New MacBooks to be based on NVIDIA GeForce 9400 / 9300 chipsets?
By Donald Melanson 
posted Oct 10th 2008 6:03PM
posted Oct 10th 2008 6:03PM
With a new MacBook announcement now just days away, speculation is unsurprisingly at a fever pitch as to exactly what Apple has in store, and the folks at PC Perspective have now pieced together a few clues to whet your appetite in anticipation of the big event. Most of those are drawn from mounting evidence from the NVIDIA camp, including the image above that made an appearance on the company's website a few days ago and, most importantly, word that NVIDIA would be releasing its GeForce 9400 and 9300 chipsets based on the MCP79 integrated chipset design on October 15th (conveniently not stepping on Apple's toes the day before). The implication there being that the GeForce chipsets would replace the relatively underpowered integrated Intel graphics on the current MacBooks, with the new MacBook Pros supposedly getting an additional boost from a discrete G92-based mobility GeForce 9600. As PC Perspective points out, if true, that would be quite a coup for NVIDIA, especially considering that it wasn't all that long ago some were talking about it quitting the chipset business altogether.
How about some hardware-based h.264 in the new Macs? That would get me to upgrade.
MCP79 has hardware decoding of h.264. No more worrying about whether your MacBook can play 1080p although my early 2007 MacBook plays 1080p no prob with a GMA 950.
@sneakz
my may 2007 macbook with the gma 950 plays 1080 with no problems either. i can even play games with no issues. the newest civilization works perfetly at full res as does anything from blizzard. i've never had a game run slowly with the graphics chip. the computer actually runs hotter with flash games than games i run from the hard drive (disk utility to partition for games). my sister and i compared cold boots with my macbook and her brand new acer with higher specs. i have a 25 second boot and hers takes 2.5 minutes to even show the desktop (still heavy processing). i think operating system matters more than hardware. until you get really high end hardware at least.
At SneAKz and V3xx:
My late 2006 macbook with 950 can't handle any games so I really don't know what you two are talking about. WoW is pretty much the only game that works and I don't even play it. To name a few that I know don't work: C&C Generals, X2, SW: Jedi Academy. HD movies are pretty good but it encounters problems sometimes, and is never flawless.
They need to do this, it's not optional. Mac hardware is already a generation behind the Windows OEMs so this is an absolute necessity.
but will it run Crysis?
Welcome back from your 4 year cryogenic sleep!
crysis
Actually, out of all the rumors Ive heard so far, this one makes the most sense. Apple really dropped the ball on the MacBooks with those shitty integrated Intel graphics chips. Even without adding anything else to the Macbook, I think this makes it closer to being worth the current price, and if the rumors of them being cheaper is true, then that just sweetens the deal.
I second that statement.
Actually its good to see Macs getting some ... and I do mean some... gaming power all around instead of just the Pros...
Yeah, well hopefully this will go *part* of the way towards justifying the outrageous price-tag for a glorified fashion item.
Actually, I think more than just gaming power, they're looking to increase all around performance, since Snow Leopard is supposed to have Grand Central that's going to allow it to use all the cores on all the processors in the computer including the GPU. So this upgrade is more about performance than gaming power.
>>gaming power
The chipsets they are using are better than what Apple has done before, but not what you would call gaming power. To this day, even their high end desktops are sub-level on graphics power compared to PCs.
(This is why I cringe when people still say Apple is great for graphics, as their hardware is horrid even for graphic designers, let alone gamers. Also with VIsta's composer that shoves AI and Photoshop design performance up, it is even more dramatic for graphic designers.)
Consider this, even the Geforce 9400 mobile chipset is slower than the Gefore 6800 mobile chipset that was shipping in 2004/2005.
So 3-4 years later, and they are still not offering credible graphics performance in their mobiles? Besides the overhead of OS X when it comes to gaming, when people wonder why there are not more Mac games, point your finger at Apple and their hardware choices.
The inconsistency in graphics on the Mac is also quite vast and one reason accelerated Quartz was finally killed and why Apple pushes to use SSE3 and other 'tricks' for things that normally the GPU would be doing. PS Yes, shoving Quartz through the 3D portion of the GPU was promised for a long time, and in theory designed for it, yet compatibility was the downfall. Even though it was optionally able to be turned on in 10.4 hurt performance or crashed the system.
Warning, the following is sliding off subject...
The irony to this is that Microsoft's Vista WDDM and AERO were able to provide a large core of 3D acceleration for even GDI/GDI+, font rendering, bitmap compression/decompression, in addition to the new Vista APIs without incident.
