Who decides that?
For my purposes, the Intel graphics are more than fast enough. I don't see any benefit to going to discrete graphics for what I do. So why insist on the money, space taken up, and (more importantly for MBAs) battery power consumption of discrete graphics when not everyone needs them?
You have the option of buying the MBP or iMac or Mac Pro. There's no reason why Apple should be forced to include dedicated graphics in EVERY computer because some people demand it.
Agreed with this although I am curious as to why there is no discrete option in the 13" rMBP and I hope that changes in future models though it probably won't. Perhaps it won't need to with graphics improving.
Agreed with this although I am curious as to why there is no discrete option in the 13" rMBP and I hope that changes in future models though it probably won't. Perhaps it won't need to with graphics improving.
Me too, especially after it was found the 13" retina has free space... Hmmm.
My bet for the laptop line in 2013:
Air:
Full HD 16:10 equivalent on the Air, IPS obviously, Same form factor, maybe 100 cheaper, 16gb ram option (if 16gb modules available), haswel ULV, 8h battery.
Pro:
Terminate cMBP, 400dollars less on both retina models, quad on the 13", haswel on both, 2013 discrete graphics 15" and 13", 9h battery, 16gb option on the 13", maybe 32 on the 15" (if 16gb modules available).
What is interesting is that some of these are low enough wattage wise to make it into a Mini. 35 maybe even 45 watts are doable in the Mini and might give us a bigger performance boost than normal.
The other interesting thing is that there is only one GPU variant listed but Intel is rumored to have 3 implementations for Haswell. These could be the low end chips with better GPUs coming.
Because of Haswell? Are you insane? Haswell is a complete joke of an upgrade, just like Ivy bridge was. This small processor bump is nothing for an upgrade, so i believe it's time for Apple to focus on other things, like the display (is there anything else? The air is already close to perfection) or battery engineering. IPS display with higher resolution would fit perfectly.
Apple should do something about it, intel needs competition... C'mon AMD! Do something decent!
Actually, this is a good bump, as Ivy Bridge was. What are you expecting? To get an average of 15% improvement in power with a 10% reduction in current usage is a pretty good bump for a generation. It wasn't that long ago that Intel's top chips had a TDP of 120 watts, and not long before that, 140. Now, it's 84.
Intel graphics moving to 4600 is a pretty good bump as well. It could be almost twice as fast.
The only thing that worries me is the mention of the HD4600. Please, Apple, stop using Intel GPUs. Yes, no matter how "good" they're. Please stop it. Only decent GPUs from today on, please.
Just like other manufacturers, Apple has no choice. If they're going to sell less expensive, small er machines with good battery life, they have to drop an additional GPU and memory. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. In another year, or two, all cheap graphics cards will disappear from the market, along With the respective GPUs, because built-in graphics is advancing much faster than ATI and Nvidia designs. So we're getting a converging at that level.
For anyone who isn't playing the latest "high end" games, or doing 3D, the 4600 will prove to be just dandy.
Actually, this is a good bump, as Ivy Bridge was. What are you expecting? To get an average of 15% improvement in power with a 10% reduction in current usage is a pretty good bump for a generation. It wasn't that long ago that Intel's top chips had a TDP of 120 watts, and not long before that, 140. Now, it's 84.
Intel graphics moving to 4600 is a pretty good bump as well. It could be almost twice as fast.
And that's almost irrelevant for what the Air is all about.
The priority should be given to a better screen and 8gb ram standard, Haswell brings nothing new and won't influence battery life all that much, and since intel is a joke at TDP and optimization, they should be reducing at 50% pace, not 10%, or am I wrong? They are just cruising around, like RIM was... We just have to wait for some "Apple" to appear.
The Air, as a concept, is close to perfection right now.
The priority should be given to a better screen and 8gb ram standard, Haswell brings nothing new and won't influence battery life all that much, and since intel is a joke at TDP and optimization…
You're mistaking them for IBM.
Haswell brings a lot new. It's a perfectly fine update in both CPU and GPU power, as well as TDP.
And that's almost irrelevant for what the Air is all about.
The priority should be given to a better screen and 8gb ram standard, Haswell brings nothing new and won't influence battery life all that much, and since intel is a joke at TDP and optimization, they should be reducing at 50% pace, not 10%, or am I wrong? They are just cruising around, like RIM was... We just have to wait for some "Apple" to appear.
The Air, as a concept, is close to perfection right now.
Irrelevant to you. Maybe, but not to most other people.
On a slightly related issue, has anyone else with the late 2012 iMac noticed how slow it is to resume from Sleep? The screen takes about 10 secs and the mouse pointer another 5 secs
Agreed with this although I am curious as to why there is no discrete option in the 13" rMBP and I hope that changes in future models though it probably won't. Perhaps it won't need to with graphics improving.
which isn't all that fast vs HD 3000 but it doesn't matter because the desktops usually have dedicated GPUs anyway so it's actually better that the power budget is spent on the CPU.
