MacBook Pro, 8800M GT Debate

These posts have been moved from a previous thread to a new independent thread. Please continue the discussion here. - Moderator

8600M GT DDR3? This system is weak. Especially for a 17". But what can I say... its a Mac.

 

Whats wrong with an nvidia 8600m gt?? Especially when we dont game and its more than fast enough for everything else and even runs crysis at minimum-medium settings. Just have to understand there are alot of laptop users buy laptops for best overall computing experience and not just for gaming.

I mean you can get an alienware or a dell xps in the $5000 price tag and can pretty much play any games you throw at it.. but then the overall computing experience is ****ty compared to a mac (which the pc's/windows can do the same thing). But I rather have an awesome innovative way to do my overall computing and while after 5-7 years later the mbp will still do its job really well and continue to do so and in 5 years the dell/alienware's #1 priority (gaming) will be too slow to fullfill it while having the *****y computing experience.


And it IS a MAC!!

 

There are so many flaws in your argument I know not where to begin. At least let me say that just because one desires power to play games doesn't mean a system will become obsolete in general. Yes in 5 years you may need a new system to play new games but it will still be just as powerful as it was before and up to virtually any task a Mac can accomplish. This need to upgrade is not platform specific (Mac versus PC) but a phenomenon associated with computer gaming.

I also find it funny you think Macs provide an innovative experience. To me they are nothing more than systems designed for the computer novice who knows nothing about computers. Granted there are experts who use macs, and novices who use windows but I'm speaking to the general mac user base or at the very least the intended user base.

You seem to also equate using a PC and windows with a bad user experience and I don't really see why. The vast majority of mac ads that purport a similar view are propaganda and incredibly far from the truth. Apple simply underestimates the intelligence of their consumers and adjust their advertisement accordingly (perhaps rightly so, but that is not a point I wish to discuss in this post).

I also enjoy how you generalize the 'Mac' community with non-gamers. Although I can agree that Macs are horrible gaming devices when compared to their more cost-effective and powerful PC counterparts I would at least like to think that there are some Mac users who enjoy playing games. If not then I suppose they will relegate themselves back to their Gnarls Barkley music editing paradise. Each to his own.

 

This is what ignorant pc users only think about mac users, that mac users dont know how to use a computer... I know alot of people in the IT, computer programmers who know ALOT more than you and I that use macs.

Remember real hackers use macs as well. But the great thing about osx and macs is that people who do not know anything about computers can use it and learn really fast without bringing up any problems.

My mom never touched a computer in her life, bought a macbook, learned it in 20 minutes and now for the past 2 years can surf the web, check email and even chat and found long lost friends. Without even any problems and sure some things were opened like iphoto and stuff but never had to do a reinstall of the osx and not even a single crash or any other problems, now that is what I call a stable OS especially from a person who's never used a computer in her life and dont even know what the hell osx or windows is.

She just closes the lid, the macbook goes to sleep and its done for the day and all she has to do is open it up from sleep and use it.

On the other hand.. my dad who bought an emachines with windows.. you dont know HOW many times I had to go over to reinstall windows because he accidentally erased a .dll or a .exe file or moved something that shouldnt have been moved or crashed or windows is just slowing down and I need to defragment the computer for him every few months and making sure to tell him the top 30 things not to do in windows.

I havnt heard any questions/problems from my mom for the past 2 years straight.

If people that do not know how to use a computer can do all of this stuff on a mac, just imagine what an experience, hacker, pro user on a mac can do.

I used to think that as well and always asked the question, why use a mac seems like I'm restricted to very little programs and that the pc's have so much more programs.. but oh boy was I wrong.. I can do actually the exact same things as on a pc (dont want to go into specifics in d/ling movies, music, etc.. and I use about 15 programs always opened as well and its so easy to install just on little icon is the whole program.. no .exe, no .dll or no 4-10 sub folders with a bunch of little files that can crash or disappear after a restart or add/remove bs and the ui of the programs are so easy to use and install and are much more stable as well.

There are so many programs on osx that I never knew of either when I entered the world of osx just in 2005.

