What's the chance we'll see a Macbook with discrete graphics in October?

Seems like almost every other company is equipping their 12-14" segment notebook with an (optional or standard) 8400M, and now that Apple has updated their MBP with the 8600GT it seems inevitable.

I think there's a >75% chance that both the Macbook and Mac Mini will see an 8400M by the next refresh.

 

I don't think it's impossible, but I think it unlikely. All past MBs have had integrated graphics while the MBP has offered dedicated graphics. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

I think it's very very unlikely. Integrated graphics vs. dedicated graphics is one of the primary things Apple uses to differentiate the MacBook line from the MacBook Pro line. I think they are much more likely to use the GMAX3100 in the next MacBook revision.

The only thing I can think of as being even vaguely possible is that Apple might add some sort of low-end dedicated graphics option (8400M GS presumably) to the $1500 black MacBook, to make its price more competitive with other $1500 high-end configs of consumer laptops.

But for the $1099 and $1299 MacBooks, I am almost positive you'd only see GMAX3100.

The reason I think the black MacBook would still have GMAX3100 as well is that I think Apple would want to keep the product internals pretty similar.

-Zadillo

 

Not an 8400M-GS, it's thermal and power requirements would never fit into that small of a chassis. It's possible an 8400M-G would fit, though I doubt you'll see anything better than the x3100.

 

I think its almost impossible, at least in October. October will be about Leopard, and a MacBook with graphics + LED + Santa Rosa would take away a lot of the press coverage over Leopard. Apple likes to announce its products over time, not bunched up in one event so that they're constantly in the media (see how the Apple TV got overshadowed by the iPhone in Macworld? They wouldn't want that to happen again).

 

I guess the question is whether the MacBook is the mobile equivalent of a Mac Mini or a iMac or something in between. Since the low-end iMac now has a HD 2400XT instead of an IGP, that might be a good sign. Still, I think the reasoning behind that was mainly because the GMA X3100 still isn't ready for prime-time since drivers to activate all the hardware features aren't even available in Windows yet.

It's almost certain the Mac Mini won't be getting an IGP and will be refreshed with the GMA X3100. I would have to agree with zadillo that the GMA X3100 will be the standard for most MacBooks. Only the highest model may have the 8400G or HD 2400 standard. The 8400GS and HD 2400XT would probably be near the limits of the MacBook's thermal design so I don't think Apple will bother with them. A MacBook refresh would get Santa Rosa too, but I don't think they will be getting LED displays. Even by Q4, I think they would still be cost prohibitive and I don't think supply will be that stable yet since the Dell M1330 is still having backlogs with them.

 

Not necessarily, since the Asus W7S, Dell M1330, Sony Vaio SZ, all 13" laptops, have the 8400GS.

I think, as a general movement towards separating themselves from the competition, they'll ditch integrated graphics completely. They'll only offer integrated graphics to try to make themselves better than the rest.

 

integrated graphics are here to stay for the macbook for quite a while.

no chance of an 8400m. none.

if an 8400m or comparable gpu is introduced, the machine will not be called a macbook. maybe itll be in that portable macbook pro people have been whispering about. either way, x3100 is as far as the macbook is going for a while.

 

yea very unlikely, because Apple likes to cripple its non pro line just for the sake of making sure something nags you enough to possibly upgrade to the pro. Everyone who gets the MacBook complains about the lack of dedicated card cause thats the lure to the pro. For me it sealed me into getting the much more powerful M1210 instead. It was a close battle, but the m1210 trounced the macbook for this, Its like a macpro in a smaller than macbook body.

 

Actually, the Asus W7s only has an 8400M-G. And you'll notice that the Macbook has a 123 cu in chassis, while the M1330 has a 141 cu in chassis, the SZ6 series has a 145 cu in chassis, and even the W7s has a 140 cu in chassis.

 

Yeah, but look at the Macbook Pro. It's the smallest 15.4" laptop out there in terms of volume, and it has an 8600M GT with GDDR3, something the monstrosity Inspiron 1520 can't boast (it's only GDDR2). Point being, if anybody can do it, it's Apple.

That being said, I still doubt they'll do it. As others have said, it may happen in the Blackbook, but even that is doubtful. You'd be more likely to see a 12" or 13" Macbook Pro come out with some dedicated graphics option, but that probably won't happen for a while, and even then, it will be so thin you're looking at an 8300 or even 8200 when they eventually come out.

 

Well, GDDR3 is more heat and power effecient than DDR2 memory. The Inspiron's size has nothing to do with the memory type, it's simply that DDR2 memory is cheaper. And the MBP unique thin design only works because they've managed to use the massive amount of metal in the chassis as a defacto heat sink. In a smaller plastic chassis (like the macbook), that effect is minimized. I seriously doubt that even apple could fit in an 8400M-GS, unless they seriously downclocked and undervolted it, in which case it's not much different than an 8400M.

