More integrated graphics from Apple
Apple released the MacBook, its new consumer laptop, today. The full tech specs -- which are over at Apple's site -- mention that the MacBook features an Intel GMA950: in other words, an integrated graphics chip identical to the Mac mini. Previously we've summarized the disadvantages of integrated graphics and we've moaned about the poor graphics performance of Apple's line-up in an attempt to force someone at Apple to listen, but it was all in vain. Apple's supposed "gaming solution" (Windows) is hardly a solution now that Apple's consumer line-up (MacBook, Mac mini) doesn't have a dedicated graphics card, the prosumer line-up (MacBook Pro, iMac) features a low- to mid-range mobile chip and the remaining top-of-the-range machine (PowerMac) is stuck with PowerPC processors, crappy default GPUs (GeForce 6600s, yuck!) and a largely unobtainable price.
If Apple one days wakes up and realizes that there are a load of potential gaming switchers sitting on the fence it would either: tell, no, force Intel to make some integrated chips that aren't "virtually unplayable for anybody that cares about gaming" or provide the option of dedicated graphics cards for gamers, even if it costs us more.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Josh @ May 16th 2006 12:05PM
I think it is ridiculous you would complain about a laptop that primary functions stem far from that of gaming. The macbook, as is the mini, have little if not anything to do with gaming. If you are looking for a gaming apple machine look to the up coming desktop from them or the macbook pro. We all know that apple has not had much to do with games but soon they will be. To make a post about the lack of it on the macbook or the mini seems very off the mark.
Pancakeshouse @ May 16th 2006 12:18PM
I agree with number 1 on this. Everybody knows that Apple computers aren't for gaming. I for one recently bought a MacbookPro and yes I have played Half Life and AOE3 on it, but I mainly bought it for photography purposes, which is one thing it was made for.
zero2dash @ May 16th 2006 12:19PM
PowerMacs should be revealed within the next few months; rumor has it they'll be based on the upcoming Intel Conroe cpu (which is a MONSTER); on top of that, early reports have Conroe outperforming AMDs A64 X2 4800+ cpu in everything *including gaming* (which is where Intel usually falls flat on their face).
I wouldn't expect much out of the PowerMac being shipped with a high end graphics card, but then again, I'm sure it'll come with something that isn't exactly a slouch either. You also need to realize that current regulation PowerMac systems can be upgraded to include better graphics cards including a 7800GT (which isn't a pile of crap by any means).
Once the Intel PowerMac makes its appearance, I think I'm finally going to own a Mac at home again...I'm still impressed with the G5 I use at work (graphic design), and I still love my 2 XP machines at home...but no one who's actually used a Mac lately for an extended period of time (at least a few weeks) can honestly say that they're not good computers - because they ARE.
jay @ May 16th 2006 12:23PM
Josh has it right. This machine is meant for grannies, a machine you buy your kid or for people who don't care about games and that. It's a toy. It's an iBook/MacBook. It's cheap and for people who want to organise photos, iPods, go online. Hence the low affordable price tag. I don't ever recall seeing a PC laptop that can "run the latest games" for this price.
This is stupid.
...anyways, back to Final Cut Pro on my 15" MacBookPro.
zero2dash @ May 16th 2006 12:25PM
//Apple's supposed "gaming solution" (Windows) is hardly a solution...and a largely unobtainable price.//
Macs (in all honesty) have similar prices to a custom built PC.
Yes - that's right - I said it.
Custom build me an A64 X2 4800+ with similar specs to a 2.7DP G5 and I guarantee you'll have a similar price once you throw in all the hardware + a new Windows license. I've done it several times over the last few months based off NewEgg.com's prices.
Sure, you could go CHEAPER and save money (by getting a lower clock'd A64 or even settling for another cpu) but in the end - if you EQUALLY BUILD, you'll spend about the same amount.
jay @ May 16th 2006 12:26PM
And that's also a funny comment about the PowerMacs. They come with 6600's built in, with the option to stick in a Matrox video card with 1gb of memory. hmm. OH LOOKS APPLES ARE SO STUPIDS.
I go into a PC shop and buy a last gen system with a 16mb built in SiS graphics card. Wow, Microsoft are so retarded. How could they let such a thing happen.
