or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's updated 15" MacBook Pro features Intel Crystalwell graphics, starts at $1999
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's updated 15" MacBook Pro features Intel Crystalwell graphics, starts at $1999 - Page 2

post #41 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post


Ah, so you are talking about the old glossy screen. Yes, they were awful. But you should seariously listen when people say the new anti reflective coating works. I'm sitting in from of my 27" iMac with the sun hitting the wall behind me, and I cant even see it.

 

Good to know. Sounds like that's one thing about the new rMBP that I won't hate :) Sounds like you all are implying the new glossy screen is better than the old matte screen? Best of both worlds, so-to-speak?

 

I still wish it used proper memory and laptop form-factor drives. a couple mm of thickness means nothing in comparison to being user serviceable!

post #42 of 71
With a glossy screen it's at least conceivable you could find some orientation so that the specular reflections will be minimized. With a matte screen, the light from the general environment will be diffused over the whole screen and obscure the image, which is already obscured by the matte finish.

Remember for graphics work you used to have to sit in a completely darkened room, wearing black clothes, and work at a $10,000 monitor, being run by a $10,000 computer. The old-timers made so much money doing that that they could buy beach houses, and now complain that they can't do the same work on a $1200 laptop sitting on their decks....
post #43 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

Remember for graphics work you used to have to sit in a completely darkened room, wearing black clothes, and work at a $10,000 monitor, being run by a $10,000 computer. The old-timers made so much money doing that that they could buy beach houses, and now complain that they can't do the same work on a $1200 laptop sitting on their decks....

 

LOL - I resemble that remark, only I write code for a living. As long as I can see my source, I guess I'm happy. And I'll be happier if the occasional Final Cut Express and Aperture editing I do is still doable.

 

In other words, I'll shut up now and reserve judgement on the screen until I see one. I've spent plenty of time inside the Apple Store, but I admit I haven't looked closely at the displays since I've not been shopping for a new computer lately. I stand by my request for at least being able to upgrade the memory. Apparently there are (or will be) SSD upgrades, and the PCIe SSDs are probably not available in a standard 2.5" form factor, so perhaps there's a reason for Apple to be using blade-style storage. And as for RAM, at least Apple isn't overly gouging for it these days.

post #44 of 71

User serviceable parts are WAY overrated.  They result in designs that compromise overall fit and finish for the ability to access hdd's and ram.  Most users never upgrade their RAM or change their HDD's, they just buy a new machine.  I am pleased that Apple takes the time to build hardware that is beautiful (at least in my opinion), pushes the state of the art foward (how many other PC manufacturers do you see rethinking the way computers are built like Apple has with the MacPro?), and places a high value on the overall user experience.

 

I don't think Apple is making these design decisions just to pad their bottom line.  In fact I doubt it changes how much profit they make at all.  Besides, my Mac's have always lasted for years where as most people I know that have crappy window's laptops (laptops that are user serviceable btw) usually have to upgrade every 2-3 years because the machines just stop working all together.

 

I love Apple products for their fit and finish and am glad to see that they appear to be continuing the tradition.. just placed my order for a new one ;)

post #45 of 71
So no Thunderbolt 2 for the new MacBook Pro? Oh well at least we get faster PCIe SSD drives I suppose. Not really big changes IMHO. At least not big enough for me to switch - I guess I can keep my last gen Retina 15" for a while 1smile.gif
post #46 of 71
Originally Posted by QuadESL63 View Post
So no Thunderbolt 2 for the new MacBook Pro? 

 

Did you read?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #47 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdfergason View Post

User serviceable parts are WAY overrated.  They result in designs that compromise overall fit and finish for the ability to access hdd's and ram.  Most users never upgrade their RAM or change their HDD's, they just buy a new machine.  I am pleased that Apple takes the time to build hardware that is beautiful (at least in my opinion), pushes the state of the art foward (how many other PC manufacturers do you see rethinking the way computers are built like Apple has with the MacPro?), and places a high value on the overall user experience.

