Michal Ždanský What are we going to talk about? Macs are definitely not cheap or mid-range computers. With a price starting at 24 CZK for a notebook and almost 000 CZK and above for a desktop computer, one expects quality, reliability, powerful hardware and coordinated software.
While MacBooks and iMacs meet expectations to the letter in most consumer purchase arguments, Apple's computer hardware falls significantly short in at least one respect. The Achilles heel is the used graphics cards, which lag behind the competition, even in the case of machines that are twice as cheap. Which is quite a shame for a brand that is considered premium.
Let's take a look at the current range of Apple computers. For example, we have 13" and 15" MacBook Pro, 21,5" and 27" iMac and Mac Pro. As far as processor performance is concerned, I have nothing to read. The new MacBooks got a great Intel processor with the name Sandy Bridge and with two or four cores, and the iMacs will soon follow. Computing power is thus very well ensured, no counter to it. But if there is a shake-up of the graphics, we are somewhere else entirely.
Mobile performance
The worst is the smallest 13-inch MacBook Pro, which did not even have a dedicated graphics card. That's right, a laptop computer for almost 30 CZK has to make do with only an integrated card that is part of the Intel chipset. The performance is not exactly dazzling and in some places lags behind even the dedicated card of the 000 model, where MacBooks were equipped with a graphics card Nvidia GeForce GT 320M. I find it difficult to find a reasonable argument why Apple did not equip the smallest professional MacBook with a dedicated card. The only reason I can see is just cost savings with the reasoning that the Intel HD 3000 must be enough. Yes, it is enough for the normal operation of the MacBook and applications. However, if you would like to play a more demanding game or edit a lot of videos, disappointment will set in very quickly.
The 15-inch model is a bit better. Dedicated ATI Radeon HD 6490 in the lower model, it is noticeably more powerful than Intel's integrated solution. Still, this is a graphics card with 256MB of memory and performance to beat Nvidia GeForce GT 9600M, used in the two-year-old model, by only a few percent. So progress may have taken place in technology, but not in performance.
Of course, consumption must also be taken into account so that the graphics do not drain the laptop faster than we would like. However, there are many powerful yet economical graphics cards that Apple could use. In addition, as many of us know, the MacBook switches to the integrated card whenever it does not need a lot of graphics performance, which partly solves the issue of consumption.
Performance on the table
If the graphics cards in Apple MacBooks should be red, the graphics in iMacs should be red as shorts. The most powerful Mac – the Mac Pro, i.e. its cheaper variant, is equipped with a relatively powerful ATI Radeon HD 5770 card (with 1 GB of memory). This card has enough graphics potential to break through demanding games like Crysis, Grand Theft Auto 4 or Battlefield Bad Company 2.
You can get such a card freely for a friendly 2500 CZK in most large IT stores. However, in order to have such a card in your Mac, all you have to do is spend CZK 60 for a Mac Pro. Bad joke? No, welcome to Apple. While you can build a powerful gaming computer on the Windows platform for just 000 without a monitor, the Apple equivalent costs 15 times more.
And how is the iMac? While the cheaper 21,5" worth CZK 30 is fighting with ATI Radeon HD 4670 with a ridiculous 256 MB memory for a desktop computer, 27” is better off with ATI Radeon HD 5670 with 512 MB of internal memory. But to play the game as Assassin's Creed 2, which you can find in the Mac App Store, in full resolution with full details, you better let your taste buds go.
It's ridiculous that you can't even play a year old game on a computer that you paid maybe more than two of your entire paychecks for. If you look in the US Mac App Store for user ratings of the incriminated game, the vast majority complain about the game's performance, which is unsatisfactory on iMacs and pitiful on MacBooks. Disappointed players do blame the developers for poor optimization. Apple is primarily to blame, as it is unable to provide powerful graphics cards even for the desktop computers it manufactures. In contrast, a gaming 15” laptop for 20 or a desktop computer for 000 from other brands washes the background of Apple on all gaming fronts.
So I ask, don't we deserve more for our money? Sure, not everyone is an avid gamer or video editor. However, it is generally true that if I buy an over-standard expensive product, I expect uncompromising quality for an equivalent price. And if a thirty to forty thousand investment in a desktop computer is not enough reason to have at least a 2500 CZK graphics card, then I really don't know.
