Will macbook ever get a decent graphics card??

Wanting to buy a mac, but the MBP is too expensive and the MB's graphics card scares me. Does anyone know or think that apple will put some sort of graphics card in the Macbook before the years end?? I think they should!!!!

 

Probably it ll get an Intel X3100 and no more... It just cant handle the other gpus.

 

I am surprised Apple does not add the option of an 8400M (G, GS or GT) video card to the MacBook.

 

It would be nice unfortunately Apple only really have two product price points in the market and therefore want to differentiate their products.

Look at every other laptop manufacturer and they have laptops at every level of the market and therefore provide a much wider range of specifications.

I think the MacBook will get another update late this year or early next year with Santa Rosa and the X3100.

 

Thats kool. Anything would be better than the one in there now. Would be pretty nice and i am sure, very popular!

 

Every other laptop manufacturer isn't a Mac nor are they supported to dual boot different OS's. All manufacturers lack what the competition has. My point is most of the people that have such a great concern for a good GPU in the Macbook is hardly planning to use it as a Mac. They just want to install Vista or XP and use it as a gaming machine and some of them want to completely remove the Mac system. If the other manufacturers satisfy those gaming needs for a better price then get a physical PC. There's no sin.
My reason for posting this reply is that too many times people dismiss the many PC manufacturers that charge premium prices for their machines (Sony Vaio) and use shared graphics and nobody points to them, they only point to the Mac as if it's the only company.
Shared graphics is actually new to the Mac platform. Apple has used dedicated GPU's since like forever and nobody cared. The market for gaming needs to go to the Pro machines. Hoping and wishing ain't gonna put a gaming GPU in the Macbook and the X3100 doesn't cut it either.

 

This update was really disappointing though. Since it's stuck with integrated graphics at least upgrading to the x3100 would have been nice. Plus it sounds like the Macbook isn't the greatest for running dual monitors.

 

Will the macbook ever get a decent graphics card?? ...When Apple actually has more game support

 

Apple might skip the Santa Rosa platform for the Macbook all together. If they're going to update it, I'd expect it at Macworld in six months.

 

1. Apple used to be the ONLY manufacturer to put proper gfx cards in small/ultraportable laptops (iBook and 12" PowerBook). To date, these two computers remain probably the smallest (though not lightest) laptops to sport dedicated gfx power.

2. X3100 is integrated graphics, JUST LIKE the igma950 that the Macbook has. Although it's touted as being much stronger (it is) you're still not going to be gaming on an x3100. The very idea is laughable. There have always been stronger integrated solutions than the igma950 (Ati and nVidia made em), so why is everyone in love with the X3100 which barely, if at all, outperforms those other solutions? I just don't get it. A pathetic solution is a pathetic solution. For the games that I would play on such a card (Warcraft 3, World of Warcraft), the Macbook's solution is just fine. For everything else, well, the nVidia 7400 may make some games playable...but that's only after it beats them with an ugly stick. You're NOT going to get a decent gaming experience out of anything smaller than a 14" laptop.

3. The recent upgrade to the Macbook was significant. The cheapest model now has a processor with 4mb of lvl 2 cache. This is far more important than any jump in clockspeed.

 

I totally agree with sp00n.

 

I think the x3100 is just the principle of the thing. It is at least somewhat better, and it's available now. Shouldn't really cost any more to switch over (and they could have used slower CPU speeds than they use now).

Really though, it should have at least a low-end GPU in it.

 

Apple is much more concerned with CPU than GPU because that is where their market is. People who buy Macs in large part are audio/video or photography professionals, where the CPU is the important part and the GPU does little to nothing. Gaming is not popular enough on OS X to warrant them putting a better GPU in a budget machine. But when you're paying the price you pay for a MBP, you better get a good GPU, and Apple knows that.