I don't think Apple is making these design decisions just to pad their bottom line.  In fact I doubt it changes how much profit they make at all.  Besides, my Mac's have always lasted for years where as most people I know that have crappy window's laptops (laptops that are user serviceable btw) usually have to upgrade every 2-3 years because the machines just stop working all together.

I love Apple products for their fit and finish and am glad to see that they appear to be continuing the tradition.. just placed my order for a new one 1wink.gif

I agree. Apple knows why they get units back under warranty, better than I do certainly, but reading the complaints on forums for years most problems sound like bad or broken connections. That's the reason for the unibody chassis, for one thing—case flex ix a big problem for laptops. Ever see people picking them up by one corner and then laying them on a desk? Creak, groan, snap!

Nobody expects any laptops other than Apple's to last more than a year or two, anyway, but they were forced to deal with this problem. Connections are the root of all evil. Until they can put everything on the same chip, soldered connections are at least better than push-in terminals that collect corrosion and dirt.

I understand the desire for expandability, but I personally will trade it for reliability and longevity.
post #48 of 71

People seemed to think i was nuts when i said i wanted the GeForce GT 750M graphics processor in the next rMBP, then look what happened :P haha. 

On the apple site, it isnt an optional upgrade, its a higher spec'd model.
Im really curious about the performance difference Vs the battery life, that could really influence someones decision. 

750M & Iris Pro VS Iris Pro.
 

post #49 of 71
I picked up a new 15" MBP with the DVD drive, anti-glare high-res (not Retina) display and memory that I can put in myself back around May. So far, from what I see of these new MBPs, I'm glad I bought when I did.

It'd be nice to have a Retina display but I'd rather have a computer that I can put in a HD or memory, a DVD drive, and an ethernet port.

And who in their right minds would want a MBP with just a cheesy integrated graphics card?
post #50 of 71
Wow, I just checked the Apple store and didn't see an option for the anti-glare display on the MBP. Is this not an option anymore or did I miss it?...
post #51 of 71

Yeah... the cheapest way to get the dGPU on a MBP is to spend $2600... Nice!

post #52 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by rune66 View Post
 

The only way this statement makes sense to me is if some half blind engineer were forced by his employer (happened to Apple) to find some technical way of measuring light that would "prove" Apples mirror screens (also the newest ones) to be as reflective as the matte ones. Fact is still if a human stands in front of these the glossy one will show you a mirror image of yourself which a matte will not. BTW feel free to upload a photo of a matte MBP that shows a mirror image of the person in front of it.

 

I think he's saying that there is a coating on the newer "glossy" screen that reduces reflections. He's showing the "newer" display on the left I suppose and a typical glossy screen on the right.

 

I cannot verify any of this as I have not used the NEW retina displays. Apple is at the forefront of experimenting with state of the art glass so it would not surprise me if they have the matt/glossy issue licked. Matt diffuses your image which is not as good for detail and reading, and glossy adds distracting reflections. So if the glass can "choose" to diffuse reflections but not what passes through it from the other side -- that's the best of both worlds.

 

Apple I think is also playing with Glass that is as impervious to damage as metal. So maybe we get all glass in the future?

post #53 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc_markt View Post

And who in their right minds would want a MBP with just a cheesy integrated graphics card?

Iris Pro and the 750M should be close in performance:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Pro-Graphics-5200.90965.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-750M.90245.0.html

Most real-time benchmarks there have negligible difference. NVidia's only real benefits are proprietary CUDA support and FXAA, their proprietary fast anti-aliasing. Having fast anti-aliasing is what leads to NVidia getting higher scores with high quality presets because they enable anti-aliasing:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7399/215inch-imac-late-2013-review-iris-pro-driving-an-accurate-display/3

Other than that, I don't even know why Apple bothered with the option. When the computer is under load, the one with the 750M will use more power and perform almost identically. The price is a slight plus though because if you spec out the lower one with 16GB, 512GB SSD and the faster CPU, it's also $2599 so the one with the 750M essentially bundles the GPU 'for free'.