The entire Video system from drivers to everything that draws on the screen is using all new engines, but does it so seemlessly people don't realize how big of a step this was and how 'easy' Microsoft made it look, because it does work and act just like it did in XP 99.9% of the time. And remember it is even accelerating applications written for Windows 3.1.
And people still complain Vista isn't 'differen't enough different than XP for them to upgrade and also go on about how superior OS X is, when it is a generation behind Vista graphically.
Oh, and PS, Vista users STOP TURNING OFF AERO, it is pretty stuff, but turning it OFF SLOWS DOWN your system. If you don't like the Glass, turn off the transparency in the slider. Even running games 'in a windows' will often be faster with the DWM (Composer) Aero left on.
Hopefully Apple takes that crappy integrated graphics out of the Macbook! I would love a 9300/9400 in a Macbook
Now people can buy a MacBook, and not have to pay an additional $700 to get a graphics card put into a Mac laptop.
I hear that. It's no fun paying the 700-1200$ gaming tax on a laptop (though the backlit keyboard is nice).
Actually, they are only switching from one brand of 'crappy integrated graphics' to another.
Bench speaks for itself. http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9300M-G.11359.0.html
Is this the same NVIDIA that was responsible for the faulty Macbooks that are just now being addressed?
http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/10/apple-says-some-macbook-pros-hit-by-faulty-nvidia-chips/
Yes, but do you think that a company that had to take a 200m write down and suffer bad press would make the same mistake twice?
No it's the other NVIDIA?
No, I'm sure NVIDIA wouldn't make the same mistake twice... but why would apple make the same mistake twice by hiring the same company?
@ Jeff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
you learn something new everyday!
I understand that it was a rhetorical question. It is just kind of a D-bag move to post that on Engadget comment because we are all well aware of NVIDIA's recent hardware issues.
Well.... all of us except apple, apparently...
As an owner of an "Early 2008 MacBook Pro" I'm pretty disappointed in this.
Nvidia's handled this situation with the same skill and deftness that the AIG guys have with their bailout money.
now if we could get an upgrade for the people who currently have the shitty intel integrated graphics chips for a decent amount of money..
One thing I like about owning Macs is that if I wipe down my Macbook, take nice photos of it, and place it on Ebay, the price differential for buying a new Mac usually is low enough that it feels exactly like an "upgrade."
Speaking of which... time to start polishing my Macbook ;-)
So what you're saying is people who buy Macs are suckers who are accustomed to overpaying.
Zing! =)
@tcc3
No, actually it simply means that Macs' market depreciation rate is much lower than competing brands. I'd thought that anybody frequenting Engadget would be familiar with this fact of nature, but perhaps you're new around here. ZOMG, ZING.
But seriously; I don't think that Macs are more expensive than other spec equivalent, name-brand PCs –– perhaps by a few percent. But, it really makes up for it when you know that 2 years down the line, you're going to be able to sell the $1000 Macbook off for $700, so long as you've taken good care of it. And that pretty much moots any argument that "Macs are expensive", at least for people like me who make it pretty much a law to abide by to upgrade their PCs at least every other year ;-)
I would have expected more this time around. Something like 9700m GT's or 9650m GT's. Bit disappointed.
Sorry I meant 9700 GT's/9800GT's Macbook pro and 9650 GT's for the Macbook.
MacBook Pro's run hot enough already. Plus, that increase in GPU power isn't worth the loss of battery life and the bulk from the fans needed to cool the chips.
@dagamer34 I don't know the exact specs, but depending on the chip, it may run with less power and cooler but perform better.
There are no confirmations about anything... just rumors.. and I would agree. the 9600GT is basically identical to the 8600GT with a faster clock speed... I sure hope it's a 9700GT+..
Wow, maybe you can run Monkey Island, Escape From Monkey Island and Quake in full res. Oh and WOW....
Did I miss any Mac games?
Yeah, how about every modern PC game, run under boot camp + every mac-only game. That actually equals more games than a PC.
unlike running every pc game.. on a windows machine. no dual boot needed.
people always use that defense. " you can just dual boot" or i can just use my PC for games music and video.
While Mac owners look for jobs at the local starbucks... just had to, sorry :(
You missed Zork, in all of its 8 bit glory, now with AA and AF!
Oh, and L.M.L.Y.P, spot on, spot on.
On a more serious note:
Seph, get real.
Anyone remotely serious about gaming on a PC will never, I repeat, never rely on a Mac to deliver that gaming experience.