Brad @ May 16th 2006 12:28PM
Macs are for kiddies. It really is that simple.
zero2dash @ May 16th 2006 12:30PM
//7. Macs are for kiddies. It really is that simple.//
Gimme a break.
PCs are for viruses. It really is that simple.
/goes back to playing F.E.A.R. on a self-built P4
Momus @ May 16th 2006 12:32PM
Games are usually for kiddies, too. Hmmm?
Dan @ May 16th 2006 12:35PM
I agree with you completely Conrad. I've been dying for a Mac laptop. Not one that will outperform my gaming rig, but one that I can actually play WoW on without getting frustrated. We want something with the functionality/awesomeness of a Mac... because they works better!! Integrated graphics just blows.
jay @ May 16th 2006 12:36PM
zero2dash is right on the money point.
I bought a P4 laptop, 3ghz etc. for 999
month later I buy a PowerBook G4 1.5ghz for 959.
The PowerBook outperforms the laptop in every possible way. boots faster, fewer formats, Adobe Premier screams on the PB and runs normally on the P4. etc. Doom is a big one. It runs like crap on my windows machine, but on my Mac I can up the resolution and effects and still have a 5fps gain.
ABigSmall @ May 16th 2006 12:54PM
Wait, why is this on Joystiq?
Edmund @ May 16th 2006 12:58PM
It's funny how you people go and say that the macs are toys because they can't play your video games. These machines are for professionals, not stupid gamers who forgot that computers actually do other things. As a gamer, mac user, and professional videographer, it's hysterical to listen to you morons. Do you really think apple cares about gamers? Do you really think apple needs you people? So if you want a toy that plays your silly games, buy a clunky, joke of a PC. Buy a sh!tty Alienware. If you want a professional machine for getting work done, get a Mac. I have nothing against the majority of people who play computer games. Just stop pretending that you're all adults because you play them. Computer games are NOT professional applications. Personally, I'm proud of Apple for sticking to their guns and not compromising the performance of their machines just so they can play some worthless video games. Haven't you considered that maybe Apple is more concerned with their graphics cards working well with Photoshop and Final Cut and not Doom and World of Warcraft?
PCs are toys.
Macs are professional machines.
Brad @ May 16th 2006 1:05PM
I like how you guys all think that Apple has some super technology that Microsoft cannot out do. If only you would stop screaming when they put software on their OS. Nobody cares about little insignificant Apple so they can put all the extra software on it no qualms.
Tell Macs if were not pretty, who the fuck would buy one. Yeah exactly its all about eye candy. You say PCs are all about viruses, how dumb is that statement. If I write a program for Macs that deletes all your files and you run it, what would happen?, but why would I, it's not nearly as fun as destroying 95% of computers.
Edmund @ May 16th 2006 1:10PM
In my last post I would wish to change "you people" into "some of you people." Most of you seem to know what's going on. It's people like Brad that make me doubt the future survival of the human race.
Robespierre @ May 16th 2006 1:27PM
I have to agree that it's terribly funny that someone would call a Mac a "toy" because it's not designed to play video games...
I for one am very excited about the new MacBooks, as it'll make a perfect replacement for my old iBook. I have my Xbox 360 for games (now there's a great toy!), and my Mac for everything else; what more could a guy want?
Momus @ May 16th 2006 1:37PM
Brad, the first step toward being understood is writing in intelligible English.
Brad @ May 16th 2006 1:41PM
ME is Jurst taying to saying that Apple is a joker. Yo no understand?
jay @ May 16th 2006 1:59PM
"If I write a program for Macs that deletes all your files and you run it, what would happen?, but why would I, it's not nearly as fun as destroying 95% of computers."
Go ahead. But it will ask for my systems password before deleting any important file and will tell me exactly whats going on. So I can stop it. then using some little terminal code I can recover lost files.
You make me laugh. I've been a PC user for the past decade and a year, I've been a Mac user for the past 2 years. Since the Mac I've noticed THAT I DO NOT NEED TO FORMAT. I DO NOT NEED TO WORRY. You can say anything you like. But no formats on a 2 year old system with no anti-virus program is damn impressive. We have format my desktop PC every 2-3 months.
I bought a Mac because I realised all I did on my PC was what the Mac does better. Everything but gaming.