I used to always see the old school mac at my high school that can only do word, paint and organ trail.. I used to always say.. I hate macs.. but that g5 or something is good? Until I finally played with a powerbook g4 back in 2005 and was amazed at how many programs and how efficiently everything was laid out and used from my cousin working at home using his powerbook/powermac as a server for work.

Showed me and helped me out with a few tricks at first and I got the hang of it and now I can do pretty much anything. Only thing I keep windows around is for playing COD4 via bootcamp.

I also remember using mirc chat on windows.. omg are they hard to setup or config compared to colloquy, also microsoft mail is a pain when mail is so damn easy to setup on the dock from osx, microsoft word is actually easier and simplified to use on the mac version as well 08 or the 2004 version is even better, unison for newsgroup ahem downloading, spaces to keep things organized is awesome, osx360 to burn ahem 360 games automatically setup with 1 click, toast titanium for all burning, safari the best browser i've used or u can choose to use firefox as well, itunes built in for all music purposes, vlc player (all you need), iphoto for eash connecting digital camera for instant uploading of your photos, dictionary is built in and in safari for instant definition (very useful and a great learning tool), visual hub for converting media files, ichat is the best chat client i've used in my life, much better than aim, icq, whatever u can think of, the dock is awesome, dashboard is very useful for reminders, calendar is great for keeping up with a busy schedule.. man there's so many programs, widgets out there.. more than what I can handle.

 

Interesting how you took my quote completely out of context. You'll notice the next line says:

" Granted there are experts who use macs, and novices who use windows but I'm speaking to the general mac user base or at the very least the intended user base."

I'm certain she did learn how to use the mac quite easily and this is my point. The macs are designed with these types of users in mind. Of course they can do more and serve more advanced users but this initial design is what frustrates many PC users who do not want to be spoon fed or spared from details of a system that is likely what lead your Dad to delete files he was not supposed to.

If you want to debate OSX versus windows I'm happy to but its an entirely different debate then that of hardware which was the original topic. Suffice it to say that both PC's and Macs are up to basically every task, it is only the efficiency/power and the method/presentation of doing such tasks that vary between the systems. I admit that for a novice non-gamer the Mac is an interesting choice. But for anyone, novice or professional who is interested in a compatible, functional and powerful system for significantly cheaper than what one would pay for a Mac, the PC is the best option.

I think you conceded into this Mac's systems lack of graphical power so there is really no reason to argue that point any further.

 

Much like my friend from the Sager forums who remarked earlier. I looked forward to a Mac system that had real graphical power behind it. But it seems Macs always lag behind in this regard which prevent many people who might be interested in these systems from exploring them further.

Often when a new review hits, a system is met with criticism over a certain feature and I think doing so creates positive discourse into understanding the advantages and disadvantages of a certain system. This one is no different. And to be frank I do not think if you stated 1 component of some other notebook system on another forum was not as powerful as you hoped you would be met with opposition to stating your disappointment.

I will take your advice and stay away from this system. Thank you.

 

You have to understand though, thats what makes osx great, people who know absolutely nothing about computers can use them, that's how well designed the os is and its that innovative.

And this also describes how badly windows is designed, the learning curve is that much harder to use. Sure windows can do the same things and more because of gaming but then it takes alot longer to learn what you should do and what not to do.

But pc's do have more powerful hardware but if you look into desktops the mac pro is every bit updated as any pc desktops with the 8800gt. Sure you cant sli it or anything but then people do that just for gaming to pump out every bit more fps you can out of the cards and if that's your priority there's nothing wrong with buying a gaming rig.

But the powerful hardware that your friend is talking about is the mac pro, awesome and the fastest machine I've ever used in my life.

 

The 8800GT although a good card is hardly updated. The PC is now at least 1 or maybe 2 depending on your definition, 'generations' ahead of that card. Even in the own series the 8800GTX is far more powerful not to mention the 8800 Ultra and now the new 9800 series and still newer GTX 260/280 series. And as you mentioned this allows for SLI but even more TRI and even Quad SLI with the 9800GX2, a setup which is infinitely faster than a single 8800GT. In terms of graphical power the PC is leaps and bounds ahead.