The hardware is always playing catchup to its PC counterpart, video card releases are always 1-2 generations behind, the hardware itself is not always supported (be it a chipset problem or audio driver problem or even Apple based drivers for the GPU) -- problems are always going to crop up more often.
It's simply not worth the hassle to dual boot an inferior Mac just to play games when you could build a gaming PC that can always be upgraded months and in some cases 1-2 years before the Mac gets a comparable GPU to compete with it, and for fractions of the price when self-built.
O.K., now carry on with your optimistic thinking...
@Hamidxa,
yeah go upgrade your Acer notbook, and be quiet in your mom basement.
@Hamidxa:
You're certainly right that Macs (especially the desktops) are generally behind in terms of graphical capability compared to similarly priced Windows PC's, so it makes more sense to buy/build PC's if games are your #1 concern. However, I'd advise you not to use the word inferior (or superior for that matter) lightly. It just makes you seem arrogant.
@Hamidxa
I hate to piss on your chips, but you do know we are talking about notebooks here, don't you? By all means criticize the hardware in a Mac laptop but don't suggest that you could build better. However, I do agree that Boot Camp is typically more hassle than it is worth so it is up to the individual to decide how much gaming is important as to whether Boot Camp is acceptable. I play PC games very infrequently so Boot Camp is fine for Dawn of War once a month or so. If you want to play games all the time then a Windows-based laptop would be recommended.
@Hamidxa...get out of your cave. Its hardware a few generations behind? Try opening your eyes and look.
I have heard there is an upgrade process. It involves putting your Macbook in the microwave for 5 minutes.
Thanks that worked. I now have a Macbook Brick.
That must be a big microwave :D
well most rumors so far have included stuff about a price cut.
It's thin and metallic but it has a screen latch, so i doubt it's depicting a macbook. The rumor is still possible though, and it would be pretty sweet if it were true.
I don't see a latch. I see an indent and a trackpad.
Although I'm a mac fan, I do find it kind of funny that whenever any vague looking, stylish laptop plastered on a dark background with a glowing screen is shown, its automatically a mac.
I work for a certain computer manufacture and I can pretty much confirm this
Yeah. This news has spread all major blogs and sites..... I guess we will hear Steve say "We have got the NVIDIA graphics to the Mac....".
I hate intel integrated graphics on the current macbooks, even the 3d itunes visualizer makes it choke. Fail.
If this replaces the integrated video then I'm sold : )
http://digg.com/apple/New_MacBooks_to_be_based_on_NVIDIA_GeForce_9400_9300_chips
Digg it!
Pardon my ignorance, but how does this impact the ability/inability to play Blu-ray movies with these particular video chips? This is assuming that Apple enables Blu-ray in 10.5.x or Snow Leopard.
Did anybody say anything about Blu-Ray? It's not about Apple enabling it, it's about Apple putting a Blu-Ray reader into one of their computers.
But this certainly helps the chances of that happening.
iTunes Store.
Now, before someone comments that Blu-ray is better (which it is), you have to consider that Blu-ray doesn't really make that much difference on a smaller screen and Apple would much rather you rented your films from iTunes. It's not in their interest to add Blu-ray drives, although they might on the Pro models to keep the video production people happy.
Whats the point of having dedicated videocards in macbooks since the primary reason for dedicated vid cards is to play games. And Macbooks are not the ideal laptops to play games with.
Hmm, you can dual boot to windows right? Plus it gives you a nice window for "potential" Blu-ray support. Let's wait and see.
Actually, a MacBook would be a great gaming laptop if it had a decent graphics chip.
I use my MacBook Pro for gaming pretty often (booting to Windows XP) -- if I just want to head to a friend's house to play games, it's way easier to bring the laptop than my desktop PC. The 9400 performance is probably about on par with my 8600 performance, which is decent enough for low resolution play. And the 9600 should make the new MacBook Pro a pretty sweet gaming machine.
Good move, Apple and Nvidia!
GPU acceleration is useful outside of gaming. For example, it is very useful for photographers running Aperture despite there not being anything 3D there.
Read the ad: "Nvidia optimizes the notebook PC". PC, nothing about Macs in here...
Hmm... Mac is actually a "PC".
LOL! Just noticed that! Maybe those WinVista ads are working... heh
@ IndiaTech
Not according to THEM.
Nice timing with them FINALLY admitting to the Nvidia GPU problems too...
Think about this:
Apple would probably still have the Integrated Graphics on the Macbooks at a lower price, and provide an OPTION to get the NVIDIA chipsets for an additional cost.
