or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new MacBook Pros get 65% graphics performance boost from Intel's Iris
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's new MacBook Pros get 65% graphics performance boost from Intel's Iris - Page 2

post #41 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzTerri View Post

Only way to use ethernet is on the one and only Thunderbolt connector. Same thing with Firewire. Same thing with an external display so if you want to use more than one of things you will need to be a Thunderbolt hub plus all the adapters.

You could always just get apples Thunderbolt Display which will consume one of the 2 thunderbolt ports on the MBP and provides USB ports, another thunderbolt port , FireWire and gigabit Ethernet on the back of it.... Granted the USB ports are only USB 2 at the moment but I suspect we'll be seeing some new and updated apple display options around the Mac Pro release which should bring USB 3 and 4k options

There are also lots of options for Ethernet via one of the USB ports for a lot less than apples thunderbolt Ethernet adapter...
post #42 of 100
The rMBP will unfortunately (I don't think) be as powerful graphics wise as the 27" iMac. I like that they went with 2 GB in the 750M which they should have done last year with 650M. To me their biggest competitor is the Razer Blade Pro (as I feel the regular 14" Razer Blade is too small and the fact of it having a 1600x900 resolution is not enough) with 765M (2 GB) and maybe there are a few other gaming notebooks with similar or better build quality.

Do they go above the x50M mark with Maxwell or whatever they use with AMD? That remains to be seen. I wonder what exactly they can fit in there. I haven't used a laptop in a few years now since I had a netbook so I can't speak for that with regards to pro graphics.

You can either have thin and beauty without the max graphics or you can have an Alienware where you get the graphics but it's bulky.
post #43 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post

More specifically they have Thunderbolt 2 ports which will allow them to drive 4K external displays. This is something no other shipping Mac has so far and, at least to me, the obvious reason why the MBPs did not ship earlier with Haswell despite some people complaining.

I just noticed that despite having TB2 Apple doesn't mention 4K display support for the MBPs; only for the Mac Pro.
post #44 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post

I just noticed that despite having TB2 Apple doesn't mention 4K display support for the MBPs; only for the Mac Pro.

Probably because they want to sell the fact that the retina screen is already good enough so why have a monitor perhaps?
post #45 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Probably because they want to sell the fact that the retina screen is already good enough so why have a monitor perhaps?

I like that hypothesis better than the GPUs in the MBPs aren't adequate for 4K monitors.
post #46 of 100

What's really funny is that these Iris Pro Graphics are much higher performance than the discrete graphics that shipped with MBP only 2 years ago...yet the complaints continue as people lack any understanding of anything other than integrated = bad, discrete = good.

 

What is glossed over far too much with the MBP is the lack of CPU performance in the 13" model. IMHO, for what a 13" MBP costs - from base model on up to top end - performance/$ ratio is pathetic.

 

I find it ridiculous that my early 2011 Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro w/ 2.0 quad core i7 is still ridiculously faster than the most recently released 13" MBP.

 

But Apple's attitude is to ship meager performance for entry-level professionals, and extort those who need real performance. They know the 15" is simply not irresistible because of its size....most people can get by on 13"....its a good size. Especially with a Retina Display...so they are forced to differentiate on performance to drive any adoption of the more expensive 15". Apple wants to sell 15", not 13" They make a small fortune on every 15" MBP.

 

So while the 13" is enough size for me, and is definitely what I consider to be my price range to even consider a new Mac....I can't get one....because they are too damn slow for my needs.

 

What a shame.


Edited by pmz - 10/27/13 at 9:04pm
post #47 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


I like that hypothesis better than the GPUs in the MBPs aren't adequate for 4K monitors.

Well....that's simply preposterous....so....NOT a hypothesis at all.

post #48 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

What's really funny is that these Iris Pro Graphics are much higher performance than the discrete graphics that shipped with MBP only 2 years ago...yet the complaints continue as people lack any understanding of anything other than integrated = bad, discrete = good.

What is glossed over far too much with the MBP is the lack of CPU performance in the 13" model. IMHO, for what a 13" MBP costs - from base model on up to top end - performance/$ ratio is pathetic.

I find it ridiculous that my early 2011 Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro w/ 2.0 quad core i7 is still ridiculously faster than the most recently released 13" MBP.

