Re: new macbook pro's - I don't understand what the big deal with nVidia is?!

So I am in the market for a new notebook, currently pretty undecided, not too happy with any options.

Anyway, I have been paying close attention to the new macbook release as I want to buy a new notebook for work / play by the end of the month.

So today I have been watching all of the apple blogs etc, and I have to say there is something that I don't understand - why is everyone so hyped up about the nvidia stuff???

Here is my case:

1. nVidia has a horrable reliability problem lately, not only with it's graphics chips. I can say from personal experience that their desktop chipsets have been not so good too. Yes, they may be top performers when working, however that is not often the case in my experience. Then there was the whole "defective packaging" debacle hampering nVidia's last two generations of chips, including the 8600m chips in current gen macbook pro's as well as desktop gfx chips (two of which I own).

2. The graphics chip "upgrade" that the macbook pro's will be getting, reported to be a 9600m card, is mearly an iterative update from nVidia, offering little real performance gain. In other words, nothing much to be excited about.

So what gives? I mean I understand that any "update" including only rounding some corners will be received gratefully by mac fanboys (and I may in fact be one, owning an iphone and considering a MBP), but seriously I am disappointed because I wanted perhaps something a bit more innovating rather than than an alternative chipset (and nobody thinks montevenia is bad).

I would like to hear what others think of this....

 

I think, personally, I'd rather have the X4500HD in the MacBook. Better reliability, runs cooler, lower power consumption, and still very respectable performance.

 

quite honestly, your personal experience has nothing to do with how reliable nvidia's electronics are. sure they will sway your personal opinoin, but if you are not aware that your own personal opinion has very little relevance on how electronics work, you need to actually take a step back.

just because nvidia had an issue with a single graphics chipset, hardly means they cannot make a reliable, and excellent bit of electronics. everyone seems to forget it was only, well less than a year ago when ATi was simply a fart in the wind when compared to what Nvidia was able to offer, in terms of performance, cost, and reliability.

quite honestly, you can almost look at it as an advantage towards nvidia that something like this has happened as it puts a much stronger focus on overall reliability throughout all their products.

and it is an Nvidia chipset that people are excited about, although a little bit overly excited I must say.

the Nvidia 8600 in my MBP has performed flawlessly for me so far, under some extremely heavy usage.

and something people seem to be forgetting, Nvidia are obviously able to create replacements chips for these gpus that are ACTUALLY failing are they not?

either way, what is the point of arguing over specs that we have absolutely no control over, not to mention MUCH MUCH MUCH less insight than the people deciding what hardware goes in what machine.

 

I am guessing that is intel's latest igp?

Indeed, yes that is a good chip, and it would "just work" compared to nVidia...

oh, and if the new MBP does not have HDMI it will make my decision a lot easier (i want it, bad)

 

it looks like (from the rumored spy shots) that the MBP will have a different type of display connection, something that looks even smaller than Mini-Dvi, hopefully someting that is still Dual Link DVI capable.

I think the X4500HD is an ATi card isn't it?

 

Nice topic!

I'm also really disappointed with Apples new MBP's . Rounding corners are not the one we want seriously & expect from Apple. I really want ATI VGA for my next notebook. Now I'm thinking about to buy MSI GX735 or OCZ whitebook . I'm not going to buy MBP if they use nVIDIA chips with useless VGA card unless someone gifted me...........

 

X4500HD is Intel IGP

 

Woh dude! ravenous!

I do not feel the need to cite my sources, however the problem graphics chips are far from 'the only' problems that nvidia has had in the past year. Some people even suspect that their desktop chipsets are subject to the same problems as the graphics cards, which would not be surprising as they only recently admitted that current MBP have the defect.

Aside from that, both the 680i and 780i have major issues with corruption in RAID configurations, and problems with certain memory configurations. Hell, I tried to get SLI + RAID + 4gb of ram working on two different system boards and all I got was a bunch of BSOD. And after running into these issues I did confirm that others were having them as well, so you can't just say "my personal opinion" has nothing to do with broader reality.

