or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Haswell-based MacBook Pros expected to ship in September - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Haswell-based MacBook Pros expected to ship in September - report - Page 2

post #41 of 132
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The scroll bug is a bug.  And Apple doesn't care about breaking Airplay?  Since when?

 

You'll notice I quoted neither of those. Please actually read posts before replying to them.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #42 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

GM in 2 weeks?  No.  I'll be very surprised if there isn't a DP 7 and they go straight to GM from here.

If there's going to be another release, that might mean no Macs until October. The Wall Street Journal said they would do multiple events. I don't suppose there would be any harm in launching them with Mountain Lion but it would be better for the numbers to have them launch with Mavericks. I'd actually rather they launched new machines with the older system as you can be assured it's stable. If you buy a new machine and find something doesn't work properly, you're stuck. That happened to me years ago with a GPU driver bug and the machine came with the bug so it couldn't be downgraded and they took months to fix it.

I don't think there's an urgency to support OpenGL 4.2+ fully. The important part is rendering OpenGL 4 content properly:

http://www.geeks3d.com/20130507/gputest-0-4-0-cross-platform-opengl-benchmark-released-opengl-4-tessellation-test-enabled-under-mac-osx/

One of the comments at the bottom tested HD5000 on Mavericks. He doesn't mention glitches like the HD4000 so I assume it renders everything ok. Iris should be significantly faster than the HD5000 too.
post #43 of 132
Do you mean Iris, Iris Pro, or both?

Just getting a look here at Wikipedia. The i7-4558U is $454 so that is either going to be in the server or as a BTO. It is actually more expensive than the i7-4800MQ ($380), 4702MQ, 4702HQ, 4700MQ, and 4700HQ ($383). Of course those quad core i7s have the Intel HD 4600.
post #44 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

I'm disappointed but not surprised that the 13" MBP doesn't get a discrete GPU option.  If the 15" goes that route that would simply suck big time.

 

Agreed, its one of those things i got over, if i had a choice at this point in time id still choose discrete, those day seem to be numbered tho.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


The 770m is a 75W GPU. Apple ships their 15" laptops with 85W power supplies. There's a laptop here with a 770m and if you skip to 24:20, you can see the power brick sitting on the desk:
 

 

Solid point, the 765M would be a good step then?, its a 60-65W GPU.

Its always a balance between power usage & power thats the issue with mobile devices.

I have a gaming laptop with a crazy size power supply (75W GPU), its fan design is awesome, it keeps cool really well, my rMBP out performs it but it lets you know about it, the fans rev right up.

post #45 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Do you mean Iris, Iris Pro, or both?

Just getting a look here at Wikipedia. The i7-4558U is $454 so that is either going to be in the server or as a BTO. It is actually more expensive than the i7-4800MQ ($380), 4702MQ, 4702HQ, 4700MQ, and 4700HQ ($383). Of course those quad core i7s have the Intel HD 4600.

There's a fundamental disconnect here. Who needs super GPU performance? Mostly gamers, but they're not going to rely on a integrated GPU any time soon. They'll still want a dedicated GPU. For non-gamers, the quad core with 4600 graphics is probably a far better choice than a dual core with 5100 graphics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zozman View Post

Agreed, its one of those things i got over, if i had a choice at this point in time id still choose discrete, those day seem to be numbered tho.


Solid point, the 765M would be a good step then?, its a 60-65W GPU.
Its always a balance between power usage & power thats the issue with mobile devices.

Apple's laptops have something like 85W power supplies. They're not likely to use a GPU which eats up 75% of the total power budget. If you want an uber-gaming laptop, you'd best look elsewhere.
"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 #46 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zozman View Post

Solid point, the 765M would be a good step then?, its a 60-65W GPU.

The overall limit is best not exceeding the power supply in order to prevent the battery draining under load while it's plugged in. It already exceeds 90W under load:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1426601

If the display + CPU + GPU + drive are all running together, it will top the 85W charger. The GPU limit for the MBP is around 45W as the quad-i7 is 45W. This is why Iris Pro is ideal because the one chip keeps both CPU and GPU within the set TDP and if they put the TDP at 70W, the performance should be close enough to an NVidia or AMD GPU but at the same time, keeps it drawing less overall power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zozman View Post

I have a gaming laptop with a crazy size power supply (75W GPU), its fan design is awesome, it keeps cool really well, my rMBP out performs it but it lets you know about it, the fans rev right up.

With a lower overall TDP, that means less heat required to dissipate so they may be able to run the fans slower.
post #47 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
Apple's laptops have something like 85W power supplies. They're not likely to use a GPU which eats up 75% of the total power budget. If you want an uber-gaming laptop, you'd best look elsewhere.

