Sorry, going to have to challenge you on it. We'll have to see what Broadwell brings for the simple issue of price and specs.
I feel the 15" notebooks are for power users given that there is no 17". The 13" retina still needs seasoning. It needs to get to the classic MacBook Pro price points, possibly even the MacBook Air price points in my view.
I realize I'm going too far out of the box of Apple's closed garden but I'm doing so anyway. Not saying you are wrong though.
Edit: Also less is more. Don't introduce any more models. Choice is fine but work on the BTO options.
Apple has cut a lot of corners on the lowest 15" in the past. They figure those that actually need it will order the more expensive version. If pricing is in fact driven primarily by display costs, it will settle once they're able to return to generic components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
HD4000 isn't too bad at all if you don't need the 3D or OpenCL performance. However I honestly believe that many underestimate just how important those two features are with respect to modern software. The things that I worry about are things like just how bad will thermal throttling be. There are still physical realities here and in the past Intel has demonstrated that they can be thermal hogs even in the notebook line of chips. In the end if a chip is thermally managed to a certain power point then something someplace is loosing cycles. Real world use will be very interesting when it comes to Haswell.
It varies. I have tried to explain to people in the past that specific features use these things so they may not see an overall performance boost where they expect one. OpenCL gets used a lot in highly parallel calculations. Being able to harness that in the case of a lot of visual media means things that would have been cached can often be recalculated in real time, which is really great. With the HD 4000, it's not that they run slower. Many of them just won't run on that, meaning you're back to cpu only. This comes up pretty frequently with video editing software. I find that most people don't really read the details of what benefits from what. I don't expect them to phase out performance options too soon.
Apple has cut a lot of corners on the lowest 15" in the past. They figure those that actually need it will order the more expensive version. If pricing is in fact driven primarily by display costs, it will settle once they're able to return to generic components.
My thing is, why have a low-end 15"? Apple markets premium computers. It would be like selling a Ferrari without heated seats and air conditioning.
Apple has cut a lot of corners on the lowest 15" in the past. They figure those that actually need it will order the more expensive version. If pricing is in fact driven primarily by display costs, it will settle once they're able to return to generic components.
My thing is, why have a low-end 15"? Apple markets premium computers. It would be like selling a Ferrari without heated seats and air conditioning.
It depends on what you mean by low-end. If you buy a refurb 2012 MBP in 2013, it doesn't become low-end unless the new one is significantly improved. NVidia is doing a GPU rebrand this year as is AMD. NVidia's 20nm Maxwell GPUs won't be out until next year. This gives Intel an opportunity to make a really competitive GPU. If Intel can match the 650M, the NVidia Kepler refresh will only be 25-30% faster and cost more.
It really comes down to the choice between getting a 25-30% faster GPU or a Retina display and I reckon the Retina model at $1799 would be more popular, especially considering 650M performance can run almost every game that's out today on high quality and Intel might even outperform the 650M for OpenCL with a lower power usage, given how poor Kepler has been with this.
I expect the CPUs destined for the MBA will perform around the same as the 640M but the Mini will get the chips that go in the MBP.
The higher-end MBPs can use the 5200 that doesn't have Crystalwell so that they aren't more expensive and stick with a dedicated GPU.
The 25% upgrade with the Kepler refresh should be even better equipped to handle the retina display. I will wait and see what goes into the 13" retina and from there, hopefully all will work out.
The reality of performance varying depending upon the app and the data it is processing is real. Take for example Safari, how often does the GPU acceleration come into play when running Safari. For some users it might not ever be a big factor or only once in a blue moon. It is really only important when the data being processed by Safari needs the acceleration. The point is even a modest user can benefit from GPU acceleration and might not even realize that they are in fact benefiting from it. This is one reason I highly recommend to users asking, to buy the better GPU options if they expect to keep the computer for a long time. You just never know when a specific piece of software will benefit from a good GPU.
The second issue is that Apple has increased the use of GPU acceleration with each release of Mac OS. It might not be to the point of iOS yet but it is pretty clear that Apple sees the GPU as a resource that allows them to bring better performance to the user.