No, I don't want to argue over what should or should not be put in the new MBP. I just want to have a conversation about how I feel underwhelmed with this whole release, it is not as innovative or whatever as I was hoping for.

Oh and the 8600m may be good enough for you, and therefore the 9600m will be, however I and others have been hoping for a "pro" level card in the Macbook Pro.

 

Well problems with desktop cards from nvidia, iirc dont third parties make them? So any problems would probably be with them. Although I dont know how its divided up who makes what in the card, but if its desktop were talking about, i think its more to blame on the company that made the card.

And yea, there are some people who are against nvidia in new apple computers, and wont be buying one because its nvidia. Theres probably a whole set of people who wouldnt buy it if apple chose to use ati cards.

But whatever, if people wont buy new apple laptops just because they chose to use nvidia, I dont really care. That's their decision.

I wont get into it because I think its a stupid argument, but yea, nvidia isn't out of the game just because their was problem with their old cips.

 

well if you think innovation is putting a higher end graphics chip in a machine then again, not sure what to say.

first I will say, the people that won't buy a MBP with an Nvidia GPU in it are maybe 5% or less of the market, if not much much less, you have to understand that atleast 75% of the people buying computers are barely aware of Nvidia or ATi as a company.

a "Pro" level machine does not require a hardcore gamer friendly GPU. and a "pro" level card does not really mean something capable of handling all the latest them gaming world has to offer. and with that said.

let me just say this, IT IS A SAD SAD DAY WHEN PEOPLE ARE UNDERWHELMED BY A RELEASE THAT, WELL HASN"T BEEN RELEASED YET.

the only thing actually known about any of this is that Apple has an event scheduled, that's all.

and if all you want is to talk about how underwhelmed you are by something that hasn't even happened I would atleast wait 2 more days.

 

For this generation, there's clear emphasis on cost-cutting, which can be seen in supposedly switching over to an nVidia chipset (cheaper than Intel's), and the new "brick" manufacturing process.

People talking about having an extremely powerful graphics card obviously don't know what Apple strives for. The new MBPs are probably going to be the thinnest and lightest 15 inch machines around. If they do sport a 9600m GT, consider that an engineering miracle. Thinking that you can stuff an 88 into something the size of a MBP is absurd.

 

Dude, Circa, calm down. It wasn't one graphics chipset, there were problems with the 7 and 8 series GPUs, and nobody is sure that those issues have been fixed with the 9 series. While I will not complain about a dedicated GPU in the MacBook (god knows if it had one I would have bought one before), I feel that its probably a better idea for them to stick to Intel's IGP on this one.

 

To be clear, I do not want top of the line graphics. I do want "better than average", and the current 8600m and the probably 9600m are just average, the same performance as most every other 15in laptop out there.

 

there were problems with the 7 series? must not be highly documented...

 

The Macbook Pro is not what you should be looking for if you want "top of the line graphics".

 

Meh, the MBP isn't designed to be the best gaming machine out there. Current gen MBP's can game decently.

I'd say that apple isnt trying to market to the gaming crowd (or atleast not in the past).

It looks like apple has always gone towards the professional market, and typically that includes photographers, graphic designers, editors, etc, etc.

The MBP can do the tasks that people in this field need, and it does it either well enough that lots of professionals buy it. Or they like OSX, and therefore they buy it. Or they like the way it looks. Or they're just follow the trend that everyone else does. Or they have their own reasons.

Maybe once CS4/CS5 comes out, and people start relying more on video cards in the "professional" field, then maybe apple will put something faster in it.

Though I could be wrong, maybe apple will have a higher end version, with a better video card.

But the one that I haven't seen anyone on these forums complain about, is the fact that the MBP under performs doing the tasks I listed above, or CAD/3d work. Sure each new generation them better, but MBP's can generally do them pretty well, even some of the older generations.

 

Yes I doubt MBP will use top line GFX card mainly because it doesn't need one. As long as the majority of customers buying MBP doesn't want high end Apple isn't going to do the extra steps (new design for heat, etc.) for the top line GPU. If people can't accept that it's best they look at other PCs.
And like mentioned before, nothing official have been released yet!