Maybe this is just throwing NVidia a bone but hardly anyone is going to buy the higher model so unless NVidia/AMD come up with something amazing, I expect that dedicated GPUs will be gone from the laptops next year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc_markt 
I just checked the Apple store and didn't see an option for the anti-glare display on the MBP.

The rMBP has an anti-glare coating already. It's equivalent to the high-res, anti-glare option from before but everyone gets it and it's even higher resolution, has deeper black levels and IPS so better viewing angles and no color shifting.
post #54 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

When the computer is under load, the one with the 750M will use more power and perform almost identically.

If you check real life frame rates (not benchmarks), it seems that the 750M is between 20% and 60% faster than the Iris Pro.

 

For anyone who wants to use the GPU for more than just benchmarks I guess that the 750M is still a good option.

 

A shame that the entry price for the 750M in the MBP is $2600.

post #55 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by heffeque View Post

If you check real life frame rates (not benchmarks), it seems that the 750M is between 20% and 60% faster than the Iris Pro.

For anyone who wants to use the GPU for more than just benchmarks I guess that the 750M is still a good option.

The benchmarks in the previous tests are real life frame rates. Metro Last Light on Notebookcheck lists 34.9 medium for Iris Pro and 35 for the 750M. Here's a video on medium showing 30FPS for the 750M at a higher resolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC-AhdyAiRw

People have a hard time accepting integrated graphics and it's understandable but it'll just take time to adjust to the reality that Intel's IGPs are now competitive with dedicated mobile GPUs, especially when it comes to OpenCL performance.

If the extra RAM, SSD and CPU in the $2600 model are not required, choosing it for the 750M is a waste of money.
post #56 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post
 

Unfortunately Apple looks like they discontinued the non-retina.   Sadly, this puts me in a windows 8.1 machine now.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post
 

Why would it? From what I gather the price drop on the retina puts it in the same ballpark as the non-retina.

If its a DVD drive you're after, just get a cheap Samsung USB one or something for £15 and call it a day.

 

No, it is not in the same ballpark as the non-retina.  The price drop of the retina model from $2199 to $1999 still leaves it $200 higher than the price of the entry-level 15" MBP that it replaces.  Which means that there is no way of getting into a 15" MBP for less than nearly $2,000.   Apple should have kept the non-retina MBP around until they could bring the retina model down closer to the $1799 price point of the non-retina model it is replacing.  

 

Apple dropped the price of the 13" retina model down to where purchasing it over the non-retina model is attractive; in fact, I'd say it's a no-brainer.  Until they do the same with the 15" model, it is a deal breaker for me.

post #57 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpha10711 View Post

No, it is not in the same ballpark as the non-retina.  The price drop of the retina model from $2199 to $1999 still leaves it $200 higher than the price of the entry-level 15" MBP that it replaces.

The old one had 4GB RAM, which was $100 to go to 8GB (3rd party is slightly less).

$1799 cMBP
High-res anti-glare option $100
8GB RAM $100
256GB SSD was expensive from Apple but say $150 3rd party
Deduct $79 to buy Apple's optical and 2x $29 for the adaptors to ethernet and Thunderbolt to make it a fair comparison

= $2012 vs $1999. Looks pretty close IMO. All they've really done is not give the option to downgrade to 4GB RAM, an HDD and a low quality, low-res TN panel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpha10711 View Post

Which means that there is no way of getting into a 15" MBP for less than nearly $2,000.

There is if you get the old model while they have the stock:

http://store.apple.com/us/product/FD103LL/A/refurbished-macbook-pro-23ghz-quad-core-intel-i7

These older ones are a great deal as you get the dedicated GPU and you can upgrade the internals - it costs just $1449. If you want to, get a 3 year warranty and hold onto it until rMBPs come down in price.

The old rMBPs are discounted quite heavily too:

http://store.apple.com/us/product/FE664LL/A/refurbished-macbook-pro-23ghz-quad-core-intel-i7-with-retina-display

If you are happy with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD, that's $340 less than the new entry model with largely the same performance.
post #58 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by rune66 View Post

Argh only glossy options left for mac. My gf just had one from work. Awfull. Even in a dark room I see my own reflection. Just hope my old matte MBP will keep on working.