Your point on GPU acceleration via Intel GPUs should be noted by everybody reading this thread. Going Intel only at times means never benefiting from the GPU. This may relate to Intel not having OpenCL and other GPU compute capabilities supported on Mac OS. I'm actually a bit out of date here as I'm not up to speed on Ivy Bridge OpenCL support. At one time it simply didn't exist so if somebody has more up to date info chime in. In any event this is why I say we need to wait and see just how good the GPUs are in Haswell. Will OpenCL be supported and will developers bother to target the GPUs? In the end it isn't just a matter of a few benchmarks looking good that indicate the value of the Intel Haswell GPU but rather the willingness of developers to target the GPU.
So when it comes to a 15" MBP with only an Intel integrated GPU it really depends upon the capability of software to exploit that GPU as well as they can if an AMD or NVidia GOU was in the machine. It really isn't clear that the GT3 and other Haswell GPUs will be good enough to get developers on board. Honestly I hope GT3 is that good as I'd like to update my old MBP sometime this year. The problem is we won't know how well supported it will be at release time so unless one waits it is a big gamble to go with an iNtel only MBP immediately when they debut.
As a side note if any developers out there doing GPU compute support software, with knowledge of Intels OpenCL support, would chime in I'd like to hear about it. Last I knew OpenCL support from Intel sucked so it would be nice to hear that things have changed. Atleast it is nonexistent for GPU compute as of late last year. I'm not sure why Apple is dragging its feet here, users simply won't go for an Intel only MBP if GPU compute isn't supported. Well at least those users that understand what is being talked about here. Maybe GPU compute simply isn't worth the effort on Intel hardware. Whatever the problem Apple really needs to address it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Apple has cut a lot of corners on the lowest 15" in the past. They figure those that actually need it will order the more expensive version. If pricing is in fact driven primarily by display costs, it will settle once they're able to return to generic components.
It varies. I have tried to explain to people in the past that specific features use these things so they may not see an overall performance boost where they expect one. OpenCL gets used a lot in highly parallel calculations. Being able to harness that in the case of a lot of visual media means things that would have been cached can often be recalculated in real time, which is really great. With the HD 4000, it's not that they run slower. Many of them just won't run on that, meaning you're back to cpu only. This comes up pretty frequently with video editing software. I find that most people don't really read the details of what benefits from what. I don't expect them to phase out performance options too soon.
Apple has always had a low end 15" MBP. The question being raised is this, would a Intel GPU only machine, that is a Haswell GT3 machine, be good enough for that role. My answer is hedged with this thought, it would be good enough if Apple supported OpenCL on that GPU and it delivered respectable performance. Otherwise the machine would simply not be good enough for many of the more advanced apps users run on the machine.
Sooo the answer is highly qualified as we really don't know what GT3 will be like nor do we know if the drivers for Intel hardware will ever get there. You need to realize though that technology is moving forward by some rather huge leaps. With Haswell and follow on chips the good ole i86 CPU complex will be taking up very little space on these chips. Due to this reality it will be possible to put one heck of a GPU on the chip. I say possible because as far as we know Intel has yet to do so andApple has yet to ship drivers to really exploit the hardware.
You can see this trend in pics of Apples "A" series chips and even AMDs fusion processors. The GPUs become the largest real estate users on the dies. It is indeed a brave new world! This is one reason why I express so much concern about GPUs in the various threads on this forum. Often the GPU is the single most important part of the chip in delivering a good user experience. This is why AMDs BRAZOS often whips ATOMs ass when it comes to user acceptance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
My thing is, why have a low-end 15"? Apple markets premium computers. It would be like selling a Ferrari without heated seats and air conditioning.
The big problem with Intel and OpenCL is that OpenCL isn't supported on the GPU under Mac OS yet. At least it was as of last year. This is really pathetic but highlights the problems with crappy intel drivers and the general lag at Apple for supporting new hardware. If Apple doesn't turn this around I really don't see strong acceptance of Intel GPU only based MBPs. Without OpenCL the machine would be significantly weakened for the types of software users run on the machine.
