[felldestroyed]

I know the debate/comparisons have been beaten to death, but I have some specific questions for you all:

My girlfriend will be going to China soon for a month-long study abroad program. She desperately wants to replace her slow, bulky and asthmatic HP laptop and is of course drawn to Apple. After checking out the MacBook quite extensively, I'm pretty impressed with it, and by all accounts, its performance seems to be very close to that of the MacBook Pro.

The issue is that she's studying Architecture and does need to run some fairly intensive apps (Boot Camp/Parallels will probably be her godsend). I looked at some of the programs' spec requirements, and for optimal performance they recommend a discrete graphics card, but by all accounts, everything would run on the MacBook.

So, seeing that the MacBook Pro seems to be plagued with a good number of problems, should she load up a MacBook with 2GB and save a little cash or spring for the MacBook Pro, probably scrounge a little bit on the RAM and hope that there's no whine/scalding?

[alcimedes]

Which architecture programs specifically is she looking to run?

[felldestroyed]

Hmm...I know she uses Form Z. She also uses AutoCAD (which seems to have the most demanding specs). Also some Adobe apps like Photoshop and Illustrator.

[Banana]

Sounds like she may be better off with MBP; Photoshop and so will run just fine on MB, but if shes going to do any image rendering, dedicated GUI will be necessary.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Banana Sounds like she may be better off with MBP; Photoshop and so will run just fine on MB, but if shes going to do any image rendering, dedicated GUI will be necessary.

You mean GPU, not GUI, right?

"Rendering" final results with graphics applications almost never uses the GPU on consumer machines. That kind of work is done by the CPU. In the realm of 3D software, the GPU is usually used only for displaying temporary working views with reduced details. In the realm of 2D software, the GPU is used even less.

[felldestroyed]

I guess the question really has become whether or not a 2.0 GHz MacBook with 2.0GB of RAM would be suitable for running these programs occasionally.

Thoughts?

[JK47]

I played with the MB tonight, and keep in mind that it has a 13 inch screen. This screen seemed TINY in front of me in comparison to my 15 inch PB G4. The screen real estate is pretty important if the machine is going to be used for the design/editing apps listed above. Of course, access to another (bigger) monitor changes everything.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Brad You mean GPU, not GUI, right?

Sorry, excuse the brainfart.

"Rendering" final results with graphics applications almost never uses the GPU on consumer machines. That kind of work is done by the CPU. In the realm of 3D software, the GPU is usually used only for displaying temporary working views with reduced details. In the realm of 2D software, the GPU is used even less.

I was under the impression that when you're rendering images, you're using lot of GPU processing, more so if you allow for shading, anti-aliasing, and so forth and that with a good GPU, rendering time does down. A good rendering engine can use CPU if GPU isn't available, but that will slow down the processing because 1) CPU needs to do other stuff other than rendering, 2) CPU isn't optimized as GPU is for rendering.

If I am incorrect, then what's with them asking for a dedicated GPU?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Banana I was under the impression that when you're rendering images, you're using lot of GPU processing...

I'll explain with illustrations.



Here we see a workspace for some 3D artist/engineer/etc. The way most 3D applications work is they use OpenGL or DirectX with the GPU for the viewports that display the content to the user. This implementation allows for quick translation, rotation, scaling, etc. on the fly.

If basic shading with antialiasing is all you need, you can produce your rendered output here as you describe with the GPU. However, that display usually lacks many other advanced features that the artist/engineer/etc. would like to use.



Here we see a final rendering. This 3D application produced this image using only the CPU. Why does it use the CPU instead of the GPU? Better control. Some advanced ray tracing techniques are not easily handled by OpenGL or DirectX. Some of these additional features require such extensive modification with unusual conditions at various steps in the rendering process that the designers of these applications are better off writing their own custom ray tracing engine strictly in software.

Originally Posted by Banana If I am incorrect, then what's with them asking for a dedicated GPU?

The GPU is necessary for the general workflow, as described above, but probably not for producing the final output.

[chucker]

Actually, I thought it was a matter of precision. Whereas real-time rendering (on GPUs) can afford to sacrifice some precision (and, thus, quality) over performance, this cannot be done for final, high-quality renderings. So, they're done on CPUs. Takes significantly longer, but is much closer to expectations.

[Brad]

Yes, precision is a part of it too, but not all. Some things, as I understand them, simply won't work the way GPUs play with polygons. Granted, I'm not intimately familiar with all of the latest hardware pixel/vertex shader features.

I'm really glossing over a lot of little details in that explanation, but I think it gets the point across.