Haha true, no one buys a Mac as a gaming machine :P

i'm greedy for fast GPUs, i like to be able to run 3D animation software, so productivity is what i mainly want, playing games too isn't bad too.

its funny that you can spend the same amount of money for a 15 rMBP as a high end gaming laptop, the gaming laptop comes with a poor LCD screen average build quality, massive size, crappy power adapter, then you get your rMBP, amazing screen, amazing build quality, amazingly sleek, best power adapter for any laptop & the mac obviously has OSX & can run windows, better than a PC :p less driver issues.

post #48 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zozman View Post

its funny that you can spend the same amount of money for a 15 rMBP as a high end gaming laptop, the gaming laptop comes with a poor LCD screen average build quality, massive size, crappy power adapter, then you get your rMBP, amazing screen, amazing build quality, amazingly sleek, best power adapter for any laptop & the mac obviously has OSX & can run windows, better than a PC 1tongue.gif less driver issues.

I think Apple laptops make for very nice Windows laptops. I think Iris Pro will make a nice gaming laptop too. As I mentioned earlier, there's a company selling a gaming laptop just with Iris Pro and no other GPU options:

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/LandingPages/ZeusHercules/

The ship date is estimated as 4th September so they must be getting the CPUs before then. This same laptop appears to be sold in a variety of brands:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7182/90-minutes-with-the-clevo-w740su-featuring-iris-pro-hd-5200

Notebookcheck tested another brand out here:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Schenker-S413-Clevo-W740SU-Notebook.98313.0.html

They tested it side by side with the 740M and 750M. The 750M only got 33% faster in the tests there but they wrote "Although Intel's statement that it could compete with a dedicated GeForce GT 650M is not quite true". Being competitive doesn't have to mean coming in ahead of them and it does beat it in tests for OpenCL. What is really interesting is that their tests of the 750M show almost no difference between the 650M:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-750M.90245.0.html

It's even slower in some tests. It should be close as it has the same shader count and only clocked 13% higher but it shouldn't be slower. Intel has increased performance dramatically since last year and NVidia only a small amount. If Apple's version has a higher TDP limit then the difference would be negligible. The AMD option would be the 8790M:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-8790M.86796.0.html

Again, it performs very close to the stock Iris Pro GPU.

Intel appears to be taking graphics seriously this time and have demos for advanced shading like multiple layers of transparency and volumetric smoke shadows:



If a dedicated GPU costs $150, then with the Intel CPU at $378 and Apple's 30% markup, that comes out to retail at $686.
The entry Iris Pro is $440 so would retail at $572.
The entry rMBP is $2199 so they can drive it down to $1999 at least, maybe more if they get good deals from Intel. They could do what they did with the iMacs and put prices up $100 and ditch the old MBPs.

13" rMBP - $1299 & $1499
15" rMBP - $1899, $2199 & if they decide on 17" $2399 or just the specced up 15" again with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD but all Iris Pro
post #49 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zozman View Post

its funny that you can spend the same amount of money for a 15 rMBP as a high end gaming laptop, the gaming laptop comes with a poor LCD screen average build quality, massive size, crappy power adapter, then you get your rMBP, amazing screen, amazing build quality, amazingly sleek, best power adapter for any laptop & the mac obviously has OSX & can run windows, better than a PC 1tongue.gif less driver issues.

I think Apple laptops make for very nice Windows laptops. I think Iris Pro will make a nice gaming laptop too. As I mentioned earlier, there's a company selling a gaming laptop just with Iris Pro and no other GPU options:

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/LandingPages/ZeusHercules/

The ship date is estimated as 4th September so they must be getting the CPUs before then. This same laptop appears to be sold in a variety of brands:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7182/90-minutes-with-the-clevo-w740su-featuring-iris-pro-hd-5200

Notebookcheck tested another brand out here:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Schenker-S413-Clevo-W740SU-Notebook.98313.0.html

They tested it side by side with the 740M and 750M. The 750M only got 33% faster in the tests there but they wrote "Although Intel's statement that it could compete with a dedicated GeForce GT 650M is not quite true". Being competitive doesn't have to mean coming in ahead of them and it does beat it in tests for OpenCL. What is really interesting is that their tests of the 750M show almost no difference between the 650M:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-750M.90245.0.html

It's even slower in some tests. It should be close as it has the same shader count and only clocked 13% higher but it shouldn't be slower. Intel has increased performance dramatically since last year and NVidia only a small amount. If Apple's version has a higher TDP limit then the difference would be negligible. The AMD option would be the 8790M:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-8790M.86796.0.html

Again, it performs very close to the stock Iris Pro GPU.

Intel appears to be taking graphics seriously this time and have demos for advanced shading like multiple layers of transparency and volumetric smoke shadows:



If a dedicated GPU costs $150, then with the Intel CPU at $378 and Apple's 30% markup, that comes out to retail at $686.
The entry Iris Pro is $440 so would retail at $572.
The entry rMBP is $2199 so they can drive it down to $1999 at least, maybe more if they get good deals from Intel. They could do what they did with the iMacs and put prices up $100 and ditch the old MBPs.

13" rMBP - $1299 & $1499
15" rMBP - $1899, $2199 & if they decide on 17" $2399 or just the specced up 15" again with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD but all Iris Pro


Very interesting read.

