Andrew Brouse

Can anyone give me any real-world insights about Jitter video performance on the Macbook with the Intel integrated (shared memory) graphics vs. the Macbook Pro with a discrete graphics card.

In other words, is it worth the extra dinero to spring for the Pro and to what extent is video performance on the vanilla Macbook acceptable or not.

macbook-video-performance

If you're serioius about doing live video and 3d graphics, I would

definitely spring for the Macbook pro. The Radeon x1600 is a really

really nice card for laptops, with great shader support. I've never

used a computer with the integrated graphics card, but the x1600 will

blow it away performance-wise from what I can tell. I've looked at

the same issue macbook vs macbook pro and there's no question that I

will get a macbook pro because of its superior graphics card. GPUs

make a big difference in terms of performance. Anyone that actually

has experience with a macbook and Jitter care to chime in here?

> Can anyone give me any real-world insights about Jitter video performance on the Macbook with the Intel integrated (shared memory) graphics vs. the Macbook Pro with a discrete graphics card.

> In other words, is it worth the extra dinero to spring for the Pro and to what extent is video performance on the vanilla Macbook acceptable or not.

If you're serioius about doing live video and 3d graphics, I would
definitely spring for the Macbook pro.  The Radeon x1600 is a really
really nice card for laptops, with great shader support.  I've never
used a computer with the integrated graphics card, but the x1600 will
blow it away performance-wise from what I can tell.  I've looked at
the same issue macbook vs macbook pro and there's no question that I
will get a macbook pro because of its superior graphics card.  GPUs
make a big difference in terms of performance.  Anyone that actually
has experience with a macbook and Jitter care to chime in here?

On 11/8/06, Andrew Brouse  wrote:
>
> Can anyone give me any real-world insights about Jitter video performance on the Macbook with the Intel integrated (shared memory) graphics vs. the Macbook Pro with a discrete graphics card.
>
> In other words, is it worth the extra dinero to spring for the Pro and to what extent is video performance on the vanilla Macbook acceptable or not.
>
> thanks,
> Andrew
>


I prepare all my stuff (which isn't much I must admit) on a macbook 

and as far as graphics it serves me well.

I get as much out of my macbook as I get out of my G5

I do have my macbook's ram maxed out to 2ghz so maybe this helps a lot.

I haven't done any serious stuff with gl though and I'm guessing a 

serious graphics card would perform way better on that level

On 08 Nov 2006, at 21:33, Wesley Smith wrote:

> If you're serioius about doing live video and 3d graphics, I would

> definitely spring for the Macbook pro. The Radeon x1600 is a really

> really nice card for laptops, with great shader support. I've never

> used a computer with the integrated graphics card, but the x1600 will

> blow it away performance-wise from what I can tell. I've looked at

> the same issue macbook vs macbook pro and there's no question that I

> will get a macbook pro because of its superior graphics card. GPUs

> make a big difference in terms of performance. Anyone that actually

> has experience with a macbook and Jitter care to chime in here?

>> Can anyone give me any real-world insights about Jitter video 

>> performance on the Macbook with the Intel integrated (shared 

>> memory) graphics vs. the Macbook Pro with a discrete graphics card.

>> In other words, is it worth the extra dinero to spring for the Pro 

>> and to what extent is video performance on the vanilla Macbook 

I prepare all my stuff (which isn't much I must admit) on a macbook  
and as far as graphics it serves me well.
I get as much out of my macbook as I get out of my G5

I haven't done any serious stuff with gl though and I'm guessing a  
serious graphics card would perform way better on that level

> If you're serioius about doing live video and 3d graphics, I would
> definitely spring for the Macbook pro.  The Radeon x1600 is a really
> really nice card for laptops, with great shader support.  I've never
> used a computer with the integrated graphics card, but the x1600 will
> blow it away performance-wise from what I can tell.  I've looked at
> the same issue macbook vs macbook pro and there's no question that I
> will get a macbook pro because of its superior graphics card.  GPUs
> make a big difference in terms of performance.  Anyone that actually
> has experience with a macbook and Jitter care to chime in here?
>
> wes
>
> On 11/8/06, Andrew Brouse  wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone give me any real-world insights about Jitter video  
>> performance on the Macbook with the Intel integrated (shared  
>> memory) graphics vs. the Macbook Pro with a discrete graphics card.
>>
>> In other words, is it worth the extra dinero to spring for the Pro  
>> and to what extent is video performance on the vanilla Macbook  
>> acceptable or not.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>


While I don't have any experience with the MacBooks, I have tested 

Jitter quite a bit using one of the minis with onboard Intel GPU. Where 

you really miss the better GPU is when you are dealing with shaders or 

textures in any way. For CPU-bound stuff, the Intel Core Duo compares 

favorably with a Dual 1.2GHz G5 tower. I would agree with Wes that if 

you get really into using live video with Jitter (or anything else that 

uses the OpenGL programmable pipeline) you'll want the graphics power.