 

Why would you say that? nVidia has fixed the issues with their GPUs, and now has a chipset that is cheaper, uses less power, and has more graphics grunt than Intel. The customer is the one that really wins if they switch.

 

One of the major appeals for the macbook, in my case, was that it was using an intel IGP. Intel = minimal battery drain. I don't game on my computer, but I *do* take it with me to meetings, on planes, etc. The last thing that I want to do is have a GPU that's going to run hotter than an IGP, drain more power, and have 0 positive impact on the computing experience that I have.

 

If Apple does use a dedicated GPU, they could consider implementing the "switch" that some other manufacturers have done, where you can switch between the IGP and GPU as is necessary. That would solve that problem!

 

Uses less power? Really? I want evidence of this. Because I mean, I see nothing wrong with Intel's X4500 igp - decent performance, lowest power consumption, most stability, etc. nVidia, even with the hardware issues fixed (if they are), has a reputation for crappy drivers as well.

However, if I saw evidence that nVidia's chipset offered better performance and lower power consumption, I have no problems with it. In fact, I'd be all for it.

 

although it makes the notebook bigger having to fit in both cards, and costs more, weighs more.
in the press release it did call the 9300, and 9400 intergrated, maybe they are different from standard 9300 and 9400 cards?

 

IMHO there is only one real possible positive to going nvidia - that is the possible "switch" thing sam talks about.

This is called hybrid SLI and it could both boost performance and battery life, however I don't quite trust nvidia to not botch that whole thing with bad drivers.

Again, to add some more to where I am coming from:

1. I think the 17inch MBP should have better graphics than the 15. That high res screen (which is what I would be getting) needs more power to drive it.

2. I do not mind having nVidia graphics in a laptop / a MBP, but given their history of instability, i do not trust them to create a whole platform for my computer, especially since Intel makes such a good one anyway.

 

The 9400M is merely the 9200GS and the integrated 9100M working in SLI.

 

The way I see nvidia is this:

Say you own a company, and one of your employees makes a mistake. costs you say, $200,000. Do you fire that employee?

If it was an honest mistake that can be corrected, then no. You have just made a $200,000 investment to make sure that mistake never happens again.

nvidia will no doubt tighten their processes. I'd expect some real quality stuff from them in the future after their little f* up.

 

If Apple is targeting professionals doing CAD/3D work, then why would they have a GeForce GFX card in the MBP? GeForce is for gaming. Why not switch to the Quadro or ATI's FireGL? The Quadro cards didn't have the same defects as the *600s. Also, they are tested to improve performance in professional 3D apps.

 

Well I just want to be able to play Diablo III and Starcraft II on the latest Macbook Pro.

If Apple doesn't deliver the graphics power needed in OS X to run these, or Blizzard does a poor job optimizing (which is very unlikely), Apple will lose big time.

Companies like Blizzard want to bring games to the Mac platform, and Apple not embracing this would be stupid.

Heck, even CoD4 is out for Macs.

If Apple is as smart as I think they are, they should at least have a 256bit graphics chip in their new Macbook Pros. Be it nVidia or ATi. It's almost 2009 for god's sake, and we're not talking about 12" plastic IBMs from 1992 anymore.

 

you guys should hope you get hybrid sli. i have a t400 with switchable graphics, and the ability to switch from a discrete card to one which gives me insane battery life is something all notebooks should have these days.

 

Ya, I would say that hybrid SLI is a possible deal maker for me. If the MBP has that, while I would be cautious and wait for reviews, it would push me towards biting.

I wonder tho, what applications will load the video system enough to push it to discrete? If you can only have good battery checking email, might not be worth the cost of the technology.

 

I completely agree! And that's why I wont purchase a macbook if it comes with an nvidia chipset.

 

What use of a "Pro" level machine if it has a graphics chip that crashes ever so randomly when you're in a middle of an important project?

Speaking from my experience with my MacBook Pro on my 2nd replacement (3rd if you'd count a logic board exchange), while the NVIDIA 8600M GT performs quite admirably to my needs, reliability and stability however is an issue that troubles me all the time.