I've noticed a few good clevo slim gaming laptops about.

I can see the upsides to Iris for sure.

Personally would you prefer to see the 15 rMBP go iris instead of discreet?
post #50 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zozman View Post

Personally would you prefer to see the 15 rMBP go iris instead of discreet?

I'd normally prefer NVidia graphics because they run cool, have good performance and you get CUDA support on top. But all that matters in the end is performance and compatibility. The HD 4000 was a bit disappointing but if Iris gets even 80-90% 650M/750M levels of performance, it would be just fine. It allocates 1GB of video memory, which is a decent amount even though it takes away from the stock 8GB RAM and you can't upgrade your own RAM. It'll draw less power so better battery life.

The Retina Macbook Pros are far too expensive just now and if moving to Iris Pro gets them down the required $200-300, I'm all for it - Apple might even maintain their profit margins. If there was a choice between an $1899 Iris Pro and a $2199 750M, my gut reaction would be that the NVidia one would be a better buy but it's based on little more than knowing how bad Intel graphics have been in the past. If Iris works well with Adobe software, they give comparable gaming performance and don't draw glitches like the HD 4000, the benefit to the NVidia is very little.

The real problem is not knowing exactly how Iris will perform with a large variety of software until having used one for a long enough period of time - Intel has a very poor multi-decade-long reputation to fix. The HD 4000 went a little way towards repairing the damage but still wasn't good enough. For manufacturers to be making gaming laptops around Iris suggests to me that it's competitive enough for them not to bother even offering NVidia or AMD.

I'd be able to more easily answer if I'd prefer the next iteration of Intel graphics to NVidia or AMD after having experienced Iris Pro. The HD 4000 hasn't filled me with enough confidence to make that judgement beforehand. I'm impressed with the performance tests run on Iris so far though and I really want the rMBP prices to come down.

I have a feeling they'll have a better roadmap going forward than NVidia/AMD for the lower powered chips. NVidia/AMD will still be worthwhile at the 100W+ level but the difference in mobile devices won't be as important as cost and power draw.
post #51 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

If there's going to be another release, that might mean no Macs until October. The Wall Street Journal said they would do multiple events. I don't suppose there would be any harm in launching them with Mountain Lion but it would be better for the numbers to have them launch with Mavericks. I'd actually rather they launched new machines with the older system as you can be assured it's stable. If you buy a new machine and find something doesn't work properly, you're stuck. That happened to me years ago with a GPU driver bug and the machine came with the bug so it couldn't be downgraded and they took months to fix it.
Which is why I hardly ever buy new hardware on opening day anymore. I've been bitten by new hardware bugs myself in the past. Apple does fix things but as you say it often takes months.
Quote:
I don't think there's an urgency to support OpenGL 4.2+ fully. The important part is rendering OpenGL 4 content properly:
At least Apple focuses on stability over tweaky gaming drivers.
Quote:
http://www.geeks3d.com/20130507/gputest-0-4-0-cross-platform-opengl-benchmark-released-opengl-4-tessellation-test-enabled-under-mac-osx/

One of the comments at the bottom tested HD5000 on Mavericks. He doesn't mention glitches like the HD4000 so I assume it renders everything ok. Iris should be significantly faster than the HD5000 too.

This is where confusion comes in, I thought all HD5000 and greater where Iris processors while the older GPU technology was called HD4600. In any event Intel should refer to Apple for examples on how to market products as they have way to many SKUs and confusing product lines.
post #52 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

If there was a choice between an $1899 Iris Pro and a $2199 750M, my gut reaction would be that the NVidia one would be a better buy but it's based on little more than knowing how bad Intel graphics have been in the past.

I think people wouldn't mind that at all. They had the 9400M for $1699 in the classic MBP in 2009.
post #53 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zozman View Post

Agreed, its one of those things i got over, if i had a choice at this point in time id still choose discrete, those day seem to be numbered tho.
They are numbered for good reason tho! I'm not sure Haswell is there yet, even though initial reports look good, but the reality is one more process shrink and they can win for most uses by the sheer numbers of transistors available to them. By the way initial reports from Intel fan sites always look good, in this case I think there is some hope that Intel has in fact made a huge leap in performance.
Quote:

Solid point, the 765M would be a good step then?, its a 60-65W GPU.
Its always a balance between power usage & power thats the issue with mobile devices.
Frankly that is too much power for a mobile device. How many people would want to hold a 60 watt light bulb in their hand. Maybe if Apple was into making transportables or even a refactored 17" MBP, but the overwhelming majority of Apple MBP 15" users want a machine that balances battery lifetimes with performance.
Quote:

I have a gaming laptop with a crazy size power supply (75W GPU), its fan design is awesome, it keeps cool really well, my rMBP out performs it but it lets you know about it, the fans rev right up.
Yeah this is a problem with Apples machines, that can't sustain high performance without cranking the fans up. Sadly Iris Pro could make this worst as now all of your heat comes from one point. It will be interesting to see the new heat management system.
post #54 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

There's a fundamental disconnect here. Who needs super GPU performance? Mostly gamers, but they're not going to rely on a integrated GPU any time soon. They'll still want a dedicated GPU. For non-gamers, the quad core with 4600 graphics is probably a far better choice than a dual core with 5100 graphics.
This I have to disagree with completely. GPU performance is important to every user of a modern computer even if they don't realize it. Four CPU cores would certainly be desirable, don't get me wrong there, it is just that GPUs are now used in many ways to enhance system and app performance. Even mainstream apps like Safari benefit from GPU acceleration. On top of all of that it really looks like Intel/Apple have made major strides in OpenCL performance so there is even more reason to have a decent GPU on hand.

