?ore RAM than 64 mb even hwen its not needed, like having a 128mb card?

May 27, 2006 9:38 AM in response to ictiosapiens

I'm really disappointed with the intel 950. I was
looking forward to having a small portable computer
in which I could run tiger and also thanks to
bootcamp, vista in the future, but vista requires a
decent graphic card to be able to have all its eye
candy, and probably it will be the same with leopard.

Ah. So even though Microsoft says the 950 can run Aero Glass just fine, they must be lying.

So effectively it won't only cripple gamers, but it
will also have a short lifespan.(when it comes to
graphics and eye candy I mean, surely leopard and
vista will run on it, but disabling the new effects
IMO)

And what do you base this opinion on? You have no idea about Leopard, and MS says you're wrong about Vista.

Nick A

Level 4

1,522 points

May 27, 2006 11:43 AM in response to Chris Corteen

That's odd, my 1.5Ghz PB ran extremely slow compared to this system. My PB only got around 33 on xbench, so the 46 I get now is a definite improvement.

Nick

May 28, 2006 9:45 PM in response to bullen

I have a powerbook G4 12` and with a GeForce FX Go5200 of 64MB and with that as some may consider not that good I can play Unreal Tournament with the highest resolution very smoothly. Mine is not even the 1.5 GHz is the 1.33 GHz and it runs perfectly as a MBP does. Unreal Tournament is a universal aplication so also the intel based computers can run at his best. As some have already said it will be nice if there was a MacBook with a good Graphics card and a matte screen.

Jun 1, 2006 2:58 AM in response to Victor Chavarria

These results from barefeats are interesting.

It is a shame that they haven't included the ibook but they will be doing that soon.

http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

MacBook Graphics Card