 

That's one of the concerns I had (although a lesser one) when I bought a new MBP in May.  What I was concerned about was if the new MBPs weren't going to have an ethernet port, a DVD drive, and memory and HDs that can be replaced or upgraded by the user. Looks like my fears came true. 

 

I think what Apple is doing is wrong. Just my two-cents.

post #59 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post
 


Why would it? From what I gather the price drop on the retina puts it in the same ballpark as the non-retina.

If its a DVD drive you're after, just get a cheap Samsung USB one or something for £15 and call it a day.

Because I need a laptop with 16GB RAM and a large drive 1TB, I can no longer choose Apple due to pricing.    A 13" with 16GB RAM and 1TB Storage is $2599 and a 15" is $3299    PLUS TAX.   I put together my 2012 MBP with 1TB 7200RPM Drive and 16GB RAM for under $2K.   Comparable Windows laptops are half the price.   I much rather have OSX but I am not paying $1K or $1.5K extra just to run it.

post #60 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post
 

Because I need a laptop with 16GB RAM and a large drive 1TB, I can no longer choose Apple due to pricing.    A 13" with 16GB RAM and 1TB Storage is $2599 and a 15" is $3299    PLUS TAX.   I put together my 2012 MBP with 1TB 7200RPM Drive and 16GB RAM for under $2K.   Comparable Windows laptops are half the price.   I much rather have OSX but I am not paying $1K or $1.5K extra just to run it.

 

What's wrong with your 2012 model that it needs replacing? If you are so concerned about the expense, I'd have thought you'd try to get a couple more years out of it. I'm still running my '09 17".

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #61 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
The benchmarks in the previous tests are real life frame rates. Metro Last Light on Notebookcheck lists 34.9 medium for Iris Pro and 35 for the 750M. Here's a video on medium showing 30FPS for the 750M at a higher resolution.

Check and see if the rest of the games are the same. Check your own links above.

post #62 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post

A 13" with 16GB RAM and 1TB Storage is $2599 and a 15" is $3299    PLUS TAX.   I put together my 2012 MBP with 1TB 7200RPM Drive and 16GB RAM for under $2K.   Comparable Windows laptops are half the price.

The 13" still has an entry model that can take 1TB and 16GB 3rd party RAM for about $1399.

The 15" would be $2199 with 16GB and then you'd need something like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Passport-Ultra-Portable-External-Backup/dp/B00E83X9P8

It's not ideal having the 2.5" storage external but it's not ideal having it internal either because it adds weight to the laptop and means opening it if it breaks. The SSD with no moving parts is much less likely to break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heffeque 
Check and see if the rest of the games are the same. Check your own links above.

Here are all the benchmarks side by side with Iris Pro on the left, 750M on the right (don't quote the image as it's long):



There's an exception here and there where the 750M performs significantly better but the levels of playability (above 30FPS) are matched in the vast majority of the games so the experience is pretty much the same. It's unlikely you'll notice an extra 7FPS in Tomb Raider when you are already running at 35FPS.

Like I said, NVidia has an advantage with their anti-aliasing on higher quality settings as it runs with very low overhead but AA doesn't matter that much to the game. If people feel like paying $600 for the 750M, that's their choice but I don't see that it's going to be worth it.

Crysis 3 is here on the iMac with Iris Pro, high quality:

post #63 of 71
Really odd pricing on the UK store, £1,563.60 for the base 15" and £2,023.20 for the high end. Similarly odd pricing on the 13", don't think I've ever seen Apple price in this way.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #64 of 71

Hey everyone, first time poster here.  Hoping to not bog down the tech talk with this, but looking for an opinion, as I'm definitely going to pick up a rMBP in the coming days/weeks.  I've been raised on Windows machines since I can remember, and this will be my first Apple computer.

 

I'm a musician/artist/whatever, and am interested in this tool to give me the best performance possible.  I want the 15" display for sure, will max out the RAM and get an external drive rather than the 1TB option, but to be honest, I know nothing about the GPU situation between the Iris and the NVIDIA.  I browsed the specs in the image above, and as I anticipate to be excited about using this machine to it's fullest extent, I'd consider a game or two for the experience, but really my needs are focused on creating music/visual art/video.