Probably the biggest reason to select a machine with good GPU performance is that it leads to extending the machines longevity. If you expect to keep a machine for more than three years a good GPU can keep that machine viable longer as the OS and apps continue to leverage the GPU more and more.
Quote:

Apple's laptops have something like 85W power supplies. They're not likely to use a GPU which eats up 75% of the total power budget. If you want an uber-gaming laptop, you'd best look elsewhere.

Well this I agree with! I'm not sure why anybody would even mention a 60 watt GPU in the context of an Apple laptop. Tho as mentioned above, a refactored 17" MBP might be worth the time and effort. One of the frustrating things about Apples MBP line up in the past was that the 17" cost a hell of a lot more and all you really got for it was a 17" screen. Apple could easily drop discrete GPUs from the 15" machine and reserve discrete GPUs for the 17" machine. Probably down clocked as even in the 17" chassis a 60 watt GPU is a bit much. This would make for a very nice pro machine that could handle just about any arrangement of monitors without the performance regressions currently seen with integrated graphics.
post #55 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

With a lower overall TDP, that means less heat required to dissipate so they may be able to run the fans slower.
Maybe, maybe not! If all the heat comes from a point source, which may run hotter than a plain CPU, then you have a greater thermal management problem. Well potentially anyways. In the end fan speeds will depend more on how they implement the thermal management solution.
post #56 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think Apple laptops make for very nice Windows laptops. I think Iris Pro will make a nice gaming laptop too. As I mentioned earlier, there's a company selling a gaming laptop just with Iris Pro and no other GPU options:
It may take awhile for the market to realize the new realities. That is that good GPU performance no longer requires a discrete GPU.
Quote:

The ship date is estimated as 4th September so they must be getting the CPUs before then. This same laptop appears to be sold in a variety

They tested it side by side with the 740M and 750M. The 750M only got 33% faster in the tests there but they wrote "Although Intel's statement that it could compete with a dedicated GeForce GT 650M is not quite true". Being competitive doesn't have to mean coming in ahead of them and it does beat it in tests for OpenCL. What is really interesting is that their tests of the 750M show almost no difference between the 650M:
Even more interesting is that drivers for the GeForce have been around for awhile so you would imagine that they are pretty stable and well developed. This is fresh out of the box performance for the intel hardware which should impress people. They have basically matched NVidia on a new GPU with new drivers. That is an impressive feat for Intel.

I'm really excited about Mavericks, on some of the developer sites I'm seeing really good comments about OpenCL performance even on older Intel hardware. It really looks like Apple and Intel have worked really hard on getting good performance across the board.
Quote:

It's even slower in some tests. It should be close as it has the same shader count and only clocked 13% higher but it shouldn't be slower. Intel has increased performance dramatically since last year and NVidia only a small amount. If Apple's version has a higher TDP limit then the difference would be negligible. The AMD option would be the 8790M:
For both NVidia and AMD this year was a respin year. New architectures should come out next year or maybe late this year.
Quote:


Again, it performs very close to the stock Iris Pro GPU.

Intel appears to be taking graphics seriously this time and have demos for advanced shading like multiple layers of transparency and volumetric smoke shadows:
Can we all collectively say "finally". I still think what will be real interesting is a process shrink allowing Intel to double the number of transistors on the chip which will hopefully happen in 2014. That means we can see either a doubling of the GPU size or maybe the current cache chip being built right into the die. Ether way for us more middle of the road users the time when discrete GPUs are required will have passed.
Quote:

If a dedicated GPU costs $150, then with the Intel CPU at $378 and Apple's 30% markup, that comes out to retail at $686.
The entry Iris Pro is $440 so would retail at $572.
The entry rMBP is $2199 so they can drive it down to $1999 at least, maybe more if they get good deals from Intel. They could do what they did with the iMacs and put prices up $100 and ditch the old MBPs.
The screens should come down some in price too. This should allow Apple to hit a more acceptable price point. There was talk of a inventory glut early this year with various factors used to explain it, but I think the biggest problem is that Apple was simply charging to much considering what the market was willing to pay for. In fact grossly over priced is how I would describe the retina machines, especially the 13". Retina in a laptop isn't the big draw that it is on an iPad. In the end the MBP line needs a price range refactoring.
Quote:
13" rMBP - $1299 & $1499
15" rMBP - $1899, $2199 & if they decide on 17" $2399 or just the specced up 15" again with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD but all Iris Pro