In the desktop sector this is perhaps one area where PC shines. The ability to truly customize your system using the best parts available rather than being forced to use proprietary technology that is overpriced and not nearly as fast or powerful. Another reason to go with PC in the desktop sector, hardware flexibility.

But this is a notebook discussion so I'll stop there.

 

Thank you for the warning. I will not comment any further. But I will suggest that anyone who would like to carry the discussion forward do so in a different forum on NBR.

Thanks.

 

I do not think it was fair to Andrew (circa86) for an argument to take place on his review, which he has worked hard to analyze and photograph. I am not against discussion and debate, as long as it is civilized. The discussion can continue here, but remember to keep it civilized.

 

Smood whether your arguments are reasonable or not is not my problem, as you may have more knowledge than I of this particular subject.

What I do not understand Smood is why do you come on a Mac forum to tell everyone who has bought a mac (specifically a MBP in your argument) that their system is inferior to an $800 Pc. Whether it is or isn't doesn't matter, what you have done is simply a waste of everyones time. I am not aware of any Mac user who goes on to a dell forum talking about why Dells are terrible computers. Yes, it is true that macs arent the best for gaming, but I can tell you nobody on this forum bought a Mac wanting to play crisis at full settings, maybe some have, but very few, and this is not Apple's fault, they do not withdraw any information about Macs. If you want extreme gaming go to Alienware or Voodoo PC. You buy different computers for different reasons, and i tell you not many people buy Macs to do intense Gaming. So telling us that our computers are inferior to an $800 machine is frankly arguing for the sake of arguing. By all means you are entitled to your opinion, but if it is in fact unhelpful to everybody then I suggest keeping it to yourself.

I ask you this question wanting an honest answer, what is your reason to post this on a Mac forum?

 

i think its hilarious when people complain about macs.

no one forces anyone to buy one. if you don't get it, then don't buy one. simple enough?

and yet people complain as if its their only choice. mac's aren't gasoline. you have choice.

yet, obviously there is something that draws people to buy a mac that isn't related to internal components.

i've said it before, and i'll say it again. its design (apple makes laptops and desktops that don't make you feel dorky) and its the OS. the tight integration of the software and hardware makes some things nice. like drivers. plus the operating system itself is top notch, well thought out, and the UI is nice.

but its not going to appeal to everyone. people who are concerned about getting best internal components / dollar should look elsewhere. no one forces anyone to buy a mac. don't forget that.

 

Yeah I'd love the 8800m GT(X) in the 17" Macbook Pro

But what was the argument on which review? I missed that.. Can anyone link me to it please?

 

The G9x series of NVIDIA GPUs (9600+) was just a refresh of the G80. All of those cards, except the 9800 GX2, are slower, with inferior specs compared to the 8800 GTX. The only real advantage the 9xxx series has is its ability to off-load Blu-ray and HD DVD decoding from the CPU. The GTX 200 series is the real next-generation GPU.

And I don't think anyone here, except the die-hard Apple apologist, will argue that point. It's even true in the mobile arena, to an extent. A Windows notebook may be able to be equipped with more powerful hardware at a lower price, but a MacBook Pro is one of the best-balanced notebooks around. It's absolutely not as powerful as some systems that cost a lot less, but considering how compact the form factor is, it's more than enough for all but die-hards who absolutely must have the latest and greatest all the time. Not to mention the fact that I can legitimately run just about any operating system I want, both natively and through a virtual machine (Hackintosh on a Windows box doesn't count).

It's wonderful to be able to take a lightweight machine on the road, do my work in OS X, futz around in Linux through VMWare, then relax and play a few games in Windows. It's awfully tough to beat that kind of flexibility.

 

nvidia gpu's from the 7 and 8 series and up can offload video onto the gpu. i think the 6 series can as well.