Imagine drafting up an assignment on your machine and it freezes every 10 minutes. Is that what a "Pro" level machine supposed to do anyway?

While not being much on the relevant "NVIDIA" issue, the current revision of wireless cards used in the Early 2008 MBP are crap. While OS X performance was acceptable, working with wireless in Boot Camp is just pure horror. It disconnects randomly and brings the whole machine down once in a while if you'd decide to use the "repair wireless" tool.

Maybe I'm expecting too much. Maybe Apple is slowly pushing their "Pro" level machine into the consumer market. Maybe, the MacBook Pro isn't a "Pro" machine at all. What I think it is, sadly, just a MacBook with the letter "Pro" added to the end, with a few sprinkles added into the system to make people think "I'm working on a Pro-level".

Nonetheless, I'm looking forward on what Apple have to offer for the upcoming release.

<rant off>

 

Thats funny... i guess it comes down to if you game or not. The only reason i have not purchased a macbook is because of the underwhelming performance of intel IGPs. In my experience, laptops with discrete graphics definitely have shorter battery life... BUT it has never been enough to inconvenience me. Aside from the one or two conferences a year i attend, or when i fly, i'm never unplugged for more than 2-3 hours. A nvidia chipset will definitely last close to 3 hours in a new macbook.

on the higher end side... the mbp def needs something better than a 9600m gt. UNLESS it can already play diablo3 and sc2 at full resolution

 

But they arn't targeting them specifically. If they were, sure they could put a better card in.

I'd still think that there are a large amount of professionals who never even touch the video card in their MBP.

And it's not like I don't game or anything, I killed my gpu in my own MBP in less then 6 months of owning it. Maybe that says something, maybe it doesn't.

But I'd think the majority of people who want a better card in the MBP, want it for gaming. That's maybe not something apple is specifically targetting. Because if they were, they coulda put a better card in.

If they are in this generation, then yea they can put a better card in.

But whatever, we'll all find out in 24 hours what apple has chosen to do.

Whatever they do choose, there will still be people complaining that they didnt chose ati, didnt chose a step up in video cards, ports, etc, etc.

 

I guess it's one of the reasons why I liked the MB - it kept costs low (relative to what apple would charge for a discrete GPU) while maximizing business performance. I always saw the MBP as the 'gamer' notebook from apple, if you were inclined to use an apple notebook for gaming.

 

Wow from reading this thread all of you are like "OMFGQTFBBQ! I Hate Nvidia! They suck now! I will NEVER buy another one of their products again in my life! ARGHHHH! Why apple?"... If its such a big deal don't buy a notebook with a nvidia chip. Saying how much it is an issue won't change anything. These things happen and 9600m GTs aren't affected anyways (right?).

Oh and some of you want a better video card and still have it so thin (the 8600m GT is already pretty hot)? Guys you can't have you cake and eat it too...

 

Far from the case, I am only trying to have a conversation about how the nVidia option may not be such a good one in my opinion. I don't hate nVidia (I am pretty impartial in terms of hardware choices), but at the moment I do not trust them with major system components.

Both of my desktop computers are powered by "defective" nVidia chips, and I don't really even regret the decision (if they blow, I get to upgrade!)

I would gladly buy a MBP / other notebook with nVidia gfx, since that won't likely cause a catastrophic failure, but I am very skeptical about entrusting them with my whole platform.

 

Oh come on I bet you're probably going to buy it anyways when it comes out . I know I am xD.

 

We shall see, i won't be buying without seeing some honest reviews that is for sure.

It really all depends on what they say tomorrow. I hope it is something that will be tempting, but nothing that I have seen thus far has been making me want to pull the trigger.

Now if they came out with the "iMac dock" my wallet might start to burn in my pocket...

 

Have fun with your new nvidia macbook.

 

The primary differentiation on the Quadro is how the drivers are optimized. They are optimized for stability, and toward applications, particularly OpenGL which is common in CAD programs, rather than speed and 3D games. But Apple drivers are already separate from Windows drivers and are optimized for OpenGL, applications, and stability. This is due to OpenGL being used throughout the OS and accelerating the Core Image, Core Video, and Core Animation frameworks which Apple and third-party developers use to develop applications. Apple's driver paradigm is already closer to Quadro cards than GeForce cards.