While doing this, Apple would lower the prices on the Macbooks (bringing it closer to the expected $800 mark) and have the discrete graphics in the Macbooks on the same price-point as the current Macbooks.
Seems to make sense... Show the consumers that Apple is now selling Macbooks for a lower price, while also providing people with the option to get the higher priced ones with better Graphics chipsets.
Besides, look at the laptop/notebook market at the moment. Almost every $1000+ unit has discrete graphics. Apple wants to play the 'perceived value' card! And it might work in their favor.
I'd probably forgo the graphics for a lower price and better battery life then. Nothing against nVidia, but I just don't use computers to play games very often, and it's usually something like tetris when I do. If there is a less expensive option, I'm gonna take it.
Totally agree. I want just enough video card power to run the beautiful OS and be able to hardware decode the major video codecs. I'm pretty sure people generally (of course there are exceptions) aren't in the laptop market (especially a Mac) if they want to play hardcore video games anyways. Leave the gaming to the 360 and PS3, all I want is a purpose built, solid laptop with emphasis on battery longevity and snappy performance.
The Macbook is using Nvidia's *integrated* graphics.. aka integrated on the chipset/motherboard. Are you suggesting they offer two different macbooks each using a different motherboard? That would make no sense whatsoever for economies of scale, etc. And Nvidia's graphics are not just useful for games and OpenGL pro applications... All new nVidia chipsets offer far superior hardware H264/VC1 decoding than Intel's crappy GMA...
i really hope this turns out well, and true. i also hope that the new macbooks, or at least macbook pros, look like the picture.
dude, I just got a new MBP, the last thing it would need would be a more powerful graphics card.....
Well, it doesn't NEED a more powerful graphics chip, but it's still definitely the weakest part of the system. There are plenty of newer games I can't run well at the laptop's 1920x1200 native res. And why not move up to the latest generation of GPUs? Moving from an 8600 to 8800 would be silly, because it'd consume more power, but the 9600 should provide better performance without the extra drain. Seems like a great move to me.
that they should do is have the option of the sli enabled mobile gpu's like alienware has.
now that would be sweet.
What's the point?
To play Zork?
true, true... I pretty much said that to make me feel better about laying down the big bucks for a new (and maybe soon to discontinued [well soft of...]) laptop... :D
the comment system sux... -.-
Apple does and will always forever suck. I know I will get low ranked, I know I will be faded out, but Apple sucks and will forever fuck ducks.
So is this gonna have BluRay or what?
My guess: the picture on the Oct. 14 '08 invitation, it's not a laptop but the back of a multitouch tablet. Brick means 3 things: the tablet weighs as much as a brick, the manufacturing process only took one wide brick of aluminum and a tablet is essentially a wide brick. It'll be called Mac Touch and will replace the Mac Mini, the Apple TV and the MacBook and MacBook Pro.
It will have a: 7"-10" LCD, next gen CPU, non-desktop hardisk (tiny) and next gen GPU, will introduce a new typing method on the virtual keyboard, will have all the iPhone feature except the cellphone feature (two uniquely designed speakers, iPhone batteries grouped together), will make way for desktop apps to be downloaded to App Store (compatible with both desktop apps and iPhone apps), will also be a controller for other equipments with partnership (including house security, Macs and vehicles), will have biometrics for security (not a palm scan but a face recognition), optional iPhone piggyback adapter for cellphone function and mobile internet (3rd party for other phones to follow).
This MacTouch is essentially a bigger iPhone; having some of its parts from the LCD, to the camera, to the battery without the cell features. It will also be able to detech more than 5 multitouches. It is targetted for the house, as Microsoft surface competitor, as an Eee PC competitor and is meant for one hand computing (the new typing method will make it as fast as typing with two hands) that will replace the clamshell design for laptops, netbooks and the like but typing with two hands is optional. It is also meant to replace the mouse, stylus and keyboard combo. The MacTouch Pro (will replace the MacBook Pro) will have the MacTouch features but with pressure sensitivity. The multitouch design will also make way for different GUI (current GUIs are designed for the mouse/keyboard/stylus combo and is limited to one at a time system) which, for gradual transition, will start to evolve after Snow Leopard then come OS 10.8 (two years after Snow Leopard) to OS 11, it'll be completely different, no more Dock or Menus/limited menus (like what you've seen in Jeff Hahn's system). For the most part icons (which is actually a command in picture without the menu hierarchies) and gestures will be the new menu and commands.
