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

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014


Apple's next-generation low- and mid-range MacBook Pro models will not feature dedicated graphics cards, and will instead rely on Intel's integrated Ivy Bridge graphics due to production issues with Nvidia, according to a new report.



Apple has dropped Nvidia's next-generation Kepler graphics cards from a "large number" of its upcoming laptops, SemiAccurate reported on Tuesday. The change has allegedly prompted Apple to adopt Intel Ivy Bridge CPUs that have higher shader counts, in order to offset some of the lost graphics processing power.



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.



"Nvidia can't supply, so Apple threw them out on their proverbial magical experience," it continued. "This doesn't mean Nvidia is completely out at Apple, the Intel GPUs are too awful to satisfy the higher end laptops, so there will need to be something in those. What that something is, we don't definitively know yet, but the possibilities are vanishingly small."



The rumored issues apparently stem from the fact that Nvidia has struggled with its 28-nanometer manufacturing process for its next-generation graphics processors, code-named "Kepler." As a result, some mid-range MacBooks will feature dedicated Nvidia GPUs, and some won't, Tuesday's report claimed.











The same site first reported last November that Apple would switch back to Nvidia GPUs for its 2012 MacBook models. Higher end 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros launched early last year relied solely on AMD graphics, while the entry-level 13-inch model features integrated Intel graphics.



Apple's next-generation MacBook Pros are expected to feature a radically redesigned exterior, borrowing features from the company's popular ultraportable MacBook Air. They are expected to be based on Intel's forthcoming Ivy Bridge chip architecture.



[ View article on AppleInsider ]

«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 78
    Guys but y only NVidia ?



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



    then y only Nvidia ??
  • Reply 2 of 78
    Intel's graphics are pure crap. This would be a huge mistake. The next Macbook Pro is rapidly becoming less and less 'Pro'.
  • Reply 3 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post


    The next Macbook Pro is rapidly becoming less and less 'Pro'.



    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.
  • Reply 4 of 78
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,387member
    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'.



    You really shouldn't take these rumors seriously. They've used AMD for several refresh cycles, now it's 100% NVidia then dropped in favor of Intel? You need to consider that none of this stuff is confirmed in any way.



    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 ??



    NVidia always seems to have the popular gaming cards on the Windows side. The general complaint with AMD there always seems to be driver issues, although they're not perfect on OSX either.
  • Reply 5 of 78
    saareksaarek Posts: 975member
    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!
  • Reply 6 of 78
    sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member
    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'.



    Well to be honest its not like anyone uses a macbook for gaming. Indeed, ANY laptop for serious gaming.



    For the kinds of games likely to be played on a laptop, ivy bridge is fine.



    If you want BF3 at ultra settings in high res though, well dedicated graphics is the only way....for now.
  • Reply 7 of 78
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,866member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    It never was "Pro".



    Like fun it wasn't.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post


    Well to be honest its not like anyone uses a macbook for gaming. Indeed, ANY laptop for serious gaming.



    The GPU is used for more than games, you know.
  • Reply 8 of 78
    dualiedualie Posts: 330member
    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.
  • Reply 9 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post


    Well to be honest its not like anyone uses a macbook for gaming. Indeed, ANY laptop for serious gaming.



    For the kinds of games likely to be played on a laptop, ivy bridge is fine.



    If you want BF3 at ultra settings in high res though, well dedicated graphics is the only way....for now.



    You do remember there are many uses for a good graphics card, other than g@m3rz
  • Reply 10 of 78
    s8er01zs8er01z Posts: 144member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    NVidia always seems to have the popular gaming cards on the Windows side. The general complaint with AMD there always seems to be driver issues, although they're not perfect on OSX either.



    This would be my concern...I used Radeons for years and had horrible experiences with drivers... hardware was great, FPS/Performance was great.... but if I had a bug I just had to live with it and a driver might fix it a few months later. Not sure if it's better now but most people I know got fed up and switched to Nvidia and never looked back.
  • Reply 11 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Higher end 13- and 15-inch MacBook Pros launched early last year relied solely on AMD graphics, while the entry-level 13-inch model features integrated Intel graphics.



    Higher end 15- and 17- inch MacBook Pros launched early last year relied solely on AMD graphics.....



    None of the 13-inch models have ever had discrete graphics.
  • Reply 12 of 78
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,100member
    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'm sure that's why I see them used by professional musicians, sound techs, graphic artists, movie directors and other pros everyday huh?
  • Reply 13 of 78
    Why not ATI Radeon?



    In my experience, Radeon performs better on OS X anyway. They have better drivers. My 330M-equipped 2010 Macbook Pro definitely does NOT live up to the 330M's expected performance in OS X, whereas my Radeon 3870 in my Mac Pro does live up to its expected performance by far.
  • Reply 14 of 78
    k.c.k.c. Posts: 60member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    "Pro" ain't got no meaning other than branding.



    Your elegant use of the English language lends credibility to your comments.
  • Reply 15 of 78
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,866member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post


    In my experience, Radeon performs better on OS X anyway. They have better drivers.



    Because nVidia refuses to write OS X drivers, so Apple has to do it. At least, that's how it used to be.



    Windows 8 should end this nonsense once and for all?
  • Reply 16 of 78
    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.



    Maybe they'll just call them MacBook Airs?
  • Reply 17 of 78
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 862member
    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.
  • Reply 18 of 78
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    This rumor is stupid. We will see AMD chips in the MBP, possibly excepting the 13". Depends if ditching the optical drive leaves enough space for them to add a discrete video card and still maintain the battery life numbers they want to hit. I bet they can tho.
  • Reply 19 of 78
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    It's interesting that even when the rumor source is cited, the accuracy is typically under 25%. When they don't bother to cite the source, it's probably considerably worse.
  • Reply 20 of 78
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.