Smiles.
zero2dash @ May 16th 2006 2:10PM
//14. I like how you guys all think that Apple has some super technology that Microsoft cannot out do. If only you would stop screaming when they put software on their OS. Nobody cares about little insignificant Apple so they can put all the extra software on it no qualms.//
The reason Macs are good is because you get a lot for your money and you don't have to worry about viruses, spyware, or anything else malicious because a) they're minimal market share meaning they're not targeted and b) user accounts are USER by default and therefore software does not BY DEFAULT have any rights to self-install (like on a Windows machine where every user account is made ADMINISTRATOR by default unless you customize the hell out of it and bother installing everything as admin and then making a user account the default login account).
OSX is the greatest operating system on the planet. Period. Anyone with more than a week's worth of experience in OSX will realize all the good stuff that was put into it, from security to features to software. Hey, I love XP Pro. LOVE IT. But it pales in comparison to OSX. And from the CTP build of Vista I have installed - Vista has come a long way and is CLOSE to being as good as OSX. Problem is - it's CLOSE. It's STILL not as good as OSX. Microsoft should look at OSX as "what an operating system SHOULD be" instead of "they're competition and we can come up with our own stuff".
//Tell Macs if were not pretty, who the fuck would buy one. Yeah exactly its all about eye candy.//
If you actually spend more time looking at your computer case than using it, then you've got another problem altogether. I could give a crap about how fancy or "well revered" the G5 cpu case is...the fact remains that the software contained on the hard drive inside is what makes a Mac a better machine.
//You say PCs are all about viruses, how dumb is that statement. If I write a program for Macs that deletes all your files and you run it, what would happen?, but why would I, it's not nearly as fun as destroying 95% of computers.//
First of all, your software wouldn't run on a Mac without authentication, and that ain't gonna happen. Secondly, even with authentication, you're not running your "program" as sudo, so you're not going to delete any system-critical files.
Second of all, the comment (I made it) is in response to the idiot that said "Macs were for kiddies", who wouldn't know what a Mac was good for if one hit him in the face. People make stupid comments on one side of the fence - they get a stupid comment right back.
AS I'VE ALREADY SAID -
I own 2 XP Pro PCs...a (P4 3.0C) desktop I built myself (the 3rd computer I've built) and a (AthlonXP) laptop; every M-F from 8a-4p I sit in front of a G5 running 10.39 Panther. I've used practically every OS on my PC from 5 *nix builds to XP to OSX86 10.43 (meaning yes, I had Tiger running on my PC).
I love both operating systems and I love all three computers. But I'm also sick of all this blind ignorant PC fanboy bashing of Mac computers just because they're different or they're quote/unquote "expensive" or "10 percent market share" blah blah blah. Maybe if some of these bashers weren't so blind to the fact and they actually had USED a Mac recently, they'd realize how stupid they look talking about something they know nothing about.
Will @ May 16th 2006 2:26PM
What is wrong with you people. I am a true Mac man through and through and I was totaly turned off this MacBoook line because of that ridiculous integrated graphics thang. I want to be ABLE to run these games that I've been jelously watching my PC counterparts running on their Dulls. I whole heartedly cheer in support of Joystiq for bringing up this area that Uncle Steve has ignored. Somebody needs to get his attention.
Kenty @ May 16th 2006 2:45PM
There is now one thing missing from Apple's product range: An intel based compact mid-range laptop with the 'pro' features of the larger 15 and 17inch models. Previously this was the 12inch G4 powerbook but it has been discontinued as of today with the release of these new macbooks.
I personally couldn't see Apple leaving such a gap in the product range, especially as the 12inch powerbook was so popular.
I fully expect to see a new macbook introduced in the next 6 months, something with a half decent dedicated graphics chip and sitting in between the macbooks and macbook pro's pricewise... fingers crossed!
PodMonkeys @ May 16th 2006 2:46PM
I can say, I'm bummed with the graphics choice. I was hoping on an X1300 or similar chip. I can't afford to go all out and get the MacBook Pro, but I would like to be able to play some WoW or RTS's as well as do my webcomic in Photoshop.
One of the biggest factors for me is size. I need to be able to easily carry the thing, or pack it away for transport, and the smaller the better. 15" is pushing it for me. 13" would be ideal.
