Rumor: Apple drops Nvidia's Kepler GPUs from 'large number' of next-gen MacBook Pros

24

Comments

  • macquestmacquest Posts: 30member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dualie View Post


    I don't believe this for one second, but if it in fact turns out to be true I will be hanging on to my nearly 5 year old MBP for a few more years. There is NO WAY I would ever "upgrade" to a high end laptop with a integrated graphics.



    Ditto.



    If this is true, my nearly 6 year old 1st gen MBP is gonna have to hang in there for another year.



    All I've wanted for the past couple of years is a 13" MBP with dedicated graphics or more recently, a redesigned thinner and lighter 15" MacBook Air-like MBP for music video/visual mixing turntablist/dj performances.



    The size may be somewhat negotiable in lieu of profile and especially weight, but the graphics power is NOT!
  • rednivalrednival Posts: 329member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    The change was reportedly made because Nvidia "can't supply enough small GPUs" to Apple and other PC makers. That's left Apple in a position where its next-generation low- and mid-range MacBook models "are not going to have a GPU, only a GT2 Ivy Bridge," the report said.



    Perhaps I missed something. Was there some major expectation that the lower end Macbook Pros would get dedicated GPUs with the next refresh? If not, this does not sound like a drastic change of direction, to me anyway.
  • jnjnjnjnjnjn Posts: 588member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Pro is an example of Iconic Branding. It is meaningless marketing-speak for those who think product acquisition determines what sort of a person they are..



    You must be jealous you can't buy one.



    J.
  • boriscletoboriscleto Posts: 153member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post


    Since you can't use Aperture without a VERY good dedicated graphics card, this would mean there would be only the top model to choose from. Eh. Not great but what can you do.



    So I haven't been using Aperture on my 2009 mini for the last 2 years?
  • misamisa Posts: 620member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MusicComposer View Post


    People need to be more aware of the differences between something being a "rumor" and being "factual". Don't get bent out of shape over stuff like this. Apple may still use Nvidia or they may use AMD in the new Macbook Pros. Even so, the new Ivy bridge IGP's are a huge improvement in terms of performance compared to the current HD 3000. Of course their drivers are still lacking behind Nvidia/AMD but it's great to see them supposedly double performance.



    I wish Intel was even half serious about SoC.



    The onboard GPU is a joke, it's always a joke, it makes me want to cry when I see new MacBook Air/MacBook Pro's without a dedicated AMD or nVidia GPU part. I can't believe Intel insists on damaging their brand by putting 5 year old GPU performance in brand new CPU's. I'm not asking for the onboard GPU to be be like a top of the line part, but if I'm paying extra for the onboard GPU, it should perform like an entry-level 100$ GPU and not an afterthought.



    The fact that the Intel HD3000 is slower than 29$ throwaway GPU makes me wonder why Intel bothers doing this with the desktop parts at all. The laptop parts at least get some energy savings out of the deal. Apple doesn't even support the first generation Macbook Air(3-4 years old) in the current OSX because the Intel Video is is too weak. This should illustrate the point to Intel to stop making video parts with just enough performance to pass certification tests.
  • patranuspatranus Posts: 366member
    Who gives 2 shits what Apple puts into its refreshed MBP as long as there is a performance gain.

    They could put a graphics card from a Macintosh Color Classic and if they could get better performance out of it than what they are getting now, why would anyone care?



    Really don't get why people focus on specs. A computer is a tool to get a job done. It doesn't matter how it does the job as long as it does the job better and faster than the previous generation.

    No, a computer isn't a tool to measure your penis size.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,884member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    Who gives 2 shits what Apple puts into its refreshed MBP as long as there is a performance gain.



    There wouldn't be with ONLY Intel chips is the point.
  • thataveragejoethataveragejoe Posts: 830member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    Who gives 2 shits what Apple puts into its refreshed MBP as long as there is a performance gain.

    They could put a graphics card from a Macintosh Color Classic and if they could get better performance out of it than what they are getting now, why would anyone care?



    Really don't get why people focus on specs. A computer is a tool to get a job done. It doesn't matter how it does the job as long as it does the job better and faster than the previous generation.

    No, a computer isn't a tool to measure your penis size.



    Clearly the fundamental differences between an integrated and dedicated GPU are lost on someone this immature.
  • cory bauercory bauer Posts: 1,286member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    Who gives 2 shits what Apple puts into its refreshed MBP as long as there is a performance gain.

    They could put a graphics card from a Macintosh Color Classic and if they could get better performance out of it than what they are getting now, why would anyone care?



    Really don't get why people focus on specs. A computer is a tool to get a job done. It doesn't matter how it does the job as long as it does the job better and faster than the previous generation.

    No, a computer isn't a tool to measure your penis size.



    You're missing the point; a huge performance loss would be had by switching to integrated graphics.
  • anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 16,756member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ninadpchaudhari View Post


    Guys but y only NVidia ?



    in fact AMD has a gr8 name in gaming industry ...



    then y only Nvidia ??