 

Anybody care to brief me on the ups and downs of the Iris vs NVIDIA in the 15"?  Or at least point me to a thread that will help me out...

 

 

What would be the best option for me?

 

 

 

Thanks!

post #65 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk8585 View Post

 

What would be the best option for me?

Without knowing what software you use, it's impossible to tell you whether the gpu would play a meaningful role or one at all beyond its basic operations within the operating system. If intel's drivers are stable, the latter concern is a non-issue. The other problem with analyzing the former is that too many people rely on benchmarks to tell them what they need. The reason that is nonsensical is that if you're specifically trying to benchmark gpu leveraged functions, it will exacerbate any difference when compared to real world use, where the difference must be applied as a percentage of the time you use such functionality. After Effects is a common example of that.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


The 13" still has an entry model that can take 1TB and 16GB 3rd party RAM for about $1399.

The 15" would be $2199 with 16GB and then you'd need something like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Passport-Ultra-Portable-External-Backup/dp/B00E83X9P8

It's not ideal having the 2.5" storage external but it's not ideal having it internal either because it adds weight to the laptop and means opening it if it breaks. The SSD with no moving parts is much less likely to break.
Here are all the benchmarks side by side with Iris Pro on the left, 750M on the right (don't quote the image as it's long):
 

The iris pro model is the one I would personally watch. While I seemingly always (almost) require maxed ram on every machine to do anything meaningful without stutters, I always disliked the graphics switching and the amount of heat produced. It'll be interesting to see intel's progression. Even then when it comes to notebooks specifically, I'm somewhat cost conscious and would wait for refurb models. It's often around a 15% discount compared to those that are sold as new.

post #66 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

Without knowing what software you use, it's impossible to tell you whether the gpu would play a meaningful role or one at all beyond its basic operations within the operating system. If intel's drivers are stable, the latter concern is a non-issue. The other problem with analyzing the former is that too many people rely on benchmarks to tell them what they need. The reason that is nonsensical is that if you're specifically trying to benchmark gpu leveraged functions, it will exacerbate any difference when compared to real world use, where the difference must be applied as a percentage of the time you use such functionality. After Effects is a common example of that.

 

The iris pro model is the one I would personally watch. While I seemingly always (almost) require maxed ram on every machine to do anything meaningful without stutters, I always disliked the graphics switching and the amount of heat produced. It'll be interesting to see intel's progression. Even then when it comes to notebooks specifically, I'm somewhat cost conscious and would wait for refurb models. It's often around a 15% discount compared to those that are sold as new.

 

 

I'd be interested in After Effects and Final Cut, maybe the Avid equivalent.  Video is something new for me, but I want the option to get into it at full speed.  Who do higher-end GPU's cater to?  Gamers mostly?  HD cinema?  All of the above?  

 

It's noteworthy that I currently do not have an HD camera for filming, but again, the option to work with it is what I'm looking for, as like anyone else, I want this machine to last me a good while.

post #67 of 71

maybe a more accurate response is that i'm not sure what i'll be running yet, but am looking for the pros and cons of each gpu to help me decide what might be best for me?

post #68 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk8585 View Post
 

maybe a more accurate response is that i'm not sure what i'll be running yet, but am looking for the pros and cons of each gpu to help me decide what might be best for me?

If gpu performance was your highest priority, a notebook would not be the most effective route.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk8585 View Post
 

 

 

I'd be interested in After Effects and Final Cut, maybe the Avid equivalent.  Video is something new for me, but I want the option to get into it at full speed.  Who do higher-end GPU's cater to?  Gamers mostly?  HD cinema?  All of the above?  

 

It's noteworthy that I currently do not have an HD camera for filming, but again, the option to work with it is what I'm looking for, as like anyone else, I want this machine to last me a good while.