At least that was the way it was late last year when the only OpenCL support, under Mac OS, was via the CPU and not the GPU. Apparently it is Apple dragging its feet here because OpenCL, on Intel supporting GPUs, is supported on other operating systems. Either way an Intel GPU only, MBP will be less than inviting unless this is rectified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It depends on what you mean by low-end. If you buy a refurb 2012 MBP in 2013, it doesn't become low-end unless the new one is significantly improved. NVidia is doing a GPU rebrand this year as is AMD. NVidia's 20nm Maxwell GPUs won't be out until next year. This gives Intel an opportunity to make a really competitive GPU. If Intel can match the 650M, the NVidia Kepler refresh will only be 25-30% faster and cost more.
It really comes down to the choice between getting a 25-30% faster GPU or a Retina display and I reckon the Retina model at $1799 would be more popular, especially considering 650M performance can run almost every game that's out today on high quality and Intel might even outperform the 650M for OpenCL with a lower power usage, given how poor Kepler has been with this.
I expect the CPUs destined for the MBA will perform around the same as the 640M but the Mini will get the chips that go in the MBP.
The higher-end MBPs can use the 5200 that doesn't have Crystalwell so that they aren't more expensive and stick with a dedicated GPU.
Last I knew OpenCL support from Intel sucked so it would be nice to hear that things have changed. Atleast it is nonexistent for GPU compute as of late last year.
Haswell GT3 will double the shader processors and underclock them a little so I'm expecting a 80-100% (1.8x-2x) performance increase but that's without considering the Crystalwell memory feature. To match the 650M, they'd need a 180% (2.8x) increase. The shader increase alone will match the performance of the 640M. The Crystalwell design might not have as big of an improvement for compute as it would for gaming so that would still give the higher up models a selling point.
Apple has always had a low end 15" MBP. The question being raised is this, would a Intel GPU only machine, that is a Haswell GT3 machine, be good enough for that role. My answer is hedged with this thought, it would be good enough if Apple supported OpenCL on that GPU and it delivered respectable performance. Otherwise the machine would simply not be good enough for many of the more advanced apps users run on the machine.
The "low-end" 15" should be discrete as far as I see it. The difference maybe between that and a higher-end 15" is to offer more options.
I don't feel Haswell will offer enough just yet. You're cashing in a big portion of your chips on something that may not be up to snuff.
Now... tell me this: Having the new 10.9 as standard, will graphics memory shared with the main memory finally reach 1024 MB or 1 GB or will it still be 768 MB?
This is all well and good but last I knew nothing from intel was supported under Mac OS. That is all OpenCL support, that works under Mac OS, is targeted at the CPU. I don't know of anybody that has gotten their OpenCL apps to recognize an Intel GPU under Mac OS. Maybe that has changed with the recent rev of Mac OS but it wasn't the case late last year.
I did find some of those benchmarks interesting, AMD holds all five of the top slots. Good for them I say!
Haswell GT3 will double the shader processors and underclock them a little so I'm expecting a 80-100% (1.8x-2x) performance increase but that's without considering the Crystalwell memory feature. To match the 650M, they'd need a 180% (2.8x) increase. The shader increase alone will match the performance of the 640M. The Crystalwell design might not have as big of an improvement for compute as it would for gaming so that would still give the higher up models a selling point.
Again Haswell looks good on paper. The problem is Apple will have to support the GPU as a compute device if they expect to sell MBPs with only a Haswell GPU in them. Unless things have change very recently Apple doesn't support the intel GPUs as OpenCL compute devices. I know Apple has been having significant issues with the Intel drivers so maybe OpenCL is coming.
As to memory the big mistake here is believing that every OpenCL app needs large amounts of memory to work well. It helps of course but isn't a requirement for every use. Beyond that larger caches and faster memory interfaces to RAM can benefit OpenCL on machines with integrated GPUs. I haven't seen any numbers yet but having that little bit of VRAM built into the package could have a big impact on power usage, that depends of course on the exact nature of the interface but the potential is there.