The GPUs used in Quadro cards also undergo more testing with increase validation for better stability and lower failure. The video BIOS is also optimized for those features. This may be of benefit for Apple, but probably doesn't justify the extra cost. I'm sure Apple also does there own testing on GPUs so perhaps they feel that is good enough.

 

No one has properly answered the question, which is why is the Nvidia switch a big deal. It is a big deal, for several good reasons. In moving from the Centrino 2 Montevina platform to Nvidia's MCP79 platform, Apple will have advantage of the following benefits:

1. MCP79 is physically smaller than the Centrino 2 Montevina - nvidia uses one chip instead of two. if Apple decides to use that extra space to make the notebook smaller, or have better GPU options with the extra cooling space, either way it's a plus.

2. hybrid SLI swapping tech - this is pretty awesome, as far as I'm concerned. Basically it allows the switching to integrated graphics during mundane tasks to save battery life, and utilizing the full power of the dedicated GPU in more intensive situations. battery gains should be pretty nice.

3. drivecache flash booting - makes boot times faster by using onboard flash storage. apple's boot times are already pretty snappy, so I'm looking forward to near instant-on, if this is the case.

4. Nvidia GPUs built into the chipset, with dedicated VRAM possibilities - this means regular macbooks should have the option of at least the 8400 series, and hopefully the 9300.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how this all plays out tomorrow. I have the money from my MBP sale in savings, so I'll be picking something up tomorrow. Probably another MBP, but maybe a macbook depending on the specs.

 

I'm not apple, but I highly doubt they care about most of those features you (QueenOfSpades) listed, for the simple fact that macbooks are a "budget" notebook, they are not meant to be a performance notebook.
Secondly, the x4500 is a nice upgrade from the x3100, but even then the x3100 runs mac osx just fine, so there really isn't a need for a major upgrade. This is what I think.
I know many are hoping for a super high performance 13" notebook from apple, but I just don't see it happening, nor am I hoping for it. For me personally (I know I'm in the minority here), I just want a pure montevina upgrade, that would be perfect for me.

 

This thread is about the Pros, don't change the topic to MacBooks!

I think anything less than a 9650M GT would be a monstrosity, and Apple should utilise any gains from the new design and the space/power saving of the new chips to fit a 9700M GT in there, that can switch to IGPU on the go to avoid have a tiny battery life.

At least BTO, at least in the mid range 15".

 

I thought you've said numerous times you're not getting one?

Yixian, it also applies to the macbook pros, obviously. And no offense, but you keep repeating the same things over and over and OVER again, here and on macrumors. I (and everyone else) know you think anything less than a 9650GT would be a monstrosity. I think everyone wants the best possible GPU available, but the MBPs are not gaming machines, end of story. If they charged $2,000 for a laptop with an 8600GT, then it's not unlikely for them to charge the same and bump the card up a notch.

"Pro" does not equal "Gaming" for Apple. This isn't a revelation.

 

I don't quite understand. I've said numerous times I wont get a macbook if there's an nvidia chipset yes. Only if there's montevina.
No matter, I realized I was posting in the wrong thread anyway, this is about macbook pros afterall. Too many apple threads suddenly appearing the last couple days, it's easy to mix them up.

 

Just wait until after the announcements .

 

Size is not a big factor. Intel has the GS45 available for small-form factor applications. A regular GM45 is 34x34mm while a GS45 is 27x25mm. The GS45 can operate in high-powered mode offering the exact same functionality as the GM45, only being physically smaller. The GS45 can also operate in low-powered mode for tighter thermal requirements such as the MBA. Similarly, the ICH9M southbridge is also available in small-form factor form. The total surface-area of a regular GM45 and ICH9M is 3342mm² while the small form factor is 1415mm² with no loss in functionality.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/print/20070907170824.html

Being able to switch between integrated and discrete graphics is a feature of the GM45 and Montevina. Intel's implementation has the advantage of being GPU agnostic working with nVidia or ATI GPUs, while nVidia's chipset forces you to use nVidia GPUs.