Still, if it performs anything like the Intel Mac Minis, then gaming isn't tottally out. Intel Mac Minis are said to be running WoW, Half Life 2, and other games. Low graphics settings, but they still run.
gslax @ May 16th 2006 3:13PM
kenty is on the trolley. everyone save their precious breath and have some patience. the 13.3 macbook PRO will be out in two shakes of a lamb's tail.
chill people, jesus.
P Smith @ May 16th 2006 3:18PM
I have a MacBook Pro, and it runs World of Warcraft very nicely. In fact I was pleasantly surprised by how well it ran and how nice it looked. I certainly didn't buy the machine for gaming (I have a desktop PC for that) but anyone who says it won't run 3D games nicely is wrong. Sure it won't compare with a PC with a Geforce 7800 chip in it, but few laptops will.
I think Joystiq just likes to run Mac-bashing articles every so often to get the comments rolling in.
Tush @ May 16th 2006 3:37PM
"I think Joystiq just likes to run Mac-bashing articles every so often to get the comments rolling in."
It's not bashing when the truth is that Apple skimped out on the graphics for the Mini and the MacBook... Both of which were never known as gaming machines. My question is, will Apple release a machine that's specifically for gaming?
Most of you have good points... some have dumb ones.
zero2dash @ May 16th 2006 3:49PM
//My question is, will Apple release a machine that's specifically for gaming?//
With Boot Camp being available now - maybe.
Before now - no.
Apple (IMO) is catering their hardware to the same people that primarily purchase their computers - designers...not gamers.
Twist @ May 16th 2006 4:01PM
I am hoping (but not holding my breath) for a decent mid-level PowerMac. The high end models can have their Core 2 Quad Extreme CPU's and cost $6000 for all I care but I would be all over a $1300-$1500 Intel PowerMac even if it just shipped with the current 2 GHz Core Duo chips. Just slap an Intel iMac motherboard into a mid-tower case and add some PCI Express slots. Ship it like the Mac mini with no keyboard, mouse, or iSight. Bare-bones but with expansion options.
Anyway the MacBook looks like a decent system as long as you aren't interested in running many games made within the past year or two on it. Even with the crappy Intel GMA 950 GPU it should easily out-perform my current iBook with its Radeon Mobility 9200. My iBook actually runs UT2k4 decently at modest settings. And that is the Mac version and I know it would run much better under Windows on hardware with similar specs. Who knows at low settings even Half-Life 2 might be playable on the new MacBook (with the RAM maxed out).
Kasumi-Astra @ May 16th 2006 5:38PM
I'm quite happy with the hardware, but I'm disappointed with the price. I'd have expected a competant graphics element for 1000, the supposed replacement for the 12" Powermac. I would also have liked a choice of colours instead of the colours being fixed to the hardware specification.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't want to play many games on a MacBook. The 13" screen would be awful to play WoW for any length of time on, and I've got a glorious 20" iMac Core Duo anyway. I'd definately buy the MacBook to lug around university to keep all my work on a single machine instead of having to use labs. I would also like to use it to watch DVDs on the train, and possibly run GENS, ZSNES and Project64 when I get bored. This is where the 6 hour (*advertised*) battery life could come in.
I'll drop into the Apple Store soon to take a look. It'll definately be the form factor that will sell it to me. If I can fit it in a small bag and it's relatively light, I do believe it'll be a good machine for me.
TheVexedSoul @ May 16th 2006 6:04PM
The GMA950 seems to run Half-Life 2 quite smoothly on the Mac Mini, which, aside from also using the GMA950, contains slower processors than any of the MacBooks.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spb-bzXWZQ0
Quagmire @ May 16th 2006 9:29PM
Maybe everyone should wear a black or white shirt and gather around their nearest Mac store and protest!! like the MAYDAY marches going around the country!
Screw Intel 950 chip bring on NVIDIA!!!
Joel @ May 17th 2006 1:59AM
My Intel imac runs FEAR and COD 2 just fine. So you might as well get a imac for the same price as the smaller macbook. Someone on ebay even my easy to carry cases for the imac.
Plus OSX screams on the new intel chip
The ZeroCorpse @ May 17th 2006 2:00AM
I have a Mac mini Intel Core Duo with the aforementioned GMA950 chipset, and I've said it before: It runs games just fine.