 

I was confusing PureVideo with PureVideo HD. The 8800 GTX is HDCP compliant, but it doesn't support off-loading of Blu-ray and HD DVD content to the GPU. Other 8-Series and up cards can.

 

First of all let me thank the moderators who fairly moved this topic to a new thread when I had believed they simply deleted it. I will try to be respectful of all users in this and all NBR forums while debating issues.

The reason ultimately I'm making this point is to make clear that Apple would be best suited from starting to offer cheaper and more powerful products. Although in general I dislike apple products, if the right prices/performance ratio is presented, I will be earnest in my interest despite the branding. In fact the very reason I dislike Apple products is because if their trend of a very high price to performance ratio which extends to all their products (not to mention the inability to obtain customized hardware and parts like I mentioned before and the simplistic way things are presented in the OS-X OS).

You could extend this argument to almost any product which has at least 1 competitor. Complaining about a product is often done because a person is interested in a product but disappointed in a certain feature. Stating disatisfaction is one of the main driving forces (especially between consumers and developers) to bettering a product. In fact its probably the best method of advancing a product because listening to your users or potential users and giving them what they want is what will facilitate product adoption, satisfaction and ultimately make the company a success.

I realize that my request for graphical power may be less then a large minority even, but engineering the option will no doubt make the Mac platform an actual viable competitor in the gaming industry. As Valve's Gabe Newell has stated frequently, Apple is just not serious about gaming. Likely because of Jobs and the company's belief that there are is not significant revenue in the game industry to merit a serious push to advance graphical technology.

I was under the assumption that the Macs could not be configured with an 8800GTX (the max would be an 8800GT). The GT as I said is a decent card but anything in the 9 series north of a 9600 can easily best it. In fact even the 9800 GTX+ has an easy time dealing with even an 8800GTX (although maybe not an Ultra). This is not even mentioning the GX2 or the new GTX 260 and 280 which although incredibly expensive can all put the 8800GTX and certainly the 8800GT to shame not to mention 2x, 3x and 4x SLi. I think you can see the rather large performance delta here.

On the lighter size the new 4870 and 4850 cards also look to have incredible performance for incredibly low prices and seem like the smart buy right now.

Thank you for your unbiased logic about the desktop sector. It would do well to be shared with hardcore apple fans like emeek77 on youtube who as I recall said before the 8800 was available for the Mac: "**** your 8800, I could kill its performance with my mac". What a sad individual.

 

Fair enough Smood, you have stated your point and it is quite reasonable from your perspective. Apple offers inferior or similar hardware at a higher price. That is true, but most people dont buy apple products for the hardware, because as you have stated it can be compared to cheaper products on the pc side.

From your argument however I take it you have never owned or used a Mac computer or OS for more than maybe half an hour. Hardware is not what makes a mac a mac its the OS, notebook design/build quality, and the feeling that this computer is not going to waste your time fiddling with internals and viruses. You only have to do what you want to do, the computer takes care of itself. If you look at it from a hardware perspective I agree with you. But if you look at it from an overall computing experience I think you will find that the mac while priced higher, is not priced based on hardware but based on the experience of using the computer. Yes for people that love to fiddle with internals (which may be you) the windows side is a much more sensible option. Not to say you can't fiddle with a macs internals it is just much harder.

So yes your argument from a hardware perspective is right, but remember hardware isn't the only thing that makes a computer. Tell me you cannot find flaws in XP or Vista. BTW have you ever used OS X leopard for a prolonged period of time?

 

The 8800 GTX will still win at higher resolutions with FSAA and AF thanks to its extra onboard memory and wider bus, but the 9800 GTX and GTX+ do indeed give it a run for its money, especially at the 9800's lower price point. The GX2 isn't that much faster than an 8800 GTX. I just changed my 8800 GTX for a 9800 GX2, as I can't do SLI otherwise (Intel chipset) and don't want to invest in a massive power supply. I also upgraded my monitor from a 19-inch to 22. Both the 8800 and 9800 shine at 1680x1050, but having the scalability of built-in SLI on the 9800 has helped in the few games I've tested since installing the new card a few days ago (Source engine and UT3).