Like Ive indicated before I'm looking forward to Haswell. I'm just not convinced that the GPU will be all that great under Mac OS. It seems like ever Intel GPU release under delivers with respect to every bodies expectations.
I'm far from cashing in my chips, if you have read my posts you would see that I have serious reservations about a Haswell only MBP. Performance is important and it looks like Haswell might do it for many of us. That does depend upon Apple getting the intel drivers sorted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
The "low-end" 15" should be discrete as far as I see it. The difference maybe between that and a higher-end 15" is to offer more options.
I don't feel Haswell will offer enough just yet. You're cashing in a big portion of your chips on something that may not be up to snuff.
Now... tell me this: Having the new 10.9 as standard, will graphics memory shared with the main memory finally reach 1024 MB or 1 GB or will it still be 768 MB?
With Apple who knows! Honestly we don't even know what is in 10.9 yet. Personally I think Apple might just put a hold on current configurations and wait for hardware supporting heterogeneous addressing. Then you can say good bye to memory allocation problems.
What I am saying is... you are cashing in your chips if you think Haswell's graphics can drive the 15" display and I have to disagree quite heavily with Marvin that it will be able to. I am not saying he is wrong, though I would really need to see the proof.
What I am saying is... you are cashing in your chips if you think Haswell's graphics can drive the 15" display and I have to disagree quite heavily with Marvin that it will be able to. I am not saying he is wrong, though I would really need to see the proof.
The 13" Retina has a high-res display and driven by the HD4000. The 13" one is 2560 x 1600, the 15" one is 2880 x 1800 so just over 26% more pixels.
The 13" Retina has a high-res display and driven by the HD4000. The 13" one is 2560 x 1600, the 15" one is 2880 x 1800 so just over 26% more pixels.
Yeah I feel that's pushing it as well and wish maybe the 640M LE was used. Broadwell in 2014 is when I would gain more confidence in pure integrated graphics.
The Mini could easily be refactored into something better all the way around. It isn't so much that it gets dropped as morphs into something that is a more rational design.
As far as dropping it completely I agree it would be a huge mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshA
If the Mac Mini is discontinued, we'd have a big problem as that is the desktop Mac in this house.
We use two minis daily. All in one Macs will never again be for us.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Sorry, going to have to challenge you on it. We'll have to see what Broadwell brings for the simple issue of price and specs.
I feel the 15" notebooks are for power users given that there is no 17". The 13" retina still needs seasoning. It needs to get to the classic MacBook Pro price points, possibly even the MacBook Air price points in my view.
I realize I'm going too far out of the box of Apple's closed garden but I'm doing so anyway. Not saying you are wrong though.
Edit: Also less is more. Don't introduce any more models. Choice is fine but work on the BTO options.
Apple has cut a lot of corners on the lowest 15" in the past. They figure those that actually need it will order the more expensive version. If pricing is in fact driven primarily by display costs, it will settle once they're able to return to generic components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
HD4000 isn't too bad at all if you don't need the 3D or OpenCL performance. However I honestly believe that many underestimate just how important those two features are with respect to modern software. The things that I worry about are things like just how bad will thermal throttling be. There are still physical realities here and in the past Intel has demonstrated that they can be thermal hogs even in the notebook line of chips. In the end if a chip is thermally managed to a certain power point then something someplace is loosing cycles. Real world use will be very interesting when it comes to Haswell.It varies. I have tried to explain to people in the past that specific features use these things so they may not see an overall performance boost where they expect one. OpenCL gets used a lot in highly parallel calculations. Being able to harness that in the case of a lot of visual media means things that would have been cached can often be recalculated in real time, which is really great. With the HD 4000, it's not that they run slower. Many of them just won't run on that, meaning you're back to cpu only. This comes up pretty frequently with video editing software. I find that most people don't really read the details of what benefits from what. I don't expect them to phase out performance options too soon.
My thing is, why have a low-end 15"? Apple markets premium computers. It would be like selling a Ferrari without heated seats and air conditioning.