Not a terrible price range but I'd like to see everything move another $100 in the negative direction, maybe even more for the 15" rMBP. As for the 17" that would be a good place for a discrete GPU now given a power supply and thermal solution to truly leverage the combo. It would give the 17" a reason for being and a justification for its price. Further if they can run OpenCL code on the Intel GPU while the discrete does normal GPU duties they could have one powerful workstation for visualization and engineering.
post #57 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I'd normally prefer NVidia graphics because they run cool, have good performance and you get CUDA support on top. But all that matters in the end is performance and compatibility. The HD 4000 was a bit disappointing but if Iris gets even 80-90% 650M/750M levels of performance, it would be just fine. It allocates 1GB of video memory, which is a decent amount even though it takes away from the stock 8GB RAM and you can't upgrade your own RAM. It'll draw less power so better battery life.
The 1GB of video RAM allocation isn't as bad as it sounds as I've seen mention of the GPU access non video RAM under Mavericks. It is hard to tell exactly what was beings said as I didn't have time to read the whole thread. As to RAM upgrades I have to wonder if deleting the discrete GPU would allow for RAM sockets. I would expect the first 8 or 16 GB to be soldered in but slots cold offer the ability to go to 32 GB. I'm not certain that the mobile processors support two RAM arrays though.
Quote:

The Retina Macbook Pros are far too expensive just now and if moving to Iris Pro gets them down the required $200-300, I'm all for it - Apple might even maintain their profit margins. If there was a choice between an $1899 Iris Pro and a $2199 750M, my gut reaction would be that the NVidia one would be a better buy but it's based on little more than knowing how bad Intel graphics have been in the past. If Iris works well with Adobe software, they give comparable gaming performance and don't draw glitches like the HD 4000, the benefit to the NVidia is very little.
Yeah, apparently after the early adopter rush, the people with more sense than money said NO WAY! Frankly I don't blame them at all, the retina screen isn't worth the extra dollars for many users.
Quote:
The real problem is not knowing exactly how Iris will perform with a large variety of software until having used one for a long enough period of time - Intel has a very poor multi-decade-long reputation to fix. The HD 4000 went a little way towards repairing the damage but still wasn't good enough. For manufacturers to be making gaming laptops around Iris suggests to me that it's competitive enough for them not to bother even offering NVidia or AMD.
Intels reputation is why I'm so cautious when it comes to Haswell. Each iteration of Intel GPUs has been supported by much in the way of positive press before release (reporting paid for by Intel?). Hopefully Iris stands apart from past practice of exciting the market and then disappointing the market.
Quote:
I'd be able to more easily answer if I'd prefer the next iteration of Intel graphics to NVidia or AMD after having experienced Iris Pro. The HD 4000 hasn't filled me with enough confidence to make that judgement beforehand. I'm impressed with the performance tests run on Iris so far though and I really want the rMBP prices to come down.
The problem here is that it may take some time for software to leverage the new hardware completely. Even with the extremely good OpenCL numbers it could take developers a long time to have updates ready to leverage that GPU.

As to the rMBP, Apple has no choice here, they either find a way to lower the cost or they will have to discontinue the feature. The market has spoken loudly here, Apple has basically destroyed the MBP line up by not adjusting price to reflect market realities.
Quote:
I have a feeling they'll have a better roadmap going forward than NVidia/AMD for the lower powered chips. NVidia/AMD will still be worthwhile at the 100W+ level but the difference in mobile devices won't be as important as cost and power draw.
Exactly! Intel has apparently fixed its performance issue, so the goal now is performance per watt. In this regard though I think you dismiss AMD too fast. AMD has a lot of GPU experience and BRAZOS shows that they can still beat Intel at its own game. Even AMDs other APUs aren't that bad performance per watt. AMD struggles with process technology but a move to TSMC might fix that issue. However this just supports the idea that performance per watt is just about everything to Apple.
post #58 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



Can we all collectively say "finally". I still think what will be real interesting is a process shrink allowing Intel to double the number of transistors on the chip which will hopefully happen in 2014. That means we can see either a doubling of the GPU size or maybe the current cache chip being built right into the die. Ether way for us more middle of the road users the time when discrete GPUs are required will have passed.

I think Apple in general has a lot of experience in determining what people will accept. It seems like they tend to go for something when "acceptable" is attainable within an extra generation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


The 1GB of video RAM allocation isn't as bad as it sounds as I've seen mention of the GPU access non video RAM under Mavericks. It is hard to tell exactly what was beings said as I didn't have time to read the whole thread. As to RAM upgrades I have to wonder if deleting the discrete GPU would allow for RAM sockets. I would expect the first 8 or 16 GB to be soldered in but slots cold offer the ability to go to 32 GB. I'm not certain that the mobile processors support two RAM arrays though.