You are indeed correct that an 8800GT is the only NVIDIA card offered on a Mac Pro. I was strictly speaking of GPUs for Windows/Linux desktops in my original response to you. You can get multiple GPUs in a Mac Pro, but only with Crossfire due to the Intel chipset motherboards those systems use.

What concerns me about those cards is the same thing that's concerned me since I purchased a Radeon 9500 (soft-modded to a 9700 Pro) back in the day: drivers. When I first put together my desktop system back in December, I had originally purchased a Radeon HD3850, which gave me nothing but headaches - crashes and driver errors up the wazoo. I have no doubt the hardware is sound, but the drivers will always be a huge question mark, at least in my mind. We'll just have to wait and see.

That is pretty pathetic. You have to keep an open mind about this sort of stuff. There's absolutely nothing that says you can't enjoy and be a fan of both Windows and Mac computers.

 

Smood your missing the point. The "it just works" that the Mac side boasts is only possible because of the closed system. Given the limited hardware configurations, software developers can code much more reliable code as they know exactly the kind of hardware the user has (and can test it much more thoroughly). Under Windows, a software developer can't exactly test their code on the bajillion hardware configurations on the PC side. Yes, on the PC side, I can install the latest and greatest release from ati/nvidia/intel/amd/etc. the day it is released into my custom PC, but this customizability comes with a cost. Early adopters are essentially beta testers until drivers get up to snuff. This is why Macs generally have a more seamless user experience while the Windows side may tend to be a bit more bumpy (at least at first). Even though it can be argued that Macs have a narrower range of functionality, If given a task it was designed for, it can be guaranteed the the Mac will perform that task 99% of the time w/o a hitch.

 

Well said.

 

I agree with this; poor people ( such as myself ) can not afford a $2000 laptop. ( MBP )

Exactly, so even if the OS is better, why is the OS so grossly overpriced ( in comparison with similar hardware specs from other laptop vendors, including a windows OS, a MBP with OSX would cost approximately another $500 ). I would like to have my own Mac to try it out to see how it compares to windows for my self rather than reading about how people bash it and how people put it on such a high horse, But like others, I simply can not afford it. Ive also looked at the regular MB which was much more cost efficient but then of course, hardware came into play and while I realize people buy their Macs for the OS, if i want to emulate windows, play games, or run certain programs etc, my hardware may not even be able to support it.

What i dislike most about Mac though is the users; many of the people I know that own a Mac are fairly computer illiterate, and all i hear is how Mac is better than PC because it "can not get a virus". Personally, i dont know how Mac OS was written, but if im a hacker, im not attacking < 15% of the market share, I'm attacking Windows which IIRC is about 80% or so.

Thats my .02 cent.

 

i can almost guarantee that a larger percentage of Mac users have a higher understanding of computers than the percentage of PC users that do, why? because like you said, <15% of the marketshare, which is excellent for current mac users, for the other reasons you mentioned.

As I have said so many times, it is NOT about the price of hardware being different, it is about what you are getting with the overall package, and like I have continuously said as well, who else is offering hardware with operating systems developed specifically for that hardware? Apple is.

Not to mention that OS X 10.5 is significantly cheaper than any version of Windows Vista and is barely more than Windows XP which is years behind.

Complaining that the hardware is more expensive is somewhat irrelevant as well because so one is even offering the hardware that Apple offers, not even close, anyone that believes that isn't true needs to take another look at the hardware Apple is offering, all those things you believe are Gimmicks definitely aren't. What other computer manufacturer has its own methods of connectivity comparable to FW800? and that is the most basic example.

It is not Apple's fault if someone believes they can't afford a system because of the cheap stuff out there offered by other manufacturers, they are offering excellent systems and perfectly fair prices, and again, fair is whatever they want it to be really, because no one offers what they do, it is not a monopoly, they just make products that they actually care about, and have standards of what the Apple name can go onto.

 

You're probably right; there are probably many Mac users that have a much better understanding that most PC users, im not arguing that; Im stating MY experience with Mac users.