It depends on what you mean by low-end. If you buy a refurb 2012 MBP in 2013, it doesn't become low-end unless the new one is significantly improved. NVidia is doing a GPU rebrand this year as is AMD. NVidia's 20nm Maxwell GPUs won't be out until next year. This gives Intel an opportunity to make a really competitive GPU. If Intel can match the 650M, the NVidia Kepler refresh will only be 25-30% faster and cost more.
It really comes down to the choice between getting a 25-30% faster GPU or a Retina display and I reckon the Retina model at $1799 would be more popular, especially considering 650M performance can run almost every game that's out today on high quality and Intel might even outperform the 650M for OpenCL with a lower power usage, given how poor Kepler has been with this.
I expect the CPUs destined for the MBA will perform around the same as the 640M but the Mini will get the chips that go in the MBP.
The higher-end MBPs can use the 5200 that doesn't have Crystalwell so that they aren't more expensive and stick with a dedicated GPU.
The reality of performance varying depending upon the app and the data it is processing is real. Take for example Safari, how often does the GPU acceleration come into play when running Safari. For some users it might not ever be a big factor or only once in a blue moon. It is really only important when the data being processed by Safari needs the acceleration. The point is even a modest user can benefit from GPU acceleration and might not even realize that they are in fact benefiting from it. This is one reason I highly recommend to users asking, to buy the better GPU options if they expect to keep the computer for a long time. You just never know when a specific piece of software will benefit from a good GPU.
The second issue is that Apple has increased the use of GPU acceleration with each release of Mac OS. It might not be to the point of iOS yet but it is pretty clear that Apple sees the GPU as a resource that allows them to bring better performance to the user.
Your point on GPU acceleration via Intel GPUs should be noted by everybody reading this thread. Going Intel only at times means never benefiting from the GPU. This may relate to Intel not having OpenCL and other GPU compute capabilities supported on Mac OS. I'm actually a bit out of date here as I'm not up to speed on Ivy Bridge OpenCL support. At one time it simply didn't exist so if somebody has more up to date info chime in. In any event this is why I say we need to wait and see just how good the GPUs are in Haswell. Will OpenCL be supported and will developers bother to target the GPUs? In the end it isn't just a matter of a few benchmarks looking good that indicate the value of the Intel Haswell GPU but rather the willingness of developers to target the GPU.
So when it comes to a 15" MBP with only an Intel integrated GPU it really depends upon the capability of software to exploit that GPU as well as they can if an AMD or NVidia GOU was in the machine. It really isn't clear that the GT3 and other Haswell GPUs will be good enough to get developers on board. Honestly I hope GT3 is that good as I'd like to update my old MBP sometime this year. The problem is we won't know how well supported it will be at release time so unless one waits it is a big gamble to go with an iNtel only MBP immediately when they debut.
As a side note if any developers out there doing GPU compute support software, with knowledge of Intels OpenCL support, would chime in I'd like to hear about it. Last I knew OpenCL support from Intel sucked so it would be nice to hear that things have changed. Atleast it is nonexistent for GPU compute as of late last year. I'm not sure why Apple is dragging its feet here, users simply won't go for an Intel only MBP if GPU compute isn't supported. Well at least those users that understand what is being talked about here. Maybe GPU compute simply isn't worth the effort on Intel hardware. Whatever the problem Apple really needs to address it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Apple has cut a lot of corners on the lowest 15" in the past. They figure those that actually need it will order the more expensive version. If pricing is in fact driven primarily by display costs, it will settle once they're able to return to generic components.
It varies. I have tried to explain to people in the past that specific features use these things so they may not see an overall performance boost where they expect one. OpenCL gets used a lot in highly parallel calculations. Being able to harness that in the case of a lot of visual media means things that would have been cached can often be recalculated in real time, which is really great. With the HD 4000, it's not that they run slower. Many of them just won't run on that, meaning you're back to cpu only. This comes up pretty frequently with video editing software. I find that most people don't really read the details of what benefits from what. I don't expect them to phase out performance options too soon.