I am doubtful on that one. The rmbp switched to pentalobe screws at the bottom. The bottom shell itself uses Apple's choice of anti-tamper screws. That isn't really a positive sign. The choice to go with soldered seems like it was a matter of height and viewing upgradable ram as a low priority. You would need 2 additional sodimms to get to 32GB, probably until DDR4. Apple has never gone with 4 installable in a notebook. If I recall correctly the really old imacs were limited to 2. I'm not so much arguing what they could do, more over past prioritization.

 

Quote:

Yeah, apparently after the early adopter rush, the people with more sense than money said NO WAY! Frankly I don't blame them at all, the retina screen isn't worth the extra dollars for many users.

IPS in a notebook in general has been kind of a niche market thing. A few oems have tried it, as there is some amount of desire for a really nice display while mobile. Even the rmbp is nowhere near the quality you can get in a good desktop display. Of course those can be quite expensive depending on your demands. I'm not familiar with all of the engineering problems that might arise trying to build to the space and power restrictions of a notebook.

post #59 of 132
Yes, Apple using the school market to unload inventory like they did with Touches few years back.
post #60 of 132

Very disappointing. Not worthy of the PRO designation.

post #61 of 132

The hardware gap between the proposed Macbook Pro, LOL and what is offered outside the Mac eco system is just too big. I would love to buy a 17 inch MBP

with 32 gb ram, a nvidia 780m, a TB SSD, a blu ray burner, a couple of Thunderbolt and Firewire ports with USB 3, and a 6 CORE Intel chip. Audio visual pros would go crazy for something like that.

post #62 of 132
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post
The hardware gap between the proposed Macbook Pro, LOL and what is offered outside the Mac eco system is just too big. I would love to buy a 17 inch MBP

with 32 gb ram, a nvidia 780m, a TB SSD, a blu ray burner, a couple of Thunderbolt and Firewire ports with USB 3, and a 6 CORE Intel chip. Audio visual pros would go crazy for something like that.

 

Apple cares about selling computers people would actually want, though.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #63 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I think Apple in general has a lot of experience in determining what people will accept. It seems like they tend to go for something when "acceptable" is attainable within an extra generation.
As much as I've wanted discrete GPUs, in things like the Mini in the past, I know that need for middle of the road users is quickly going away. I'm actually hoping that Haswell works out well and that many people will be surprised by its performance. If not next year should leave mst users with little desire for a discrete GPU.
Quote:
I am doubtful on that one. The rmbp switched to pentalobe screws at the bottom. The bottom shell itself uses Apple's choice of anti-tamper screws. That isn't really a positive sign.
I've never really thought of those screws as anti tamper. If they wanted zero access to the internals they wold use something besides a screw.
Quote:
The choice to go with soldered seems like it was a matter of height and viewing upgradable ram as a low priority. You would need 2 additional sodimms to get to 32GB, probably until DDR4. Apple has never gone with 4 installable in a notebook. If I recall correctly the really old imacs were limited to 2. I'm not so much arguing what they could do, more over past prioritization.
Honestly I'm not even sure if Intel note book line even supports two separate banks of memory. However considering Apples notebook lineup and the customer base, the 15" MBP should have a memory expansion option. In this case I'm thinking two installable DIMMs and a separate bank soldered in at the factory.
Quote:
IPS in a notebook in general has been kind of a niche market thing. A few oems have tried it, as there is some amount of desire for a really nice display while mobile. Even the rmbp is nowhere near the quality you can get in a good desktop display. Of course those can be quite expensive depending on your demands. I'm not familiar with all of the engineering problems that might arise trying to build to the space and power restrictions of a notebook.
The thing is this, if the discrete GPU is dropped in the MBP then it frees up space for something. What that something is, is unknown at this time. It could be space for DIMMs, more battery space or something else. The addition of battery capacity might allow them to be more flexible with display technology. There is an obvious limit to what one can do with a display in a notebook but technology is marching forward. It will be interesting to see what screen technology goes into the next rev.
post #64 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

The hardware gap between the proposed Macbook Pro, LOL and what is offered outside the Mac eco system is just too big.
There is a big difference between what is proposed and what actually ships.
Quote:
I would love to buy a 17 inch MBP
Who knows maybe Apple will see the error of their ways. I think the market rejection of the retina model ought to be a wake up call for Apple so maybe they will rethink the 17". Frankly over the last couple of years before its discontinuation the 17" suffered from the same neglects as the Mac Pro.
Quote:
with 32 gb ram, a nvidia 780m, a TB SSD, a blu ray burner, a couple of Thunderbolt and Firewire ports with USB 3, and a 6 CORE Intel chip. Audio visual pros would go crazy for something like that.
That won't happen this year anyways. Mainly because Intels six core solutions are way too hot. Beyond that you want your SSD to be on the PCI Express bus internally.
post #65 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I think the market rejection of the retina model ought to be a wake up call for Apple so maybe they will rethink the 17".