But Apple's attitude is to ship meager performance for entry-level professionals, and extort those who need real performance. They know the 15" is simply not irresistible because of its size....most people can get by on 13"....its a good size. Especially with a Retina Display...so they are forced to differentiate on performance to drive any adoption of the more expensive 15". Apple wants to sell 15", not 13" They make a small fortune on every 15" MBP.

So while the 13" is enough size for me, and is definitely what I consider to be my price range to even consider a new Mac....I can't get one....because they are too damn slow for my needs.

What a shame.

The i7-2635QM (2.0 GHz Sandy Bridge) was only available on the 15" MBP though. Where I think Apple did go wrong this year is by dropping the price of the 13" rMBP only to offer 4 GB of memory and a 128 GB SSD (even if it is PCIe) by default. I also think the model last year should have either been done away with or dropped to $999. I think $1,299 or even $1,199 would be fine for 8 GB of memory and 256 GB of storage.

I do ask, are the dual-core low voltage processors with Iris graphics (i5-4258U, i5-4288U, and i7-4558U) really that bad? I think they're pretty good for most users. Maybe I'm wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Well....that's simply preposterous....so....NOT a hypothesis at all.

I will not go out and say I'm right but 4K is not sought after by the majority right now for a variety of reasons but mainly cost so the retina screens on these notebooks are more than adequate.
post #49 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Well....that's simply preposterous....so....NOT a hypothesis at all.

Being preposterous in no way prevents an idea from being a hypothesis, and frankly at this point I've seen no evidence that would suggest Winter's comment is absurd.

If they aren't ignoring 4K display support for the new MBPs with TB2 but are advertising it for the Mac Pro then what other hypothesis do you propose? That it can't run because of a technical reason? I'd like to think (hope) that Iris can adequately power a 4K display on the new MBPs but I until we see sufficient testing (or word from Apple) all we have are untested hypotheseses.
post #50 of 100
Right now 4K monitors (the good ones from Asus and Viewsonic for example) are over $3,000. For someone who is already getting a 13" MBP, I don't think it is in their budget though I do not mean to underestimate people. Also if you are considering a 4K monitor you may want to go above Iris to either the 15" rMBP with Iris Pro or the Iris Pro and 750M or better yet the Mac Pro. In fact those who are using a 4K monitor, I would say go for the Mac Pro for the best possible experience. If you have the cash, stock up on the best performance possible and don't settle for what might be able to get the job done.

Iris is good, no doubt and Iris Pro is even better especially from the HD 4000 and even more from the HD 3000 in my 2011 Mac mini. The thing is, I am not going to pay the price of a MacBook Pro to get the performance of Iris let alone Iris Pro. I am only willing to pay the price of a mini which for Iris should be less than $800 in my view. $599 would be ideal if they go the route of 4 GB of memory and 128 GB of storage but they will probably up it to $699.

If they do not use Iris graphics and go for the HD 4600 with a dual core processor, I am not even interested unless they were to go to possibly $499.
post #51 of 100
Honestly, this is a big "who cares?"

There are no "gaming laptops" out there that are legitimately useable for gaming. It used to be because the GPU power or CPU power was pathetic, now it's because the cooling is.

Please, seriously, do not buy ANY laptop if you intend to play games longer than an hour.

The MacMini (2012 model) with the Ivy Bridge, is dead silent until you try to play a game. Then it makes some pretty horrible noise, and can get maybe 30fps out of a 6 year old game. Maybe in 6 more years Intel will release a part that is feature parity with mid-range cards, but so far they're only feature parity for low-end cards, and not even at a level that is really useable without turning all graphical detail settings off. I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather play the game at 30fps with all the details on, and I can't find a game that works good enough to do this. Maybe some Japanese and Korean Freemium games have old enough engines to do this (freemium games often work on 10 year old systems because they're designed to be played on the lemons that are sold as laptops.)

Here's what you do, grab the benchmark program for http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/benchmark/download/ , stick it on a USB drive and then run it on the store demos at bestbuy. You'll probably find that none of them are playable. The onboard graphics on Intel's high-end desktop haswell parts can't run the game at 30fps even with most of the graphic settings off.
post #52 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


The i7-2635QM (2.0 GHz Sandy Bridge) was only available on the 15" MBP though.