Please reread my first sentence as what i said was "with similar hardware configurations"; im not using hardware as a factor, im just stating this so there are no misunderstandings with costs. My main question again though is "why is the OS so grossly overpriced" ( The main part of a Mac is undeniably the OS ). Even if its better, a $500 price premium is a bit steep. Ironically enough, no one i know with a Mac owned an MBP, just a MB.

 

@sszero, OS stand for operating system, it could be linux, windows, mac or any others. I should sure it was just typographical flaw of yours, but please use "Mac" or "OS X" next time so that noobs like me can understand better.
To you question "why is the OS so grossly overpriced", why do you think Ferrari charge F430 for $200K each while we could have a corvette for 1/4 of the price?

 

Simple; Chevy is American while Ferrari is European...duh

But seriously, im not a car person, but i would guess because this is better than this.

 

Sorry for butting in like this, but I wanted to point out some stuff that bothers me.

Real hackers use Linux

I'm not sure why you brought that up, it is irrelevant as PC do that too.

To be honest, comparing emachines to Apple is like is like comparing Kia to Cadillac. Two completely different levels of quality. Try Apple vs IBM. I'm sure Emachines has subpar customer service, driver support, cheap parts, etc. Honestly defraging once a few months isn't a big deal for most people.

Or imagine what they can't do. OS X is restricted to increase stability and usability. It's an unfortunate trade off that drives many away from Apple products. Windows can become unstable real easy because you can get under the hood and monkey. Works for some, not for others.

Bravo, you can multi task. Honestly, if you are installing common apps in windows, opening a bunch of subfolders and .dll files is completely unnecessary. Installing and uninstalling takes a minimal amount of effort on either platform.

Seriously why so much one sided praise of OS X and Apple? Apple makes good machines, and a stable OS. I like what Apple makes and probably will buy a Mac sometime, but people need to stop being living Apple advertisements. Would you like it if I walked around preaching how cool the start menu is, or how simple paint is to use? oooohh... Look at all the neat wallpapers windows has! Look at the cool gadgets Vista has... there are so many I can download!

Just some opinions from a neutral observer. Mac arguments are usually the best of OS X vs the worst of Windows.

/facepalm

 

LOL @ this thread.

Guys, he's messing with you. He made you write up very large posts, thereby wasting your time. Just hit the "x" button and leave.

 

I'm not sure I would say that OSX alone is worth 500$, but theres all the stuff that people throw in the argument, like light sensors, magsafe, metal case, and probably the biggest, the LED screen.

I dunno, I'd think that that stuff should cover some of the cost.

Although I do think if apple lowered their prices, they would definitely get more customers. Theres plenty of people who would want to buy a mac, but the price is the problem. Also it would get rid of the whole 'pc is cheaper for the same hardware' argument.

 

I'm going to answer your question with a question. Why do people buy a Lexus ES 350 when a Toyota Camry V6 has almost the exact same hardware (same platform, 3.5-liter V6 engine, 6-speed automatic transmission)? A Camry can also be equipped with many of the same features such as leather seats and a navigation system.

People pay the premium for the Lexus for any or all of the following: 1) They prefer the styling. 2) Lexus has a better warranty. 3) Lexus has better customer service.

Same goes for the Mac: It looks better to a lot of people than any Windows PC. AppleCare is generally regarded as among the best of any extended warranty, as is Apple's customer service in general.

It's all about perceived value of the product in balancing the customer's needs and wants. When I ditched my Compal HEL80, I needed something more powerful for gaming and more portable for traveling. I wanted to dabble in Mac OS, as well as with Linux. Further, I got a discount and interest free financing from my employer. Thus, the MacBook Pro was the best value at the time.

 

Again with the Mac vs. PC? Jebus!

Won't you cut it out guys and let's talk about the damn video card??

 

what a silly thread, this was discussed more than enough times when the MBPs were released. No one is going to win this arguement as there is nothing to prove, just all relative matter of opinion. what is this discussion even about, the video card? wow intriguing.

