The Rough Story Of Intel Sandy Bridge Graphics For Mac OS X

[curaga]

Or more linux-centrically, the bios issue too.

[methril]

I have one of the first MacBookPros using EFI, and a Mac Pro. Both has problems with the bootloader when they boot, conflicting with rEFIT & BootCamp. At least the Grub-EFI in a Pen Drive solved some issues, but I always have had to install Linux in grub compatibility mode.

Hope you solve the problems to see the Linux performance, & take a look at MacOSX OpenGL 3.x implementation.

[deanjo]

if you're really concerned about the quality of your build you're going to go with a company such as Gigabyte or ASUS, but not Foxconn.

Edit: MSI might actually be more appropriate for laptop usage since they have the best power efficiency

LMFAO, you do know that Foxxcons customers include Asus and MSI right?

[Hey! Dojo]

If there is indeed a problem with Linux and UEFI, and that is the case, it makes for an interesting story as well, even if he can't run the proper benchmarks.

Already been covered.

Kernel Log: Further problems with UEFI

As for the Intel HD 3000 graphics, you really don't seem to know what you are talking about. Most high end video cards barely use that much memory. In all reality, the size of the textures for most Linux games wouldn't even fill 512 MB of graphics memory. Not only that, but the Intel HD 3000 graphics are a hell of an improvement over all generations of Intel graphics period. They are competitive with low-end discreet solutions by nVidia and AMD.

Sorry guy. If you owned an i5 with HD 3000 you would be much more informed.
The Windows system performance checker says I have over 1.5 GB of memory available for use by the HD 3000.
The HD 3000 out preforms many mid range AMD and Nvidia add in solutions but does not offer all of the clever features some of those afore mentioned cards have (Custom extensions.)
Therefore HD3000 is not just competitive with the low end cards. It mostly blows them completely out of the water. My user experience validates this.

I have had similar issues installing recent builds of linux on an HP Elite laptop, it also has UEFI support.

My Intel i5 gen 2 based machine here will only boot a Fedora live CD if UEFI is off and legacy bios is enabled. Once installation has completed, I enable UEFI and the installation boots fine whereas the live media would fail to boot.
I believe that this is because I have an Intel main board and Intel have fortunately interpreted the spec correctly but there is a bug in isolinux (The boot loader used on the live CD.)
Seeing as grub is used to boot the local install, it some how works for me.
I hope that there is a legacy option available to you in the bios configuration and that the manufacturer hasn't misinterpreted the UEFI spec.

As opposed to the plastic PC hardware garbage that people install Linux on and complain about?

All the "overpriced apple mac garbage" is of better quality that any piece of hardware I have owned from IBM, Lenovo, HP, Dell, Toshiba or Gateway. Sony comes closer in terms of quality, but then the price goes up to match.

Generalizations like this are both useless, untrue, and display a high level of ignorance.

Oops. Apple fan boy's toes being stepped on. Sorry about that but you are aware that an Apple is a PC with a plastic apple stuck on to it?
When you've owned a Mac long enough to know how long they actually last in comparison to even DELL machines, I'm sure you will reassess your definition of quality. Unless that is, you become even further sucked into the cult of all that is Apple.
FYW. Sony are not dissimilar to Apple in their hardware. You are buying into the brand, the logo and the TV adverts. If you actually ever opened one of these machines to see poorly designed cheap components, you'd know what I'm referring to.

As for your so quote "Apple Build Quality" you do realize that they contract out to Foxconn for their boards don't you?

True but you do realize that most companies in the IT hardware industry sub-contract to Foxconn?
Intel, Apple, ASUS included.
There are some companies who are trying and succeeding to push the envelope for quality without catchy TV advertising (Corsair for example) but for the most part all the consumer electronics we buy come from the same factories mainly in Taiwan and China. The huge majority of it is manufactured as cheaply as possible. Quality and reliability is of little concern compared to the volume of output and how much the thing costs to make.
Bearing that in mind, Apple still need main boards in their computers. They come from from the same factories. The quality is no different to anyone else's. Only the design is slightly different when you compare for example a main board. To believe that Apple's main board designs are somehow superior to anything else coming out of that factory is not reality because Apple spend their budget mainly on advertising to get you to subscribe to the Mac cult and to try to get you to create this fake perception of Apple's products. Apple want you to think that some how their computers are of a higher quality when compared to any other and also to maybe make you think that a Mac is not a personal computer and that it is a Mac. Nope. A Mac is a personal computer. A Mac is a PC with a lower spec than it's competitor and a plastic apple stuck using glue to it's case.

It is my belief that Apple products are inferior to say HP's for example because I have seen how Apple try radical things in their designs which cause unreliability. The cheap components they shoe horn into the case consistently fail over time. Macs over heating after two years is the most common thing I have seen (It's cheaper to buy a new Mac than to fix that by the way. Which may also be deliberate.) Some people do get lucky though as with all things.
I therefore believe that Apple machines are garbage. That is my opinion, you don't have to subscribe to it. And finally if it offends you, then grow up.