While I don't have any experience with the MacBooks, I have tested 
Jitter quite a bit using one of the minis with onboard Intel GPU.  Where 
you really miss the better GPU is when you are dealing with shaders or 
textures in any way.  For CPU-bound stuff, the Intel Core Duo compares 
favorably with a Dual 1.2GHz G5 tower.  I would agree with Wes that if 
you get really into using live video with Jitter (or anything else that 
uses the OpenGL programmable pipeline) you'll want the graphics power.

Ive been testing an Intel Mac Mini 1.83 (the Core Duo, not Solo) with 

GPU shader processing for an installation. Ive actually been 

pleasantly surprised with what it can do. (when max isnt crashing 

Running a 720p texture (jit.gl.sketch with @capture to a named 

texture forced to 1280x720) I can run through some lightweight slabs, 

for example a simple cross fade between two 720p textures (with 

UYVY), and even some ARGB jit.qt.movie sources being upsampled to 

720P (I use ARGB to keep the color sampling higher, makes non YUV 

codecs look shaper), all at between 20 - 40 frames per seconds 

depending on how complex the jit.gl.sketch being rendered is. A 

jit.gl.nurb with dim 20x20 being distorted incoming video slows it 

down to 20-25 fps. Anything else (jit.text2D rendered via 

jit.gl.sketch, or simple jit.gl.graph objects) runs quite well. This 

is all being output to a full 1280x720 display via DVI.

Quite acceptable I think. Its not terribly complicated, but I did 

know if it would do that. Amusingly, the CPUs sit idle between 30/40% 

CPU usage. It does stutter sometimes, but its not super noticeable 

On Nov 8, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Andrew Benson wrote:

> While I don't have any experience with the MacBooks, I have tested 

> Jitter quite a bit using one of the minis with onboard Intel GPU. 

> Where you really miss the better GPU is when you are dealing with 

> shaders or textures in any way. For CPU-bound stuff, the Intel 

> Core Duo compares favorably with a Dual 1.2GHz G5 tower. I would 

> agree with Wes that if you get really into using live video with 

> Jitter (or anything else that uses the OpenGL programmable 

> pipeline) you'll want the graphics power.

Ive been testing an Intel Mac Mini 1.83 (the Core Duo, not Solo) with  
GPU shader processing for an installation. Ive actually been  
pleasantly surprised with what it can do. (when max isnt crashing  
that is :P )

Running a 720p texture (jit.gl.sketch with @capture to a named  
texture forced to 1280x720) I can run through some lightweight slabs,  
for example a simple cross fade between two 720p textures (with  
UYVY), and even some ARGB jit.qt.movie sources being upsampled to  
720P (I use ARGB to keep the color sampling higher, makes non YUV  
codecs look shaper), all at between 20 - 40 frames per seconds  
depending on how complex the jit.gl.sketch being rendered is. A  
jit.gl.nurb with dim 20x20 being distorted incoming video slows it  
down to  20-25 fps. Anything else (jit.text2D rendered via  
jit.gl.sketch, or simple jit.gl.graph objects) runs quite well. This  
is all being output to a full 1280x720 display via DVI.

Quite acceptable I think. Its not terribly complicated, but I did  
know if it would do that. Amusingly, the CPUs sit idle between 30/40%  
CPU usage.  It does stutter sometimes, but its not super noticeable  
unless you are really looking for it.

> While I don't have any experience with the MacBooks, I have tested  
> Jitter quite a bit using one of the minis with onboard Intel GPU.   
> Where you really miss the better GPU is when you are dealing with  
> shaders or textures in any way.  For CPU-bound stuff, the Intel  
> Core Duo compares favorably with a Dual 1.2GHz G5 tower.  I would  
> agree with Wes that if you get really into using live video with  
> Jitter (or anything else that uses the OpenGL programmable  
> pipeline) you'll want the graphics power.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew B.


I should note - the reason I mention is because the both use the GMA 

950 integrated graphics chipset, so just so you know that im not 

I should note - the reason I mention is because the both use the GMA  
950 integrated graphics chipset, so just so you know that im not  
pissing in the proverbial wind here...

i've been working with a 1.5 Solo Mac Mini (also w/ the 64mb 950 graphics) and have been pretty impressed w/ performance. I've been waffling (though not "playing politics"...sorry, had to get my election season cliches in) on the MacBook vs. Pro issue, and although a MacBook would be fine for a lot of things, I think the lifespan of the Pro would be a lot longer, as it would provide more room for shader experiements, which are THE FUTURE.

i've been working with a 1.5 Solo Mac Mini (also w/ the 64mb 950 graphics) and have been pretty impressed w/ performance.  I've been waffling (though not "playing politics"...sorry, had to get my election season cliches in) on the MacBook vs. Pro issue, and although a MacBook would be fine for a lot of things, I think the lifespan of the Pro would be a lot longer, as it would provide more room for shader experiements, which are THE FUTURE.


Macbook Video Performance