[chucker]

I was also under the impression that this is quite a problem for Core Image and Core Video: when GPU-accelerated, the (still/motion) image quality is lacking in the details.

[alcimedes]

Yeah, she'll need a MBP then to be safe. I wouldn't want to get something with an integrated GPU in her case.

Tons of scaling and rotating in autocad and the like.

[Banana]

So- dedicated GPU is a plus for the work process, but not the final rendering.

Makes sense, I suppose.

I also have to admit that my perceptions of GPU is still in wrong place. I mean, if it doesn't process images, then why is it a graphics processor in first place?!?

Nonetheless, thanks for explanation. With that in mind, it does sounds like dedicated GPU is much more important because you
would be using it more while you're sketching/creating a feature which is more labor intensive than rendering the final image.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Banana So- dedicated GPU is a plus for the work process, but not the final rendering.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by Banana I also have to admit that my perceptions of GPU is still in wrong place. I mean, if it doesn't process images, then why is it a graphics processor in first place?!?

The GPU is simply a coprocessor with a set of specific functions related to handling graphics. It's not a dedicated math or logic processor that can do virtually anything like the CPU. Older GPUs were used just for blitting chunks of memory. The common name for a GPU then used to be "2D graphics accelerator" because it did just that; it sped up 2D graphics by handling copy and move operations and by offering some rudimentary 2D drawing (line, arc, rectangle). In the past decade, the GPU has turned to "3D acceleration" with additional capabilities that handle the mapping of textures to triangles and polygons. Only relatively recently have they added functions for filters (blurs and such) and of course have increased the speed and number of polygons they can handle, thanks to the booming video game industry.

The number available graphics processing functions is finite (but growing). That's why rendering of images with advanced features is still relegated to the CPU.

On a related note, some companies are starting to develop PPUs: physics processing units. This type of coprocessor, like the GPU, is being created due to the growing demand from the gaming industry and offers fast, dedicated processing of functions related to motion, acceleration, collision-detection, and so forth.

[defaultmike]

I was in a similar situation when I was thinking about buying a laptop. I'm a graphic designer, and I was wondering if I should go for the MB or MBP. Well, since I mainly use Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and the such, I don't really have a need for a GPU. And the 2.0 MB would suit me fine in this sense. But then 2 things hit me.

1) Screen size. I have a 12" iBook, and even though the 13" is obviously larger than the 12", it'd still be too small. I don't tend to work in one spot where I could simply connect it to another screen, so this is a big issue for me. This was more than enough for me to stop looking at the MB.

2) It might not be that likely to happen, but what IF Adobe (since they're gonna have to rewrite a big chunk of their Apps so that they're universal binaries) decides to take advantage of Core Image and use it in Photoshop?

Core Image is all about taking some tasks and assigning them to the GPU like blurring and such effects. And that could make Photoshop potentially run faster in a MBP (when performing some tasks) than it would in a MB.

[Brad]

2) It might not be that likely to happen, but what IF Adobe (since they're gonna have to rewrite a big chunk of their Apps so that they're universal binaries) decides to take advantage of Core Image and use it in Photoshop?

For the reason that chucker mentioned above, precision, this is an unlikely choice for Adobe. Furthermore, the results from one GPU may not be identical to that of another GPU. With apps like Photoshop, it's important for results to be consistent (more so than fast) across the board.

[turtle]

MB or MBP, If you are/your friend is going to be doing anything with graphics then the MBP is a must. More for screen size than anything from my perspective. I've been playing with my wife MB and a new MBP 15" for a few day now and the screen is just so much better on the MBP.

The screen alone will make the difference. The dedicated GPU will be a major plus too.

[Banana]

On an aside, you say she's in Architecture- you could refer her to Architosh. Good reading and helps you realize how much you can do with Mac. In fact, some of best tools I've used, I read about it from there. Would hate it to see a student locked up in a single software simply because it's what school used, not because it's the best tool out there.

I'd definitely get myself MBP to do my CAD works. *counts pennies in wallet*

[felldestroyed]

Thanks for all the responses everyone. MBP definitely seems to be the way to go. Hopefully they'll roll out some additional Studen Union discount soon...

[geneman]

Originally Posted by felldestroyed Thanks for all the responses everyone. MBP definitely seems to be the way to go. Hopefully they'll roll out some additional Studen Union discount soon...

Also check out the refurb page. The "old" macbook pro with the 1.83 Ghz proc is down to $1599, a pretty good deal, as far as I can tell the only difference to the "new" is 0.17 Ghz and a $400 discount...