The market hasn't rejected the Retina model for any other reason than it being too expensive and the solution to that won't be anything that costs $2500+. They need to get prices down at the entry level. They already dropped prices once but it'll need to get close to the old one. Part of the price hike was the move to SSD and this also comes with a dramatic drop in storage, which is difficult for some to migrate to as there's no other storage in there. Over the years, people have been building up to an entry level of 500GB and now it not only starts at 128GB but it's also more expensive. To get a 512GB Retina from Apple costs $700 more than the old model. If they manage to get the entry Retina down to $1299, that makes the difference $500 but it's still a big difference. Once SSD prices drop by half again in 2-3 years, it'll be much easier to deal with and they'll have DDR4 too so the 13" should get a 16GB option and the 15" may get a 32GB option.
post #66 of 132
The MacBook Pro really fell into place once the unibody design came out and the retina will fall into place in a year or two. They are on the right track with the Haswell, will get better with Broadwell, and then get even better with Skymont in terms of the whole works; price, power, and graphics.
post #67 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


The market hasn't rejected the Retina model for any other reason than it being too expensive and the solution to that won't be anything that costs $2500+. They need to get prices down at the entry level. They already dropped prices once but it'll need to get close to the old one. Part of the price hike was the move to SSD and this also comes with a dramatic drop in storage, which is difficult for some to migrate to as there's no other storage in there. Over the years, people have been building up to an entry level of 500GB and now it not only starts at 128GB but it's also more expensive. To get a 512GB Retina from Apple costs $700 more than the old model. If they manage to get the entry Retina down to $1299, that makes the difference $500 but it's still a big difference. Once SSD prices drop by half again in 2-3 years, it'll be much easier to deal with and they'll have DDR4 too so the 13" should get a 16GB option and the 15" may get a 32GB option.

 

I agree, i think it's the price that's stopping people from considering the 15 rMBP, I've had many conversations with people, rMBP is the machine on the top of their lists, if it didn't have such a price, I bought one anyways, but the amount of people that sound envious is pretty random, people lust over it, non mac people too, it all comes back to the price. 

I knew a guy that almost got one, he spec'd it up (on the apple site), then decided to look for a PC clone, he found one with kinda similar 'specs' slightly lower price, I shook my head.
The PC didn't have an IPS display & poor build quality, thats what passes for a high end PC...

post #68 of 132

By "people" you mean you. People have different needs, obviously. Audio visual pros who travel need as much power as possible. Interesting to note that when Apple stopped selling the big boy 17 incher sales of Macs declined for the first time in a decade. From a practical standpoint there isn't much difference between a macbook air and the current so called "pro" model, and that is a shame.

post #69 of 132
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post
Interesting to note that when Apple stopped selling the big boy 17 incher sales of Macs declined for the first time in a decade.

 

Interesting to note that they also weren't selling a little thing called the iMac at all during that quarter. the 17" was discontinued due to lack of sales. You cannot possibly claim it was responsible for lesser sales.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #70 of 132
If you want a continuation of the 17" MacBook Pro, buy a Razer Blade Pro. The 17" MacBook Pro was just the 15" MacBook Pro with a larger screen. While it should have more power, it never did have more power.
post #71 of 132

Like many others in LA, I am still dependent on Pro Tools Avid system and the hundreds of plugins developed ON THE MAC. Pro Tools on Windows is not the standard for professionals as almost every high end studio has Apple. 

post #72 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

Like many others in LA, I am still dependent on Pro Tools Avid system and the hundreds of plugins developed ON THE MAC. Pro Tools on Windows is not the standard for professionals as almost every high end studio has Apple. 

It's unfortunate for you because it seems their highest end notebook from here on out is the 15" rMBP. Maybe they'll square it all together and make you partially happy so you don't have to rely on old hardware.
post #73 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Interesting to note that they also weren't selling a little thing called the iMac at all during that quarter. the 17" was discontinued due to lack of sales. You cannot possibly claim it was responsible for lesser sales.

Of course you can.  It was selling some, sales weren't zero.  If in cancelling the 17" MBP Apple drove those customers to 17" PC laptops instead of 15" MBPs (or other Apple whatevers) then (all other things being equal) sales would have fallen.  And it's inevitable that [i]some[/i] of those customers would have gone the PC route.  

 

Maybe the loss in numbers isn't significant to Apple, and maybe the numbers don't make 17" MBP a worthwhile business proposition, but those particular numbers will have fallen nevertheless.  How big a proportion they made of the overall fall in sales is a matter of speculation in lieu of specifics.  You cannot possibly claim otherwise, it simply doesn't make sense.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #74 of 132
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Of course you can.  It was selling some, sales weren't zero.

 

His premise is false, however.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #75 of 132

An observation is not a premise.  His observation is correct.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #76 of 132
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
An observation is not a premise.  His observation is correct.

 

"Apple discontinued the 17" MacBook Pro and sales declined." The implication being that sales declined because of the discontinuation of the MacBook Pro and nothing else.