[ahlaht]

LMFAO, you do know that Foxxcons customers include Asus and MSI right?

Yeah, I noticed that too. It's mentioned on Wikipedia.

Foxconn is such a huge corporation that it's likely the quality and production requirements are written on contract and THAT determines the price.

[_txf_]

Already been covered.
Sorry guy. If you owned an i5 with HD 3000 you would be much more informed.
The Windows system performance checker says I have over 1.5 GB of memory available for use by the HD 3000.
The HD 3000 out preforms many mid range AMD and Nvidia add in solutions but does not offer all of the clever features some of those afore mentioned cards have (Custom extensions.)
Therefore HD3000 is not just competitive with the low end cards. It mostly blows them completely out of the water. My user experience validates this.

System ram is nowhere near as performant as graphics ram (busses aren't as wide nor clock speeds as high). Therefore even if the hd3000 were to try to use that ram, it couldn't access it in a timely manner (we are not even considering the fact that the gpu is also sharing memory access with the cpu). Note that intel graphics also do not have a unified shader architecture (as such is not completely reprogrammable which means it cannot do openCL totally on the gnu). This gnu is nearly comparable to my macs geforce 320m gpu (which is more than a year old).

So no, nowhere near comparable to mid range. Comparable to low range, yes.

[Luke_Wolf]

LMFAO, you do know that Foxxcons customers include Asus and MSI right?

From Wikipedia

As of 2009 ASUS has manufacturing facilities in Taiwan (Taipei, Lujhu, Nangan, Guishan), China (Suzhou), Mexico (Ciudad Ju?rez) and the Czech Republic (Ostrava). The ASUS Hi-Tech Park, located in Suzhou, China, covers 540,000 square meters, roughly the size of 82 soccer fields.

and

ASUS produces motherboards, graphics cards, sound cards, optical disc drives, personal digital assistants (PDAs), computer monitors, laptops, servers, computer networking devices, mobile phones, computer cases, computer components, and computer cooling systems. And it has also motion sensing technology in their ASUS Wavi bringing motion recognizing to PC.

So now lets take that in the context of

Foxconn makes consumer electronics for a number of well-known companies

Given this information I think it would be reasonable to guess that what's being spoken of in regards to Foxconn and ASUS are things like the mobile phones, network devices, etc. I personally find it rather unlikely that a company known for it's Motherboards having said factories would contract out to another company for said parts, on top of which if they are contracting out to Foxconn it's not going to be like Apple or Microsoft, what they're going to be doing is assembly rather than full up manufacturing like Apple or Microsoft would have to do. It may in fact be as well that ASUS makes all of it's own parts but leaves it up to Foxconn for assembly, I haven't found the requisite information though to say anything for certain.

That said though I'll stick with Gigabyte who I've generally migrated to since the fall of Abit, I like that the focus of their designs is around durability.

[Luke_Wolf]

Found something... http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=18020 This confirms the consumer electronics wording, while this doesn't necessarily deny them using Foxconn to assemble their boards It does point to the theory I have suggested.

[deanjo]

Given this information I think it would be reasonable to guess that what's being spoken of in regards to Foxconn and ASUS are things like the mobile phones, network devices, etc. I personally find it rather unlikely that a company known for it's Motherboards having said factories would contract out to another company for said parts, on top of which if they are contracting out to Foxconn it's not going to be like Apple or Microsoft, what they're going to be doing is assembly rather than full up manufacturing like Apple or Microsoft would have to do. It may in fact be as well that ASUS makes all of it's own parts but leaves it up to Foxconn for assembly, I haven't found the requisite information though to say anything for certain.

That said though I'll stick with Gigabyte who I've generally migrated to since the fall of Abit, I like that the focus of their designs is around durability.

I can tell you are not that familiar with the assembly process. Yes Asus and MSI manufacture their own parts as well as utilize third party plants. HP is another OEM for example that uses Asus motherboards but they are built and assembled by Foxxcon. Many times it is cheaper for manufacturers to farm out third party assembly then utilize their own resources (especially for "enterprise" grade products). Even though outfits like Foxconn assemble the boards for outside companies, it is the customer that generally supplies the design and part specifications. Foxconn is especially huge in manufacturing 3rd party finished good items like laptops and their motherboards. Chances are if you have a MSI or Asus laptop they not only were assembled by Foxconn but the motherboards for them were also assembled there. Foxconn is HUGE in this area. Other notable companies that utilize Foxconn are Acer, ASRock, Intel, Cisco, HP, Dell, Nintendo, Nokia, MS, and Sony.

[deanjo]

Found something... http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=18020 This confirms the consumer electronics wording, while this doesn't necessarily deny them using Foxconn to assemble their boards It does point to the theory I have suggested.

I've been to foxconns plant about 6 years ago and I can tell you with great certainty that there were Asus / MSI and Apple products all being slapped together by foxconn having seen it first hand. (Including the logic boards labeled as MSI being used in the Zune).