If the rumors are true, we should see the new iMacs in a few days. So I'm in a positive mood and I really hope that Apple won't be as stingy as they are with the new MacBooks.
The GeForce GT320M is not dedicated, it is the successor to the 9400M, which is also an integrated card.
Otherwise, one can only agree.
Unfortunately, for 60 thousand I have a fine-tuned computer with a great monitor in the Windows world, where I am not limited by the choice of components.
I totally agree that the performance is not that great. BUT!
If we look at 13 ntbs for the competition, even Lenovo for the same price only needs to be integrated. There are also a few exceptions. At 15, I dare to say that they are good cards for the thinness of the machine.
Allinone machines from competitors have much worse performance. So only mac pro can be compared with a normal desktop. But put a similar cabinet, processor, cooling, add windows and we're on the same page.
And macs are not for games. As with working machines, I don't pay attention to graphics, but to the processor.
Games are the only place where it's lame. I dare say no to the video. I don't have a problem with it at 9400m, i.e. about once I'm slower than 320m. And I have an FHD monitor connected. And show me a machine with win and this graphics, where it will run as imovie and mac os are optimized.
But then there is the question of whether it is a 13" gaming laptop. But then again, if a 13" laptop costs as much as the MB Pro, regardless of Apple/non-Apple...
Yes, iMovie for editing is super optimized. I liked it, but I found out that it can't export video. If I want to output a video in iMovie, and then export it in Final Cut with the SAME settings, the difference is visible (the biggest pruser is black, worse sharpness, etc.) iMovie simply exports the wrong way for some mysterious reason, and that scares me. Sorry for a little offtopic, but has anyone noticed this yet? :/
It depends on the format in which you export. If you put "export with QuickTime" you can set everything comfortably and there should be no problem. You have a lot of formats, resolutions, etc. to choose from.
A year ago, they disassembled the last generation MBP 13" and came to the conclusion that the next graphics card could no longer fit there, and the graphics card had to be integrated either in the chipset or in the processor. If they threw out the DVD drive, there would be enough space.
As for iMacs, the poor graphics performance is the reason why I haven't bought any iMacs so far. Last year I bought a PC for gaming, so Apple has time for the next 4 years to make a proper iMac with decent graphics.
Otherwise, I fully agree with the article. Apple is not as perfect as some mac owners say.
Here, it is important to realize one fundamental fact, how many laptop or desktop PC users really need all those ports, powerful graphics cards and other components for work or entertainment, which in most cases only heat up the computer, make unpleasant noises, drain the battery or just get in the way ? Apple computers are ergonomically designed, fast, and the HW works perfectly with the SW...it is quality that is worth paying extra for, even if their technical parameters do not include components with large numbers (which supposedly represent performance) next to their names. The same applies to graphics, if you belong to the group of people who install a game with the highest system requirements immediately after turning on the computer for the first time, go ahead and buy a classic Windows PC, for which these games are mostly optimized (well, they should be) . The computers we are talking about are for the time being for a different target group of users, even if they are slowly starting to occupy the areas in which classic PCs dominated. Whether someone likes it or not, Apple knows quite well what its users need and what would be just another redundant functionality or a piece of hardware – simplicity is beauty and strength. Another thing is that a person who plans to work with Final Cut or 1GB PSD files is not going to buy a 13,3″ MBP, is he? People have somehow gotten used to the fact that a higher price automatically means higher performance (which is often not even necessary), but you have to realize that the price is compensated in other ways (unrivaled compatibility of HW with each other and also HWSW, battery, quality of the chassis, etc. ).
I can tell one example from my personal experience. Despite the fact that I have had an MBP model with two NVIDIA GeForce 2M and NVIDIA GeForce 9400M GT graphics for almost 9600 years, I only use the less powerful one and I only turned on the second one a couple of times because I wanted to see what it would do. For example, games built on the Source engine (HL2, CS:2, TF2...) run without problems on weaker graphics, and HD videos have absolutely no problem, as does Photoshop.
Exactly. Well, I have no problem with C2D 2,26,4Ram,9400M,SSD Vertex 2. It's fine on imovie and FHD, Aperture with 16Mpx Raw. If someone needs to have it exported quickly, at buys a fast machine. But the set I have now is still enough for cutting.