Apple has always had a low end 15" MBP. The question being raised is this, would a Intel GPU only machine, that is a Haswell GT3 machine, be good enough for that role. My answer is hedged with this thought, it would be good enough if Apple supported OpenCL on that GPU and it delivered respectable performance. Otherwise the machine would simply not be good enough for many of the more advanced apps users run on the machine.
Sooo the answer is highly qualified as we really don't know what GT3 will be like nor do we know if the drivers for Intel hardware will ever get there. You need to realize though that technology is moving forward by some rather huge leaps. With Haswell and follow on chips the good ole i86 CPU complex will be taking up very little space on these chips. Due to this reality it will be possible to put one heck of a GPU on the chip. I say possible because as far as we know Intel has yet to do so andApple has yet to ship drivers to really exploit the hardware.
You can see this trend in pics of Apples "A" series chips and even AMDs fusion processors. The GPUs become the largest real estate users on the dies. It is indeed a brave new world! This is one reason why I express so much concern about GPUs in the various threads on this forum. Often the GPU is the single most important part of the chip in delivering a good user experience. This is why AMDs BRAZOS often whips ATOMs ass when it comes to user acceptance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
My thing is, why have a low-end 15"? Apple markets premium computers. It would be like selling a Ferrari without heated seats and air conditioning.
The big problem with Intel and OpenCL is that OpenCL isn't supported on the GPU under Mac OS yet. At least it was as of last year. This is really pathetic but highlights the problems with crappy intel drivers and the general lag at Apple for supporting new hardware. If Apple doesn't turn this around I really don't see strong acceptance of Intel GPU only based MBPs. Without OpenCL the machine would be significantly weakened for the types of software users run on the machine.
At least that was the way it was late last year when the only OpenCL support, under Mac OS, was via the CPU and not the GPU. Apparently it is Apple dragging its feet here because OpenCL, on Intel supporting GPUs, is supported on other operating systems. Either way an Intel GPU only, MBP will be less than inviting unless this is rectified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It depends on what you mean by low-end. If you buy a refurb 2012 MBP in 2013, it doesn't become low-end unless the new one is significantly improved. NVidia is doing a GPU rebrand this year as is AMD. NVidia's 20nm Maxwell GPUs won't be out until next year. This gives Intel an opportunity to make a really competitive GPU. If Intel can match the 650M, the NVidia Kepler refresh will only be 25-30% faster and cost more.
It really comes down to the choice between getting a 25-30% faster GPU or a Retina display and I reckon the Retina model at $1799 would be more popular, especially considering 650M performance can run almost every game that's out today on high quality and Intel might even outperform the 650M for OpenCL with a lower power usage, given how poor Kepler has been with this.
I expect the CPUs destined for the MBA will perform around the same as the 640M but the Mini will get the chips that go in the MBP.
The higher-end MBPs can use the 5200 that doesn't have Crystalwell so that they aren't more expensive and stick with a dedicated GPU.
The HD4000 seems to benchmark ok with OpenCL:
http://clbenchmark.com/device-info.jsp?config=11977159
Here's the NVidia 660M for comparison:
http://clbenchmark.com/device-info.jsp?config=12811850
The HD3000 lacked driver support.
There is another list here of OpenCL functions tested in CS6:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-GPU-Acceleration-161/
Here's another one where it scores close to the very low-end Radeon 6450:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-intel-graphics-hd-4000-und-2500/10/#abschnitt_gpucomputing
Haswell GT3 will double the shader processors and underclock them a little so I'm expecting a 80-100% (1.8x-2x) performance increase but that's without considering the Crystalwell memory feature. To match the 650M, they'd need a 180% (2.8x) increase. The shader increase alone will match the performance of the 640M. The Crystalwell design might not have as big of an improvement for compute as it would for gaming so that would still give the higher up models a selling point.
The "low-end" 15" should be discrete as far as I see it. The difference maybe between that and a higher-end 15" is to offer more options.
I don't feel Haswell will offer enough just yet. You're cashing in a big portion of your chips on something that may not be up to snuff.
