or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Apple drops Nvidia's Kepler GPUs from 'large number' of next-gen MacBook Pros
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #1 of 79
Thread Starter 
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 ]
post #2 of 79
Guys but y only NVidia ?

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

then y only Nvidia ??
post #3 of 79
Intel's graphics are pure crap. This would be a huge mistake. The next Macbook Pro is rapidly becoming less and less 'Pro'.
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #4 of 79
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.
post #5 of 79
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.
post #6 of 79
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!
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #7 of 79
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.
post #8 of 79
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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #9 of 79
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.
post #10 of 79
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
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #11 of 79
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.
post #12 of 79
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.
post #13 of 79
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?
post #14 of 79
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.
post #15 of 79
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.
post #16 of 79
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

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #17 of 79
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?
post #18 of 79
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.
post #19 of 79
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.
post #20 of 79
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.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #21 of 79
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.
post #22 of 79
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!
post #23 of 79
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.
post #24 of 79
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.
post #25 of 79
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?
post #26 of 79
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.
post #27 of 79
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.
post #28 of 79
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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #29 of 79
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.
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #30 of 79
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.
post #31 of 79
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?!
post #32 of 79
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.
post #33 of 79
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.
post #34 of 79
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'.
post #35 of 79
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.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #36 of 79
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.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #37 of 79
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"?
post #38 of 79
That's a shame, just as Mac gaming was starting to get interesting. Mafia II or Batman on Intel graphics anyone?

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #39 of 79
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?
post #40 of 79
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Apple drops Nvidia's Kepler GPUs from 'large number' of next-gen MacBook Pros