    Are you perchance typing this on a Nokia cell phone?!
  • jlanddjlandd Posts: 810member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boriscleto View Post


    So I haven't been using Aperture on my 2009 mini for the last 2 years?



    I'm still using it on my 2008 MBP : ) for first passes. It's doable for basics. But only for projects without much brushes, which unfortunately is only a small percentage of the total. For added adjustment bricks, with brushes and masks it's not near time efficient enough. I shift it to a newer model with a better card for that. Aperture is completely GPU dependent for everything except for exports, so without a decent graphics card it's very limited how much you can get done while waiting for it to refresh.
  • alienzedalienzed Posts: 393member
    Pro's may use their laptops for editing but anyone who relies on them for rendering or any serious work is just misguided. I used to be a specialist and I always put customer's need for a laptop into question. Laptops are portable, desktops are powerful, that's all there is to it.
  • wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,470member
    NVidia has been crap for some time. Apple would do far better with AMD. I also find it hard to believe they would put all the eggs in one cart. By that I mean they would have a dual track development with GPUs from both vendors.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post


    Intel's graphics are pure crap. This would be a huge mistake. The next Macbook Pro is rapidly becoming less and less 'Pro'.



  • macky the mackymacky the macky Posts: 4,615member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dualie View Post


    I don't believe this for one second, but if it in fact turns out to be true I will be hanging on to my nearly 5 year old MBP for a few more years. There is NO WAY I would ever "upgrade" to a high end laptop with a integrated graphics.



    I'm using a late 2006 MBP and the ATY Radon X1600 card with 256 Mb of VRAM is just not quite hacking it for some of my work. The laptop runs hot enough to leave red marks on my thighs when processing graphics flat out.



    Does anyone know just how much faster the Intel Ivy Bridge processor with integrated graphics might be?? I could stand to have 10 to 20 percent faster graphics than I presently have, but even just as fast would be fine if the laptop ran cooler.



    If Apple is planning on making the MBP more compact and lighter, that would be nice, however that also means the internals can't be throwing off the kind of heat my current MBP does.
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Misa View Post


    Apple doesn't even support the first generation Macbook Air(3-4 years old) in the current OSX because the Intel Video is is too weak.



    The current OS X version is Lion which all MBAs should be able to run. I don't have an Air but I thought all C2D machines could run Lion. The upcoming ML is said to require a 64 bit kernel which not all the Airs have so although the graphics may also be an issue the main reason would be the kernel.
  • haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post


    You do remember there are many uses for a good graphics card, other than g@m3rz



    Just like there are many uses for SLI and Crossfire other than games, right? Yet when people were demanding SLI and Crossfire technology on the Mac Pro, they were dismissed as only being used for games. The typical response was "Macs don't need SLI because the NVidia Quadro is a professional card". What does that response have to do with SLI on a Mac Pro? And if the Quadro is such a "professional" card, then wouldn't 2 or more Quadros running SLI be even more "professional"?
  • zoolookzoolook Posts: 657member
    That's a shame, just as Mac gaming was starting to get interesting. Mafia II or Batman on Intel graphics anyone?
  • palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,084member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    It never was "Pro".

    Pro is an example of Iconic Branding. It is meaningless marketing-speak for those who think product acquisition determines what sort of a person they are.

    They are very nice laptop computers. "Pro" ain't got no meaning other than branding.



    I know what you mean, but I think at Apple "Pro" means they are capable of, and will be marketed as mobile computers for running Final Cut Pro and Aperture. They'd perform pretty bad without a dedicated GPU, wouldn't they?
  • maccherrymaccherry Posts: 924member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by saarek View Post


    Surely Apple wouldn't go with Intel Graphics on the professional line, I always felt that the 13" MacBook Pro's wirh intel graphics couldn't really be classed as a professional machine.



    Sure for spreadsheets and the basic effects needed to display OS X intel integrated is fine, but for real work or play you NEED an ATI/nVidia GPU!



    Integrated graphics on a pro model? Are you crazy!



    Intel is doing this to keep Nvidia out of a wide range of markets. Intel is being a tach hog. All intel and nobody else.

    And I'm sure Nvidia can't say much since they are using intel's x86 architecture in their stuff like AMD. Intel has told them they couldn't compete with them in certain markets as long as they're pimping their swag on the silicon.
  • chabigchabig Posts: 587member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by saarek View Post


    ...but for real work or play you NEED an ATI/nVidia GPU!



    I have a 2011 MBP with Intel graphics driving the 27" Cinema Display and it runs Mac OS and two Windows instances in Parallels just fine. I can only imagine a dedicated GPU is needed for play. For work, Intel's integrated stuff is fine, and Ivy Bridge is supposed to be getting better.
Sign In or Register to comment.