 

No, sorry. Just completely wrong.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #77 of 132
Hope for 9/10 or not? Only the iPhone would make it a short event, no?
post #78 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Interesting to note that they also weren't selling a little thing called the iMac at all during that quarter. the 17" was discontinued due to lack of sales. You cannot possibly claim it was responsible for lesser sales.

I'm still a little shocked that they took the imac off the market that long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


As much as I've wanted discrete GPUs, in things like the Mini in the past, I know that need for middle of the road users is quickly going away. I'm actually hoping that Haswell works out well and that many people will be surprised by its performance. If not next year should leave mst users with little desire for a discrete GPU.
 

 

I usually look one generation past their major changes. Intel has another die shrink after that. If Apple is switching now, that is probably the interesting one. For lighter users any gpu works as long as it is stable and reasonably free of glitches. I feel that point is often overlooked.

 

Quote:
I've never really thought of those screws as anti tamper. If they wanted zero access to the internals they wold use something besides a screw.

They have used them internally in the past. There are always parts that are considered user serviceable and those that aren't. When you begin to approach those that are not considered user serviceable, they switch to screw types that are not what you would find in a typical toolbox or set of micro screwdrivers. Generally I would return a machine to stock configuration if I needed warranty service anyway.

 

 

 

Quote:
Honestly I'm not even sure if Intel note book line even supports two separate banks of memory. However considering Apples notebook lineup and the customer base, the 15" MBP should have a memory expansion option. In this case I'm thinking two installable DIMMs and a separate bank soldered in at the factory.

I'm not sure what you mean by that first line. There are notebooks that support 4 sodimms.

 

 

Quote:

The thing is this, if the discrete GPU is dropped in the MBP then it frees up space for something. What that something is, is unknown at this time. It could be space for DIMMs, more battery space or something else. The addition of battery capacity might allow them to be more flexible with display technology. There is an obvious limit to what one can do with a display in a notebook but technology is marching forward. It will be interesting to see what screen technology goes into the next rev.

 

Regarding display technology, I was more interested by the use of IPS and efforts to improve the rendering of text and graphics more than the bump in resolution. The high resolution 15" and the 17" at 1920x1200 both provided reasonable sharpness. Areas that I felt could improve were viewing angles and overall rendering, especially gamma. The resolution wasn't anything terribly low, but there is room for notebook display improvement. I suspect if they drop the dGPU, it will go to battery capacity. It would alleviate graphics switching bugs and issues like the 2011 underpowered power brick. I'm not personally hung up on discrete gpus in notebooks as long as intel drivers are stable. I've been over that before. As of today, there's still an immense difference between the gpus that can be implemented in a notebook and the top offerings from NVidia and AMD. Starting in the the mobile segment, it will just be another element gradually absorbed into the cpu package. It's not like this hasn't happened before. Notebooks overall have to offer some kind of value. Right now the rmbp in my opinion doesn't offer that. You can't really cushion the price by upgrading storage or ram later, so the amount required to configure to taste may not represent a good value for everyone.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


The market hasn't rejected the Retina model for any other reason than it being too expensive and the solution to that won't be anything that costs $2500+. They need to get prices down at the entry level. They already dropped prices once but it'll need to get close to the old one. Part of the price hike was the move to SSD and this also comes with a dramatic drop in storage, which is difficult for some to migrate to as there's no other storage in there. Over the years, people have been building up to an entry level of 500GB and now it not only starts at 128GB but it's also more expensive. To get a 512GB Retina from Apple costs $700 more than the old model. If they manage to get the entry Retina down to $1299, that makes the difference $500 but it's still a big difference. Once SSD prices drop by half again in 2-3 years, it'll be much easier to deal with and they'll have DDR4 too so the 13" should get a 16GB option and the 15" may get a 32GB option.

That will definitely be in the DDR4 era. Some dimm types do have 16GB sticks available today, but I don't foresee that happening with sodimms. That market is adequately covered by  the mobile workstation types that allow for 4 sodimms in a given notebook. Chasing a market like that would be divergent from Apple's past strategy.

post #79 of 132
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
I'm still a little shocked that they took the imac off the market that long.

 

I am glad that such a grievous error was 1. made (and recognized) early in the tenure of Tim Cook and his team and 2. concerning such a relatively safe part of the company, such as not to cause huge upheaval.

 

Since they've publicly regretted it, I'm confident it won't happen again.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #80 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I am glad that such a grievous error was 1. made (and recognized) early in the tenure of Tim Cook and his team and 2. concerning such a relatively safe part of the company, such as not to cause huge upheaval.

 

Since they've publicly regretted it, I'm confident it won't happen again.


I definitely don't think they'll do that again. I suspect they initially planned to have at least the 21" models shipping right after that announcement. Personally I thought they would delay any major design changes by a generation if they were running that far behind. My predictions are often wrong, but I usually just make them tangential to cumulative behavior over the past 3 year~ span. It's just speculation on my part. They have been more aggressive than I expected on some things.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Haswell-based MacBook Pros expected to ship in September - report