 

Ehh..... I don't know what to suggest right now. Whether something lasts depends upon changes in demands. I can tell you that both options are still slower than desktop cards from 2010, so take that under consideration. Some features in after effects require cuda. Read to find out whether they matter to you. If they do, you need an NVidia card. The raytracer is painfully slow on cpu calculations. There are other raytracers out there, but they don't directly plug into after effects. What gpus cater to depends on the gpu. On OSX a lot of software vendors validate a pretty broad range of hardware whereas on Windows (only important if you use bootcamp) they'll often validate only workstation hardware. This isn't so much the case with Adobe. It's more like Autodesk, CATIA, etc. On OSX they cater to any application that is frequently performance bound that leverages OpenCL, OpenGL, or in the case of some software, CUDA. As mentioned CUDA only works with NVidia, and all of this depends upon software and how it's used. Software depends a lot on how you use it. In the case of After Effects, it only bogs down with a lot of layers. It does eat up lots of ram, as during rendering it tends to allocate per core. It's used in Premiere as well. I don't know the full details of how FCPX makes use of OpenCL or whether there is an appreciable difference between one card and another. Sometimes the only thing that is important is that it supports whatever version of OpenCL or CUDA. The reason for this is that massively parallel computation is slowly becoming the domain of the gpu whenever the amount of memory is a non-issue.

 

I will add not to purchase something on theoretical needs. You can't guarantee the machine will last forever simply because you spent a little extra. Any upgrades above stock are basically wasted unless you know why you are purchasing them. People make this same mistake all the time. The other fallacy is that computers are getting much faster every year and a 3 year old computer will feel like sludge. It's not really the case anymore. Most of the performance is on the gpu end, and many people will not perceive a difference from year to year changes.

 

If I was unsure, I would go very conservative on spending. Ideally go for a refurbished unit. If you find your needs differ later and have to upgrade with the next cycle, you'll be buying based on your needs. All machines do depreciate, but bleeding edge ones are the worst. Storage prices come down and integrated graphics slowly catch up to the performance of mid range mobile graphics. If you wanted the fastest possible gpu, I would say buy a used 2010 mac pro cheap (under $1000) and get a 680 or something like that.

post #69 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Really odd pricing on the UK store, £1,563.60 for the base 15" and £2,023.20 for the high end. Similarly odd pricing on the 13", don't think I've ever seen Apple price in this way.

It's odd that they wouldn't round the educational models to whole figures at least. Maybe they have a new method of changing prices with the exchange rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk8585 
Anybody care to brief me on the ups and downs of the Iris vs NVIDIA in the 15"? Or at least point me to a thread that will help me out...

What would be the best option for me?

If you were going for a model with the upgraded 2.3GHz CPU, 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD, it costs the same with or without the NVidia GPU so it would probably be best in that case to get it with one as you can disable it if you don't want it to drain the battery quicker or generate more heat.

If you only need the 16GB of RAM for $2199, the extra $400 just for the 750M is excessive. When it comes to video apps, if they use OpenCL, Iris Pro would be faster anyway. There are things that are CUDA-only but you'd have to check if there were any functions you'd rely on. NVidia showcases some software here:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/media-and-entertainment.html

but they mention things like Speedgrade and more and more apps are moving towards OpenCL:

http://fireuser.com/blog/adobe_premiere_pro_speedgrade_and_media_encoder_get_more_opencl_amd_firepro/

OpenCL is the best solution to use because it doesn't even require a GPU. OpenCL on the CPU alone has given developers as much as 2x performance increase.
post #70 of 71
thanks for the input, guys. I'm interested in maxing out the CPU, so I'll be going for the NVIDIA option, especially if there is an option to disable it and run the iris pro.
post #71 of 71

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk8585 View Post

thanks for the input, guys. I'm interested in maxing out the CPU, so I'll be going for the NVIDIA option, especially if there is an option to disable it and run the iris pro.

Well it's your money, but those cpus are not much different in real world use. The biggest X86 gains at the moment are always in the form of increased core counts. As Marvin points out, CTO upgrades always carry a higher markup.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's updated 15" MacBook Pro features Intel Crystalwell graphics, starts at $1999