Hybrid SLI for performance boost is irrelevent since it only works for low-end GPUs 9500M G and below. A 9500M GS or above can't operate in SLI with the IGP so it's no help to the MBP.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/hybridsli_notebook.html

This technically was really pioneered by Intel in their previous Santa Rosa chipset and is called Turbo Memory or Robson Technology while in development. I believe Intel has also implemented it on their desktop chipsets now too. Montevina of course supports it.

nVidia's IGP is really the only advantage they have over Intel chipsets. But if the IGP is only the performance level of a 8400M then you aren't gaining anything. The GMA X4500MHD already performs somewhere between a discrete 8400M G and discrete 8400M GS. The 8400M GS has since been renamed a 9300M G. So nVidia's IGP needs to be better than a discrete 8400M GS/9300M G to really differentiate itself from a GMA X4500MHD. Apple also should implement dedicated VRAM as you say.

http://www.notebookjournal.de/praxis/79/3

Intel also has a GM47 on their roadmaps which has the GMA X4500MHD overclocked from 533MHz to 640MHz. This'll probably come close to 8400M GS/9300M G performance if Intel gets their drivers together. So nVidia's IGP advantage isn't quite so clear.

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Intel_GM47_Mobile_Chipset_Delivers_2X_Graphics_Performance/5592.html

The other issue is power consumption. nVidia's chipsets generally aren't known to be the lowest power solutions compared to ATI or Intel. Intel's Montevina has also moved to a 65nm process compared to 90nm in Santa Rosa so power consumption is down despite the faster IGP.

Really, the advantages of going nVidia over Intel aren't quite as clear cut as some of the rumours or nVidia's marketing would make it seem.

 

[While not being much on the relevant "NVIDIA" issue, the current revision of wireless cards used in the Early 2008 MBP are crap. While OS X performance was acceptable, working with wireless in Boot Camp is just pure horror. It disconnects randomly and brings the whole machine down once in a while if you'd decide to use the "repair wireless" tool.]

Funny that you should mention wireless. I have an early Penryn MacBook Pro and find that the range and usability of wireless to be weaker than that of my Dell XPS M1330 which is only Wireless G. The Mac OSX side of wireless seems to run a lot better. I wonder if there is a Boot Camp driver issue.

Regarding nVidia: you have a different perspective if your $3,000 laptop just dies on you when you need it and it's out of warranty and they say that they won't cover it. I have three MBPs and one died and I brought it in and the store took it and said that I'd have to argue with AppleCare to get the fee waived. I argued with them and they waived the fee. Apple has owned up to the problem but nVidia hasn't.

nVidia said that chips were fixed but they clearly weren't. Apple said that affect machines included those sold in September while the fix was supposed to be in July. I checked the numbers on the chip that I got back in our MBP and it was an older chip so it's also defective.

HP announced that 38 models of their desktops with nVidia graphics cards are subject to failures at http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/...044&cc=us& dlc=en&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN

It really appears that nVidia isn't telling the truth (Apple said this publicly) about the chips that are defective and which ones are defective. They have not identified the problem nor the batch numbers or model numbers. The Inquirer said that 8xxx and 9xxx parts are affected based on released manufacturing changes and insider sources. The Inquirer seems to have been vindicated in its charges against nVidia.

So how do you trust a company like this? If they came out and told us which chips were defective, told us how they fixed the problem and replaced the bad chips, then I'd feel better about them. Instead, I have $7,000 worth of ticking time bomb computers that will one day die on me. I only hope that they die before the extended warranty expires.

 

I think its been said in the past that the reason why the MBP's wireless sucks, compared to many other laptops, is because the case is made out of metal, IIRC.

I think the antenna is in either the lid, or right under the Macbook Pro logo, in that little rubbery area.

But yea, pretty sure its because its mainly made out of metal/stainless steel/whatever you wanna call it. That's why the touchs and iphones have a little plastic area on the back, so the antenna can actually get a signal.

 

strange that i have switchable gfx using intel. do some research before making false statements.