Now... tell me this: Having the new 10.9 as standard, will graphics memory shared with the main memory finally reach 1024 MB or 1 GB or will it still be 768 MB?
i think icore faster than form ARM
This is all well and good but last I knew nothing from intel was supported under Mac OS. That is all OpenCL support, that works under Mac OS, is targeted at the CPU. I don't know of anybody that has gotten their OpenCL apps to recognize an Intel GPU under Mac OS. Maybe that has changed with the recent rev of Mac OS but it wasn't the case late last year.
I did find some of those benchmarks interesting, AMD holds all five of the top slots. Good for them I say!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The HD4000 seems to benchmark ok with OpenCL:
http://clbenchmark.com/device-info.jsp?config=11977159
Here's the NVidia 660M for comparison:
http://clbenchmark.com/device-info.jsp?config=12811850
The HD3000 lacked driver support.
There is another list here of OpenCL functions tested in CS6:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-GPU-Acceleration-161/
Here's another one where it scores close to the very low-end Radeon 6450:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-intel-graphics-hd-4000-und-2500/10/#abschnitt_gpucomputing
Haswell GT3 will double the shader processors and underclock them a little so I'm expecting a 80-100% (1.8x-2x) performance increase but that's without considering the Crystalwell memory feature. To match the 650M, they'd need a 180% (2.8x) increase. The shader increase alone will match the performance of the 640M. The Crystalwell design might not have as big of an improvement for compute as it would for gaming so that would still give the higher up models a selling point.
Again Haswell looks good on paper. The problem is Apple will have to support the GPU as a compute device if they expect to sell MBPs with only a Haswell GPU in them. Unless things have change very recently Apple doesn't support the intel GPUs as OpenCL compute devices. I know Apple has been having significant issues with the Intel drivers so maybe OpenCL is coming.
As to memory the big mistake here is believing that every OpenCL app needs large amounts of memory to work well. It helps of course but isn't a requirement for every use. Beyond that larger caches and faster memory interfaces to RAM can benefit OpenCL on machines with integrated GPUs. I haven't seen any numbers yet but having that little bit of VRAM built into the package could have a big impact on power usage, that depends of course on the exact nature of the interface but the potential is there.
Like Ive indicated before I'm looking forward to Haswell. I'm just not convinced that the GPU will be all that great under Mac OS. It seems like ever Intel GPU release under delivers with respect to every bodies expectations.
I'm far from cashing in my chips, if you have read my posts you would see that I have serious reservations about a Haswell only MBP. Performance is important and it looks like Haswell might do it for many of us. That does depend upon Apple getting the intel drivers sorted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
The "low-end" 15" should be discrete as far as I see it. The difference maybe between that and a higher-end 15" is to offer more options.
I don't feel Haswell will offer enough just yet. You're cashing in a big portion of your chips on something that may not be up to snuff.
Now... tell me this: Having the new 10.9 as standard, will graphics memory shared with the main memory finally reach 1024 MB or 1 GB or will it still be 768 MB?
With Apple who knows! Honestly we don't even know what is in 10.9 yet. Personally I think Apple might just put a hold on current configurations and wait for hardware supporting heterogeneous addressing. Then you can say good bye to memory allocation problems.
Why?
The 13" Retina has a high-res display and driven by the HD4000. The 13" one is 2560 x 1600, the 15" one is 2880 x 1800 so just over 26% more pixels.
Yeah I feel that's pushing it as well and wish maybe the 640M LE was used. Broadwell in 2014 is when I would gain more confidence in pure integrated graphics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What makes you think that the Mac Mini is anywhere near being discontinued? Of course there will be a Haswell model.
If the Mac Mini is discontinued, we'd have a big problem as that is the desktop Mac in this house.
We use two minis daily. All in one Macs will never again be for us.
I doubt this will happen about the Mac Mini. It is a popular computer.
The Mini could easily be refactored into something better all the way around. It isn't so much that it gets dropped as morphs into something that is a more rational design.
As far as dropping it completely I agree it would be a huge mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshA
If the Mac Mini is discontinued, we'd have a big problem as that is the desktop Mac in this house.
We use two minis daily. All in one Macs will never again be for us.
What is wrong with the design?