 

Yes, that's what I have. My point was how miffed I am that both A) dual-core versions of the latest Intel have not caught up to Sandy Bridge quad-core performance, and B) Apple hasn't even offered quad-core options on the 13". They make it so that I can't get a 13" because there are no acceptable performance options for that size model. My 2.5 year old base model 15" is much faster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


I do ask, are the dual-core low voltage processors with Iris graphics (i5-4258U, i5-4288U, and i7-4558U) really that bad? I think they're pretty good for most users. Maybe I'm wrong?

They're probably great. Like I was saying, I'm pretty sure they would be equal or better than the discrete card in my 2.5 year old 15". 

I have no problem having Integrated-only if it performs on the level of what I have now. I have a AMD Radeon HD 6750M 1 GB VRAM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


I will not go out and say I'm right but 4K is not sought after by the majority right now for a variety of reasons but mainly cost so the retina screens on these notebooks are more than adequate.

I'd be very surprised if they couldn't.

post #53 of 100
I don't think the idea is for the dual-core processors to catch up to the quad-core processors in a sheer raw power sense though again I could be wrong. I believe graphics however are a different story and that Intel is going from laughable to mediocre to dare I say solid B class while still preserving battery life.
post #54 of 100

This article is about MacBook Pro's and as such, the story should be about why it doesn't come with a discrete and more powerful video card instead of whooping up the integrated graphics.

 

Integrated graphics suck suck and suck. 

post #55 of 100
Originally Posted by sc_markt View Post
This article is about MacBook Pro's and as such, the story should be about why it doesn't come with a discrete and more powerful video card instead of whooping up the integrated graphics.

 

Integrated graphics suck suck and suck. 

 

Stop.

 

Originally Posted by pmz View Post
What's really funny is that these Iris Pro Graphics are much higher performance than the discrete graphics that shipped with MBP only 2 years ago...yet the complaints continue as people lack any understanding of anything other than integrated = bad, discrete = good.
post #56 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post
 

What's really funny is that these Iris Pro Graphics are much higher performance than the discrete graphics that shipped with MBP only 2 years ago...yet the complaints continue as people lack any understanding of anything other than integrated = bad, discrete = good.

 

What is not funny that Apple tries to sell people very expensive laptops in the year 2013 that have Iris Pro Graphics that are at the same level as some middle-end laptop GPUs sold in 2011...

post #57 of 100
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

What is not funny that Apple tries to sell people very expensive laptops in the year 2013 that have Iris Pro Graphics that are at the same level as some middle-end laptop GPUs sold in 2011...

 

It’s almost as though you’re completely missing something, isn’t it?

post #58 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

It’s almost as though you’re completely missing something, isn’t it?

 

Yes, if I bought a sub $2.500 MacBook Pro late 2013 I'd be completely missing a discrete graphics chip and thus a lot of fps... It's funny that I can get dual NVidia GPUs in a non-Apple laptop for less than $1.500... And a quad-core i7 as well.

post #59 of 100
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

It's funny that I can get dual NVidia GPUs in a non-Apple laptop for less than $1.500... And a quad-core i7 as well.

 

Enjoy Windows… and that build quality.

post #60 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Enjoy Windows… and that build quality.

 

Ever heard of Hackintosh? :) Works quite nicely, thank you...

post #61 of 100
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

Works quite nicely, thank you...

 

Not for any actual work, it doesn’t. If you’re really a professional, you’d buy the real thing instead of pretending a hack job can get anything done.

 

And good luck with OS X on a laptop.

post #62 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Not for any actual work, it doesn’t. If you’re really a professional, you’d buy the real thing instead of pretending a hack job can get anything done.

 

And good luck with OS X on a laptop.

 

LOL, you have no idea what you are talking about. I've built a pretty sweet desktop, for example, for a fraction of cost what Apple charges for its MacPros, have OS X 10.8.6 instelled on it, and have been making software for OS X with it for quite a while. XCode works on it, App Store works, app submissions work, everything just works. And it's pretty fast, too. For a fraction of the cost of a real MacPro.

post #63 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

Ever heard of Hackintosh? 1smile.gif Works quite nicely, thank you...