I run Sims 2, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Half-Life 2, and Star Wars Empire At War (which, by the way, says it needs hardware T&L, but works great on the mini) through Boot Camp on my Mini. Granted, I have 2GB of RAM, but otherwise, this is a decent enough video chipset to handle games with about half the effects turned on. Not bad for a $700 computer.
And performance within OS X is excellent. Anything that's Universal Binary works wonderfully, and the GUI zips along without delay. I can run high definition 1080p or 720p movie trailers without a hiccup, and DVDs look great when upscaled on my HDTV. I can run a DVD, work in Photoshop CS, and buzz around the Internet at the same time with nary a stutter in video performance.
So can we please stop whining about the GMA950 now? Those of us who have a system with this chipset find it more than adequate to get the job done. No, it's not a GeForce monstrosity, but I wager it handles HD video better than the GeForce line, anyway. The trade-off is video games aren't running at full power, but a good PC game shouldn't need full reflections, super-detailed shadows, and creature grass running to be fun. It does the trick, and better than any stock PC you'll find in the same price range.
If you want an Nvidia chipset, get a gamer rig. The MacBook and Mac mini are not gamer rigs, and those of us who use them don't NEED a gamer rig that does uber-graphics.
That's what I have my Xbox 360 for, after all. That what my Wii will be for.
Max Howell @ May 17th 2006 10:11AM
I have a mac, windows pc and linux pc. I prefer Linux first and foremost because I love to tinker, but I tell everyone I know to buy Apple when they need a computer.
Windows is good enough, but that's about as far as it goes.
Miharu @ May 17th 2006 10:56AM
The ZeroCorpse, thanks for your comments. I'm most likely going to get a MacBook sometime and am glad to hear at least some positive comments from people who've actually tried to play those games, instead of people who just say you can't play any games even if they've never tried it.
Big Ed @ May 17th 2006 7:05PM
Oh really people! If you pay $2000 just to play games on your computer you're well on your way for a job in the white house.
Wayne @ May 17th 2006 7:38PM
#14-I like how you guys all think that Apple has some super technology that Microsoft cannot out do. If only you would stop screaming when they put software on their OS. Nobody cares about little insignificant Apple so they can put all the extra software on it no qualms.
Apple can safely dual boot OSX Tiger and every other OS microsoft has put out there . Can your PC do that?
MacBook Pros can run WinXP faster than most of the damn laptops currently on the market. Can your "pre MBP era" laptop do that?
I don't see why Apple's entry-level MacBook is being viewed at as a gaming machine, making this Joystiq post quite pointless. It's like comparing a Lexus to a Toyota. Sure, in some cases, both the cars run on similar platforms, but it's all about quality, which Apple does best (hence, the hefty price tag). Toyota Supras were kings of the road, WOT'd daily, with an average-quality build (interior-wise). Lexus' are prestigious vehicles meant to get a person from point A to B with luxurious amenities. Bottom line, Macs and PCs both have their ups and downs. There's a reason why Macs are so expensive. Say it with me: Build Quality (20'' Alum ACD vs 20'' Dell line, for example). Macs are used for productivity. PCs are used for "A to B" tasks. (including gaming, etc)
hunter @ May 19th 2006 10:01AM
the macbook is in no way meant to be a gaming machine. i'm a long time mac user and i've looked at pc prices, you would be hard pressed to find such a well designed elegant peice of hardware for the same price. the video cards in the pros are enough to play any games. if you're not satisfied with that wait until the towers come out and put in any video card you want
killr_b @ Jun 22nd 2006 12:52AM
Who ever wrote this article must take lessons from Karl Rove. No one with half a brain would compare the entry level macbook or macmini to an alienware running a 7800.
Did Apple say the Macbook was for playing games?
No.
Did Apple say it was to compare to other gaming notebooks?
No.
The Gma950 graphics perform very well for Os X technologies, like core image, for renders on PRO apps. Which is suprising to say the least.
I don't get how the "gamers" managed to arrive at the conclusion that the entry level mac should play the games that the high end pc's play... must be 'cause they're children...
If you want to know how well the Gma950 will play your games, first, you're silly, second, it outperforms the previous radeon 9200, third, I wanna see the sub 2k notebook that you all allude to, that outperforms the MacbookPro. Because if there isn't one, you need to get a MacbookPro for your games and stop the F.U.D.