General Mac hardware discussions: Why do mac's have weak (256) shared graphics on most mac's
Why do mac's have weak (256) shared graphics on most mac's
by Fuzz18500 - 9/22/09 6:03 PMi thought you would get a more decent graphics card for price i mean come on!!!, and apple wont go higher then 512mb graphics!!! what the hell!!! cheap *****!!!
(NT) Which Macs have "weak (256) shared graphics?
by mrmacfixit
- 9/23/09 8:44 AM
In reply to: Why do mac's have weak (256) shared graphics on most mac's by Fuzz18500
Odd.
by R. Proffitt - 9/23/09 9:34 AM
In reply to: Why do mac's have weak (256) shared graphics on most mac's by Fuzz18500
You can buy weak PCs too. If you need to push the video card up, look at the Mac Pro.
Bob
but you can buy weak pc's too?
by Fuzz18500 - 9/23/09 7:56 PM In reply to: Odd. by R. Proffitt
but apple forces you to have 256mb graphics is the difference
Sorry.
by R. Proffitt - 9/23/09 8:11 PM
In reply to: but you can buy weak pc's too? by Fuzz18500
But what force is there here? You ultimately decide to buy or not buy. No force that I can see is being applied.
also
by Fuzz18500 - 9/23/09 7:59 PM In reply to: Odd. by R. Proffitt
thats too much money just to get better graphics
want more? pay more.
by friedchikkin - 9/30/09 4:02 AM In reply to: also by Fuzz18500What else can I say?
Depends on the Mac model too
by sturner--2008 - 10/2/09 6:18 PM In reply to: Why do mac's have weak (256) shared graphics on most mac's by Fuzz18500Current Mac Pros (towers) sport either of these cards:
* NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB of GDDR3 memory, PCI Express 2.0, one Mini DisplayPort, and one dual-link DVI port
* ATI Radeon HD 4870 with 512MB of GDDR5 memory, PCI Express 2.0, one Mini DisplayPort, and one dual-link DVI port
So what's the beef? Shared graphics are in the lower-end Macs, like the Mac mini, iMac, and the of course the laptops.
Or are you simply doing a bash and run?
look im not an expert here but
by Fuzz18500 - 10/29/09 7:18 PM In reply to: Depends on the Mac model too by sturner--2008im talking about the fact that there is nothing higher then mb graphic cards with mac's. i see a lot of pc's with 1gb standard.
It depends
by BeatleMegaFan - 11/3/09 5:39 PM In reply to: look im not an expert here but by Fuzz18500Mac Pros are capable of sporting high-end graphics cards of various flavors; see here. Two different NVIDIA cards, 1GB and 1.5GB respectfully. And I believe those are heavy duty units too, would work great if you were able to buy one. It seems that they have been relegate to after-market status on the Apple Store though, wasn't like that before.
A lot of inexpensive computers come with cards marked at 1GB and whatnot (like our VAIO FW's ATI 46xx), but the cards themselves aren't necessarily as powerful as a more expensive, faster performing card was less VRAM. Faster chips are important too. Several lower-end Macs ship with NVIDIA integrated graphics, while the others come with real cards. Is 512MB not plenty? My 2007 MacBook Pro rocks a 256MB 8600GT, and it works great. If you're concerned about value, I can assure you, Macs are capable of utilizing their GPU power. More memory is always welcome, but the current crop of Macs are good performers. You probably wouldn't be able to notice a significant difference if the new iMacs shipped with a 1GB card instead of a 512MB, unless you are working with intense video and editing projects. Games may run faster, but it all depends on a combination of hardware factors as well.
-BMF
Mac's not for gaming
by jscott418 - 10/18/09 11:22 AM In reply to: Why do mac's have weak (256) shared graphics on most mac's by Fuzz18500I think by now you should realize that Mac's for the most part are made up of laptop type hardware. That makes the iMac compact and so is the Mini. Obviously Mac's have never attracted hard core gamer's and so the gaming software industry has not responded. No big game titles no need for better graphics. But your miss guided thinking that more RAM on a graphics card makes it better. 256Mb ram is as good as 512MB if the game does not use anymore then 256MB. Headroom does not buy you a lot more speed. Where as a faster graphics CPU would definitely be more help. Apple is supplying very good graphics for most people. Its a step above Intel in graphics and it provides enough video power. Except for gamer's Mac's are good computers.
Im talking about for the money
by Fuzz18500 - 10/29/09 7:21 PM In reply to: Mac's not for gaming by jscott418there is nothing higher than mb graphics cards. for the same money i can get a pc with a lot more power.
Power is relative
by BeatleMegaFan - 11/3/09 5:48 PM In reply to: Im talking about for the money by Fuzz18500Specs on paper don't always reflect real-world performance. If you're so concerned with Macs' video capabilities (which they have been lauded for countless times over the years), put your own card in or get a PC if it bothers you so much. Apple chooses not to offer more powerful cards on some of their products. Ok. At least with Snow Leopard, the system utilizes OpenCL capabilities to make better use of the available video horsepower even when the computer is handling regular processes. You get your money's worth with Apple's hardware, in my book.
-BMF
I have another question
by Fuzz18500 - 11/5/09 5:35 PM In reply to: Power is relative by BeatleMegaFansince you seem to know quite a bit i thought i would ask you this i was planning on buying a 27inch imac i5 for 1,999 i started looking around at dell's website and i was able to configure a Studio XPS 8000 for a much cheaper price($1,249)i know i might not need quadcore but i want to be futureproof and the lower end imacs just seem to be a rip off for the price compared to pc's. is the dell a better buy than the new imac? (i copied and pasted specs)it seems the imac uses the exact same processor. , Intel® Core™ i5-750 processor(8MB Cache, 2.66GHz)
OPERATING SYSTEM:Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64Bit
WARRANTY AND SERVICE:1Yr Ltd Hardware Warranty, InHome Service after Remote Diagnosis
SECURITY SOFTWARE:McAfee SecurityCenter, 15-Months
MEMORY:4GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 4 DIMMs
HARD DRIVE: 500GB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
OPTICAL DRIVE: 16X DVD+/-RW Drive
MONITOR:24" Dell ST2410 Full High Definition Monitor
VIDEO CARD:ATI Radeon HD 4350 512MB
SOUND CARD:Integrated 7.1 Channel
SPEAKERS:Bose Companion 2 Series II Multimedia Speaker System
KEYBOARD:Dell Wireless Desktop Keyboard & Mouse
That Dell,
by mrmacfixit - 11/6/09 6:50 AM
In reply to: I have another question by Fuzz18500
is not configured in the same way as the iMac.
Just for starters, you have failed to mention that the monitor for your "much cheaper price" Dell is smaller and has a lower resolution than the iMac 27" LCD.
I also don't see anything about a built-in camera.
What? No Firewire?
The Hard drive on the Dell is half the size.
Although the processors are the same, it brings up that old adage, "it's not what you've got, it's the way that you use it"
OS X's use of the processor is much more efficient than Windows, plus, Apple designs the logic board and the OS which makes the whole thing a much better proposition than the Dell.
Bottom line, that machine is still running Windows and will still have all the Windows problems associated with it.
However, if the price is all you are concerned about, go with the Dell and "save" $650.
Seriously, and to answer your question. No, the Dell is not better than the new iMac.
P
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