However, I think we both agree that the Macbook is unlikely to get dedicated graphics (especially 8400M-GS level graphics) options soon.

 

What about the fact that they'll probably be introducing an ultraportable within the next 6 months? Is Apple the type that's willing to admit that the only reason a machine is bigger and heavier is because of price? I haven't been following them closely for any amount of time yet, but I didn't think so.

Of course, the ultraportable will probably be ULV, or at least LV. But maybe they'll include a 64MB 8400M G in the Macbook for the sake of it not looking overly weak when they release a much smaller ultraportable with similar specs as the current generation. I really don't think heat would be too much of a problem, both Asus and Sony have similar chips in their 13" offerings. HP is doing the same in their similarly weighted 14" 6910p. Asus and HP both offer the option at the point of purchase, Sony includes both and allows you to switch between the two.

 

I think you are confusing the definition of "fact" with the definition of "rumor."

I said it many times and its trued. The powerbook 12" was the best computer apple ever made but IT DID NOT SELL WELL.

 

Any ultra-portable they may release will probably be in the form of a MacBook Pro, and not a MacBook, so a dedicated GPU is more likely.

As for the MB getting dedicated graphics, I see no way of that happening anytime soon. The only possibility in my mind is if they release a 15" version. Then maybe they will include a very low end GPU. They must differentiate.

 

Poor choice of words, let's just say assuming they do release an ultraportable within the next 6 months, just for this one 'what if'

See, that's my whole point. Even though it's a different line, they have to differentiate. Even though it's a lower end machine, they don't want people to think they can fit the same specs in a smaller model, even if it is a Pro. Something like a 64MB 8400M G will help justify all that extra size and weight of an already huge for a 13" laptop.

 

I really think an 8400M is not out of the question with the next refresh of the Macbook. Apple is "moving up" in terms of standard features for the price, so they'll get rid of integrated graphics entirely. It will narrow the gap between the MB and MBP, but the MBP will still appeal to people on the basis of a bigger screen, faster processor, and more powerful GPU, just like it always has.

 

Well, I guess some of it depends on how good the GMA X3100 truly is. Intel is supposed to enable hardware DX9.0c acceleration in Windows by the end of the year and DX10 acceleration in early 2008. A MacBook refresh in Q4 or Q1 2008 would put it right in between there, so if Intel can demo to Apple that the GMA X3100 has enough realizable performance, Apple will probably stick with it. I don't expect it to overtake the 8400M G, but if it can nip at the heals then that would probably be sufficient for Apple to appear to be "moving up". With the GMA X3100 and 8400M G both having 8 scalar shaders and the GMA X3100 being clocked higher and actually having more bandwidth (in a 2x667MHz setup) if it wasn't shared, they may well perform similarly if they ever get the drivers figured out.

 

well apple doesn't care about dx 9.0c or dx 10. os x uses open gl and im going to assume that the x3100 has abysmal open gl support.

 

yep, i agree.

 

i hope they dont go to ATI like how they did for the new iMacs.

 

I'm not talking about the DX9.0c and DX10 API itself, but the features they represent. Currently the GMA 950 and GMA X3100 both only support PS2.0 in hardware. Obviously PS2.0 isn't really defined in OpenGL, an OpenGL fragment shader would be restricted by the PS2.0 requirements when operating on the IGP. The GMA X3100 has unified shaders that were designed to support everything up to SM4.0 in hardware and there are no doubt OpenGL extensions to support these features just like there are for the G80 and R600 series. I believe Apple writes the OS X drivers themselves, but I'm sure it would certainly be easier when Intel have figured out how to activate the features in Windows first. The GMA X3100 supports up to OpenGL 1.5 which is coincidentally the top standard that Tiger supports, so if Apple can get the GMA X3100 out before Leopard they'll have caught themselves up for a time. OpenGL performance may not be exceptional, but it'll definitely be better than the GMA 950, especially once everythings done in hardware. Besides, I'm sure the iMacs using AMD/ATI GPUs was partially a pressure tactic to send Intel the message that they better keep up progress on the graphics front (which Intel is already trying to do, although slowly, to combat Fusion), because Apple has no qualms with moving past the Nvidia middleground and using archrival AMD's parts.

 

Ltcommander is correct. Currently many of the hardware based acceleration features are not yet unlocked by Intel drivers, which will negatively impact all rendering, both OpenGL and Direct X. I seriously doubt Apple would rely on getting all of the features of the x3100 to work with OpenGL in OSX if Intel can't even make them work in a Windows Direct X environment (which is what the x3100 was designed for).