 

macs aren't for gaming. they have NEVER had high end video cards. they always put in the performance-class midrange video cards in there.

no 8800 GT for the mbp. it will get the 9600m GT. again, for the laptop type, the 9600m GT should be great- just like the 8600m and the go 7600.

however, it will probably disappoint everyone here, because desktops (at that time) will be able to equip ATI 4800 cards and Nvidia GTX 280's, and it won't beat out a mobile 8800m gtx

 

If this is what Bill Gates has to say about Windows, I wonder what Steve Jobs has to say about Mac OS?

 

hahahaha

bill gates is great. windows never did it for me, but you gotta love bill.

 

You know, when I first read smood's initial post I thought he was just trolling. Then I realized that he was trying to make a point on how the hardware Apple offers doesn't fit his particular needs. The typical Apple/Wintel (because, Macs are PCs too; PCs == Personal Computers) debate ensued (quickly) because us hot-headed Mac users love to defend our turf .

What I need to point out to everyone is that smood is at least partially right. Apple likes to decide what type of hardware it's users want, give few options in it's configurations and design their hardware for the form as well as the function. He is wrong about a few things though concerning a Mac's value, hardware-wise.

Speaking from the notebook side of things, sure you can buy a less expensive notebook that runs Windows. Usually though, if you try to "spec-out" a system that is comparable to the Apple offerings you will find that Apple isn't that much more expensive (be sure to include size, weight and OS into your figuring). This is the part of the Mac/Wintel argument that is over in my opinion - we are all using the basically the same hardware now, and Apple is being forced to roll out models more and more quickly based on this.

What we pay for, and as Mac users feel justified in defending, is the design. Apple computers are tanks. I have been the computer admin for a small video post production facility for the past 12 years. We have beat on our Macs every day in a working environment second only to servers and I can honestly say I have only seen one fail due to bad hardware (cracked motherboard...eek). That's a 1:~50 failure rate. While they are also built solidly, they are built to look like something, right out of the box. Finally, the modern Mac computer is built for it's task. I was geeking out yesterday when I set up a new Mac Pro because all the drive sleds just bolted onto the drive, and slid home. The inside of the darn thing looked like a lab - not a cable in sight.

Whew.

So, finally, onto the graphics card. I haven't found a situation where I have found the video card lacking, in the least. I have even found myself playing FPS shooters on my Windows partition more than a few times (if you must know, Counter-Strike - but I have also run Crysis fairly well). So for power consumption, heat generation, and performance I would have to say I am quite satisified.

 

have to say I have only read the first 2 pages of the thread but smood wtf man? Why are you comparing desktop PC graphics cards to a apple notebook with a mobile graphics card solution?

But I do agree that apple would get a larger market share if they for example cut 20% of the macbook price and offered real "professional" hardware in the MBP.

Honestly I think next year is the year we will see Apple be a real performance to price ratio competitor, Intel got really interesting things coming up, and there are real mobile solutions on the way also when it comes to graphics, I think they are waiting for technology to be right which I honestly cant blame them for. I wouldnt like to have a fat, battery sucking, heat dissipating laptop, which would be the case if they used one of the high end mobile solutions that is out today.

 

Let's stop the Mac vs PC/Price discussion, and concentrate on the OP's question.

I understand the want for more powerful video cards, but you have to think about trade-offs. More video card means more heat and less battery life, and what you get in return is still so-so performance. Notebook cards just don't have the horsepower of a desktop card. If you really want to game, get a desktop.

 

The 8600m GT runs Team Fortress 2 perfectly at native resolution. I'm just fine gaming on my MBP.

1. Some laptops have both an integrated graphics chip (X3100) and a discreet GPU. That certainly has to be an option for Apple, whether or not it's possible.

2. 8600m GT's will run your Battlefield 2's, your Counter-Strike: Source's, your Guild Wars, your World of Warcraft, your Call of Duty 4, etc. Today's laptops can run most games very well. If you're trying to max out Crysis or Oblivion then no, it isn't happening, but it's not reasonable to say that laptops can't play games because they're not as powerful as desktops.