HAHA you must not be much of a professional.
post #64 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

LOL, you have no idea what you are talking about. I've built a pretty sweet desktop, for example, for a fraction of cost what Apple charges for its MacPros, have OS X 10.8.6 instelled on it, and have been making software for OS X with it for quite a while. XCode works on it, App Store works, app submissions work, everything just works. And it's pretty fast, too. For a fraction of the cost of a real MacPro.

Sure, it can be done, he didn't say otherwise, but you still don't have a Mac or rather the qualities of a Mac that aren't possible with the DIY crowd and rarely seen with the big name vendors.
Edited by akqies - 10/29/13 at 9:03am
post #65 of 100
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

Ive built a pretty sweet desktop

 

Totally righteous, dude.

 
…for a fraction of cost what Apple charges for its MacPros…

 

And a fraction of the processing power, a fraction of the quality, and a fraction of the experience. Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your trash.

post #66 of 100

The only thing that holds me back from getting a base model 15" for $1999 is the RAM. I've been using 16 GB of RAM in my MBP for a while, and there is world of difference during the work day between 16 and 8. Anyone that tells you there isn't much difference doesn't use many apps or do any real work at all. Period. The difference is astonishing to say the least.

 

And it kills to me to think I'd have to spend an extra $200 to get 8 more GB of RAM. Grotesque.

 

And in the end, I'd still have a 256 GB SSD as I do now. I'd really love to go up to 512 GB for my next MBP....but I don't think I can justify the cost.

 

May have to keep the 2011 model a little longer.

post #67 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Totally righteous, dude.

 

And a fraction of the processing power, a fraction of the quality, and a fraction of the experience. Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your trash.

 

Guess how low quality my quad-core Intel i7-4770k @ 3.5GHz is compared with upcoming MacPro's 3.7GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon E5 processor? It's Intel versus Intel. Apple uses mostly ordinary off-the-shelf parts for their computers. "Fraction of Experience"? Sheesh.

post #68 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


Sure, it can be done, he didn't say otherwise, but you still don't have a Mac or rather the qualities of a Mac that aren't possible with the DIY crowd and rarely seen with the big name vendors.

 

I keep my computers under the desk. Anybody visiting my office will think I have a real Mac when they see my 27" 2560x1600 screen, even though it's not made by Apple, but it shows the OS X desktop... Don't really care about the plastic the chips are wrapped into.

post #69 of 100
Guess how low quality my quad-core Intel i7-4770k @ 3.5GHz is compared with upcoming MacPro's 3.7GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon E5 processor?

 

Considerably. 

 

And because you won’t understand the answer, it’s to be read “considerably low quality”. Look at the parts, for heaven’s sake. They’re not comparable. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you’d know that already.

post #70 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 
And because you won’t understand the answer, it’s to be read “considerably low quality”. Look at the parts, for heaven’s sake. They’re not comparable. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you’d know that already.

 

Oh my Intel i7-4770k is of so much lower quality than the upcoming Intel Xeon also-a-quad-core in the upcoming MacPro that it makes me weep especially when I look at the $1.500 I saved by building this computer myself LOL. Did I mention that I have over twice the RAM and it's faster, and plenty more GPU power?

post #71 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

The only thing that holds me back from getting a base model 15" for $1999 is the RAM. I've been using 16 GB of RAM in my MBP for a while, and there is world of difference during the work day between 16 and 8. Anyone that tells you there isn't much difference doesn't use many apps or do any real work at all. Period. The difference is astonishing to say the least.

And it kills to me to think I'd have to spend an extra $200 to get 8 more GB of RAM. Grotesque.

And in the end, I'd still have a 256 GB SSD as I do now. I'd really love to go up to 512 GB for my next MBP....but I don't think I can justify the cost.

May have to keep the 2011 model a little longer.

Why don't you buy and complete your own RAM upgrade if $70 is an issue for you?

edit: I had read that the new MBPs had user-replacable RAM but after looking at iFixit's teardown it's clear they do not. But I do wonder out of machine that will cost you over $2k why you wouldn't want to increase your productivity because you don't want an OEM to make a profit on an up-sale. Furthermore, compared to their RAM price disparity in the past the current state of RAM costs it's pretty damn good for Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

I keep my computers under the desk. Anybody visiting my office will think I have a real Mac when they see my 27" 2560x1600 screen, even though it's not made by Apple, but it shows the OS X desktop... Don't really care about the plastic the chips are wrapped into.