But why jump ship from ati??? is the question
Follow up guess: MacBook Touch haptic to follow that will make it accessible for the disabled and for the rest to be able to do things better without looking, if you're using it as a controller for your Mac and other equipments for example. The Pro version will of course be a little bigger (10" at most) and more powerful. The screen size in years to come will not change- these are essentially meant to be light and portable, 17" laptops proved to be too big.
My guess: Apple just says notebook but because a notebook should literally be like a notebook which you use with one hand to hold and write. It did say months ago that there are really innovative things to come, it won't be innovative if it's another clamshell design which Apple is trying to get rid off and instead is shifting the way we interact with gadgets through the flexibility of a multitouch (by multitouch it means 5 or more detection) screen which the iPhone started.
"Relatively" underpowered?
Jeez, you seriously are fanboys.
I am afraid you are right. Actually Macs are becoming PCs with Mac OS installed. So What is the purpose of buying a Mac for twice the price when I can buy a good PC and install Mac OS through some hacking.
That average people can't do that.
I seriously think Apple will cut prices by making their hardware Windows compatible.
This will never happen.....Apple is a hardware profit driven company. They could never troubleshoot the massive myriad of PC Component variations out there......
@darkyeffectt
Official support and not having to hack your computer. If you want to do that then go nuts but it isn't an attractive option for many, including myself.
@ GoonieGooGoo
Microsoft's OS will work on myriad hardware combinations, Linux can too, what prevents Apple from achieving this with OSX?
Is it that they can't or they won't?
Come on Tuesday!
Yes, we have all realised at this point that you're going to do just that.
Those of us with slightly more normal sexual tastes are going to refrain from ejaculating over some new computers.
@ Hamidxa
1. You are comparing a desktop (PC) to a laptop (Mac), there itself your comparison fails
2. You are comparing a custom built system, to a purchased one, again, fail
3. " anyone remotely serious about gaming on a PC ", in simple terms, means a casual gamer, in which case, the MacBook Pro, iMacs, and Mac Pros (assuming they use it for workstation related tasks primarily), can deliver that kind of power just fine, so again..fail
4. What do you mean the hardware is not always supported? My 8600M GT has great drivers (that Apple provides, which is modified to better suit the profile of the MBP), and so far hasn't yielded any glitches at all, and if you want to talk about hardware not always supported, this is ironically an issue more with Microsoft + 1 zillion vendors. Any mac has the full compatibility driver set under Windows XP (if you Bootcamp), since Apple makes the system + the system profile
5. Inferior Mac? Your zealotism is pretty much pouring out at this point
So all in all, pretty much 4/5 of your arguments are complete false, and that 1 remaining argument can go bothways, for PCs and Macs alike.
I'm not saying that Macs (or any Apple product for that matter) are perfect, I own a MacBook Pro iPod 5.5G, a Cinema Display 23", and an iPhone, I can certainly say that they're not perfect, but your description there completely reveals your ignorance to say the least. The sad part is you were actually ranked very high for that, which shows how many other users are also ignorant.
So how much is apple gonna jack the price on this hardware???
Just say no to Apple's overpriced mediocre hardware.....Build a HACKINTOSH
Now it's fine, apple is using Nvidia's chipsets. Let's say next year Nehalem launches on the mobile front (Core i7 M probably :) ); and Nvidia doesn't get a QPI licence. Then apple, may have to go back to Intel. There's nothing to stop intel from becoming a chipset maker monopoly, by refusing to licence QPI to others like Nvidia,VIA etc.
Hi. Apple will have more control if it uses Nvidia. I think Apple will go for Nvidia because it's a more stable company and more focused on making GPUs; it's also not tied to a CPU company (Apple will for sure be making it's own CPUs later for total control). It usually catches faster to umaking better drivers. It's really about control to be as integrated to all things Apple as possible.
Well I dont know how this would work out for the MBP if the MB would have such a high NVIDIA card..
It would be awesome to see the following though:
The MB and MBP combined into 1 product which will give us a 13, 15 and 17 incher, all of them with this NVIDIA card, starting point $1,000 for the 13 incher and all on C2D processors
Then maybe add only a 17 inch+ MBP which will have a quad processor, maybe a better graphics card if there is one, bluray and some other fancy stuff needed for video/photo editing..
Now that would be awesome :p
I'm hoping this trickles down to the mac mini which is in dire need of a refresh.
I want to update my 17-inch 1920x1200 resolution MacBook Pro dual-core 3.2GHz with a quad-core model.
Bring it on Apple, support the high-end as well was the low-end (with your new cheaper pricing).