The reason Apple never used integrated GPUs before is because they couldn't. The PPC motherboards obviously couldn't take Intel solutions, and it would seem unlikely that either ATi or nVidia would spend the time and money to specially create one of their integrated solutions for the platform when the sales would be so low; higher end dedicated GPUs can make the cost up even in low volume. But now that the motherboards are essentially the same as every other laptop, this allows Apple to use integrated solutions that not only save money, but are also easier on heat and battery. Long story short: don't expect any dedicated solution, and if you get it, don't expect it past something like an 8300M. You would be more likely to get something in a 12" MBP.

 

In my opinion. MacBooks should either add a discrete graphics card option or charge less for an integrated graphics card laptop. Laptops that cost $1,000+ should include that option. Other then that one flaw, MacBooks are good laptops. (I would also prefer WXGA+ resolution, but no lcd manufacturer makes a that screen .)

 

The black one should have a video card. That would add to its blackness, and help justify the extra $$$.

 

I second that opinion.

 

Well principles don't allow you to play hi-res 3D games dude. That's why I completely agree with some of the other posters here who are saying, "why complain that Apple didn't put Santa Rosa's x3100 card in the Macbook"? It's not gonna matter if you pop in your Quake 4 disc and it stutters all day even at the lowest settings. Shared graphics are what they are. They are not made for gaming or working with apps that rely heavily on the GPU.

 

Apple's per unit cost wouldn't really change, so it's like they're doing it to us out of spite.

And by the logic of it not being good enough-well, neither a a Geforce 7300, but I'd still rather have that. It still gives the system a bit more power, a bit more longevity.

 

LOL, that's hilarious. The black one is outselling the white one with near same specs. Why would Apple add more to it, they don't need to justify a price that people have been willing to pay?
I have brought this up many times but once more, think Sony Vaio. Sony has several 13" notebooks with integrated graphics selling for $1300-1500.00 with features that don't rival the Macbook. Sony's customers hand over their credit card without thought. Remember Sony's only run Windows and get away with what they charge.

 

It should be at least a option. I would probally get it in a heartbeat but the asus a8js has a 7700. And is Only a Bit bigger. (Lot uglier) I mean i would pay like 60+ To upgrade to a 8400GT.

 

I'd think a lot of people would pay double the cost of the part to upgrade to a low end GPU.

 

I hear that the integrated graphics are more or less ok, though long in the tooth. The Macbook performs well at things like Photoshop and Final Cut Pro.

That said, I'm still philosophically opposed to integrated graphics on my laptops. For what is typically around $100 or less I'd rather have some sort of low level GPU.

 

The fact is that the Macbooks are still selling well even with integrated graphics. People complain like it's a Mac thing, but the truth is that something like 90% of Windows-based laptops also have integrated graphics. Only 50% of Apple's laptops have integrated graphics, so they look like they're ahead of the curve if you ask me.

Would I love to see a dedicated graphics option? Absolutely. I would probably buy it in a second if it was nVidia (ATi has terrible OpenGL and Linux support). But the thing is that the Macbook is still a budget laptop, and it's a pretty good one. I don't understand how people can say it's overpriced when pretty much the only other 13.3" laptops out there are Sony and Asus and are quite a bit more expensive. And don't forget that you automatically get a high end CPU, slot-loading drive, Bluetooth, integrated webcam, Front Row, and many other features. It's really not a bad deal.

 

It's the cheapest Mac laptop you can get, so, it's gonna sell.

50% is down from 100% in the past. Just sayin'.

For a lot of users, IG are just fine, but, it would still be nice to see some sort of option for a card in at least one of the MacBooks.

 

You forgot to mention the 6hr battery life. :] I totally agree with Notebook ftw, for a 13.3 inch notebook the Macbook comes with loads of features with a reasonable pricetag. Its also a litttle cheaper if your a student.

I was thinking about getting a MBP but since I've stopped PC gaming I figured a Macbook would be sufficient enough for me. <-- Bit off topic sorry.