The fact that you think Apple is about is a veneer of plastic tells a lot about you and begs the question as to why you are here.
post #72 of 100
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

especially when I look at the $1.500 I saved

 

No one gives a frick. Not real professionals, not hobbyists, not anyone who uses their machine for actual work.

 
…it’s faster…

 

Your RAM is clocked higher than 1.866GHz?

 
and plenty more GPU power?

 

Your GPUs are more powerful than EITHER dual D300 or D500?

 

I’m sure. Again, ignorance is bliss. 

post #73 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Your RAM is clocked higher than 1.866GHz?

Your GPUs are more powerful than EITHER dual D300 or D500?

I’m sure. Again, ignorance is bliss. 

I am curious how he was able to get PCIe SSD and Thunderbolt 2 card for his Hackintosh.
post #74 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


I am curious how he was able to get PCIe SSD and Thunderbolt 2 card for his Hackintosh.

 

Got dual NVidia 780s here, and 500GB SSD. Thnderbolt 2? Got any devices for those? Didn't think so.

post #75 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Your RAM is clocked higher than 1.866GHz?

 

Your GPUs are more powerful than EITHER dual D300 or D500?

 

I’m sure. Again, ignorance is bliss. 

 

You've ignored the news for a long time if you cannot find e.g. DDR3-2.400GHz like I did. D300/D500? Pretty mid-range ATIs you are talking about there... Feel free to continue ignoring the reality, in that Apple distortion field.

post #76 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

Got dual NVidia 780s here, and 500GB SSD. Thnderbolt 2? Got any devices for those? Didn't think so.

Pathetic! You say you're Hacintosh is just as fast or faster but you ignore a direct question about PCIe and TB2. You probably have your SSD connected via SATA II like a chump. As for TB2(DP1.2) capable devices there are plenty.
post #77 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


Pathetic! You say you're Hacintosh is just as fast or faster but you ignore a direct question about PCIe and TB2. You probably have your SSD connected via SATA II like a chump. As for TB2(DP1.2) capable devices there are plenty.

 

Hmm, which one helps me render my 3D animations faster, My SATA-III 600MB/s SSDs and pretty high-end dual 780s, or the upcoming MacPro's twice as fast PCIe SSD + its only 50% as fast (or even slower) dual D500? And I already have my 27" 2560x1600 display connected to my computer via DVI, don't really have usage for TB2. Got lots of free connectors available anyway. Perhaps your Superb User Experience requires lots of TB2 connectors? You are a connector guy? Gotta have lots of TB1 and TB2 ports, just because they are... new? Cool? What you have there connected, man? Just cables going from one TB2 port to another? 

post #78 of 100
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

Thnderbolt 2? Got any devices for those? Didn't think so.

 

Nice bandwagon fallacy. Try again, kiddo.

post #79 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post
 

 

LOL, you have no idea what you are talking about. I've built a pretty sweet desktop, for example, for a fraction of cost what Apple charges for its MacPros, have OS X 10.8.6 instelled on it, and have been making software for OS X with it for quite a while. XCode works on it, App Store works, app submissions work, everything just works. And it's pretty fast, too. For a fraction of the cost of a real MacPro.

 

Did you ever think to cost the man hours you put into making this thing? I guarantee that if you had to pay yourself to make this thing you would never have done it — it would cost way too much.

 

But if you have lots of time on your hands that is not worth much then knock yourself out. Slave labour is great — when you're your own slave.

AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #80 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard View Post

Did you ever think to cost the man hours you put into making this thing? I guarantee that if you had to pay yourself to make this thing you would never have done it — it would cost way too much.

But if you have lots of time on your hands that is not worth much then knock yourself out. Slave labour is great — when you're your own slave.

Of course not. People like him don't consider time to be very important since they plenry of it. They also don't see how technically having a driver, which they didn't create or pay for, is not the same as an efficient driver for a comparable part by a reputable vendor.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new MacBook Pros get 65% graphics performance boost from Intel's Iris