And I'll admit that rather than pay 20 taka extra for a bloated 13 for the next laptop, I'll buy a weak 20 taka and I'd rather buy an SSD, 8GB ram and a thunderbolt drive for another XNUMX taka.
SSD will do quite a lot in terms of performance. I have it in my MBP as well and I don't regret the extra few thousand.
"In contrast, a gaming 15" laptop for 20 or a desktop computer for 000 from other brands washes the background of Apple on all gaming fronts."
Which computers are they specifically?
I would like to know that too. And who ever said that Apple computers are gaming machines??? I'm curious who will beat it on fronts such as build quality, ergonomics, system agility, battery life, graphics and video work, ease of use, and UNIX core (possibility of simple scripting...) etc.
Also this statement: "While you can build a powerful gaming PC on the Windows platform for 15 without a monitor, the Apple equivalent costs 000x more.", so it probably won't be the equivalent, what do you say? If they both cost the same, which would you choose? I also have a hunch that Apple :). Why? ;)
...and of course SAFETY and STABILITY!
For example this one:
http://www.alza.cz/hp-pavilion-elite-hpe-420cs-d192967.htm
PS There is a lot of opinion that Apple computers are for work, so why are games made for them?
Apple is not for games... but what else can you say when you already have it at home :).
sorry … what is a “graphics card”?
...
I'm kidding, of course, but I mean to say that this has always been a steal for me - and especially for a laptop.
Otherwise, thanks for the article, it reminded me again that I don't have a MAC because of the iron in it.
The article is true... for the money it should really be known there. I don't want a bloated gaming machine on the MBP 13″, but let's face it, sometimes we really like to play and relax a bit, and that's what I expect from a 30k computer. I'm not a regular gamer, but once every six months I'd like to try a game, even in 1024×768 resolution...but I can't, because of the graphics. It really is the "Achilles heel" of Mac computers.
So why didn't you buy something else with "that money"?
Because I've been using a MAC for over 10 years and I'm used to it, purchased software...etc. I can't complain about anything, apart from the graphics performance, which is unfortunately really very poor. That's an indisputable fact ;-)
Well, I understand that, but I don't understand what's incomprehensible about the fact that you can't have everything for "that money" (they cover the primary advantages mentioned above, so you can't compare one to one with a regular PC or notebook, which may have higher performance parameters, but the others are missing) and if you also want solid graphics performance, you have to buy a more powerful configuration for more money (there is still something extra). As I already said, in my case I don't have any problem with graphics or games, but I don't have a basic MBP either ;). Apparently, the majority of users like it exactly as it is...otherwise, Apple would remove some of the other features and put stronger graphics there.
I have an iMac 27 and I drive everything to a minimum of large details. I would have liked better graphics, but I bought a Mac for work, not for play.
I ask the author of the article to correct the previous MacBook advice for the name of the graphics integrated chip. It is a Geforce 320M. That GT would mean a separate graphics card, which it is not.
Otherwise, I have this model with a 2,66Ghz CPU and the performance is very sufficient both for work and for playing games. I mean the older ones, but I'm old school and I don't care about new things so much and I'd rather play a time-tested game.
I don't see a graphics card, for example, in my MacBook Air, even as a gaming effort, I've come to terms with the fact that I don't play games much, and this computer handles iPad or iPhone games with ease, and even surprises me with a good handling of DiRT2 in native resolution, etc. but it's definitely not a powerful graphical solution. But to get to the heart of the matter, GPU in Macs has a slightly different meaning due to OpenCL etc. using GPU for calculations instead of CPU which in my opinion is the biggest benefit of graphics card in Macs. However, I understand the change of GPU from nV320M to an integrated one from Intel as a really unfortunate act and, in addition, hand in hand also a reduction in battery life :D it doesn't really go to my head, luckily I still have a MacBook Air late 2010 when it was still nVidia, and the change of GPU just made me a little discourages from buying MBA 2011 despite more memory plus faster and better CPU. But let's face it, Mac is not really for games and every little gamer installs windows via bootcamp to play games anyway, so why not have a gaming PC with windows right at home somewhere in the living room ;) and on a Mac just enjoy how the computer is usable and fast. But you are definitely right that for this money it would like a little more music. (graphics)