In terms of the mobile side, it should get GT3, which is much faster. I don't think it will be double as they are underclocking it but I expect it to put the mobile platform in league with the desktop 9600GT. This is what shows from their demo running Skyrim on the prototype. That performance would allow you to run Max Payne 3 on the entry 13" Macbook Pro like this:
[VIDEO]
Most settings on high @ 1280x1024 (~720p). This GPU should also support OpenGL 4 from launch as well as OpenCL 1.2. So hopefully, Apple will be able to push OpenGL 4 out with 10.9 Some Kinda Lion.
Why? I mean yeah, but why should they make faster chips when… they can't? I'd rather they focus on quantum machines.
I meant to quote your other post, but it doesn't matter. Intel talks these things up when they're further out. I think their marketing department takes the white papers from engineering to the bathroom, obviously due to misunderstanding of their appropriate use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
I am ok with a small processor bump. After all, can we really expect major changes every single year, or even every two years? Having said that, competition for Intel is not a bad thing.
Battery engineering ... I am quite happy with the MBA's battery performance but would love to see improvement on the rMBP.
The big question is - will RP come to the MBA? If so, what distinguishes rMBA and rMBP?
Small + light + entry level. It doesn't have to involve Apple's retina marketing. Just a decent IPS implementation would be a big improvement to viewing angles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What is interesting is that some of these are low enough wattage wise to make it into a Mini. 35 maybe even 45 watts are doable in the Mini and might give us a bigger performance boost than normal.
The other interesting thing is that there is only one GPU variant listed but Intel is rumored to have 3 implementations for Haswell. These could be the low end chips with better GPUs coming.
The mini already uses 45W chips in two out of three models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Just like other manufacturers, Apple has no choice. If they're going to sell less expensive, small er machines with good battery life, they have to drop an additional GPU and memory. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. In another year, or two, all cheap graphics cards will disappear from the market, along With the respective GPUs, because built-in graphics is advancing much faster than ATI and Nvidia designs. So we're getting a converging at that level.
For anyone who isn't playing the latest "high end" games, or doing 3D, the 4600 will prove to be just dandy.
NVidia has run into trouble in recent years. They depend heavily on volume sales. The margins are terrible, but they're used to overcome the development costs of their higher margin products. I wonder how far Intel will be able to push it though, and if CUDA/OpenCL will ever receive some form of virtual memory. Most functions today have to fit on the gpu in their entirety to run that way.
For anyone who isn't playing the latest "high end" games, or doing 3D, the 4600 will prove to be just dandy.
I understand such comment if you plan to buy a new computer every year.
Otherwise, if you buy computers every 3 years or so, if you buy today a machine whose GPU isn't supported by the latest games and can run them with good performance, you're losing money, even if you don't plan to play games, because such GPU will become obsolete next year.
I'd buy the 2012 Mac Mini if its GPU was listed as supported by The Sims3, even if I wouldn't buy it for playing TS3. But the HD4000 is listed as "unsupported". I'd buy such Mini for using the 4core i7 for compiling source code, but I'm not going to put my money on it until they upgrade it to some GPU that won't become obsolete next year.
Btw, I don't get the comments saying Apple has no option but to use Intel GPUs. The article was about the iMac. I just don't want the iMac to get Intel GPUs.
I understand such comment if you plan to buy a new computer every year.
Otherwise, if you buy computers every 3 years or so, if you buy today a machine whose GPU isn't supported by the latest games and can run them with good performance, you're losing money, even if you don't plan to play games, because such GPU will become obsolete next year.
I'd buy the 2012 Mac Mini if its GPU was listed as supported by The Sims3, even if I wouldn't buy it for playing TS3. But the HD4000 is listed as "unsupported". I'd buy such Mini for using the 4core i7 for compiling source code, but I'm not going to put my money on it until they upgrade it to some GPU that won't become obsolete next year.
Btw, I don't get the comments saying Apple has no option but to use Intel GPUs. The article was about the iMac. I just don't want the iMac to get Intel GPUs.
Even if you're buying a graphics card for a computer, you're most likely buying a cheaper one. Those cards rarely are good for even a year. So you end up buying a new one on a regular basis. If Apple included a GPU in these machines, as I've already stated, they would be bigger, heavier, consume more power, and be more expensive. Most people would prefer them the way they are now. If you want something with a GPU, then buy it. If you don't like the fact that its bigger, heavier, consumes more power, and is more expensive, then too bad. Life is a compromise. You make your choice, and you spend your money.
And do you understand what's being said here? This isn't a seperate GPU. It's Intel built-in graphics that's on the CPU chip. It's part of the CPU. Pretty much all of Intel's consumer CPU's come with this. You don't want it, then buy a Mac Pro that uses Xeons. All of the machines that use i3, i5,or i7 chips have one of these. But higher end machines also have a discrete GPU with its own graphics RAM. Figure another $100 or so for a lower end one.
I'd buy such Mini for using the 4core i7 for compiling source code, but I'm not going to put my money on it until they upgrade it to some GPU that won't become obsolete next year.
Compiling source code on a Mini? Really, is that remotely feasible? Or the Mini's that powerful, or has compiling come down to a simple task? I used to support developers of ERP software and always bought the fastest PC's I could. Maxed out RAM, CPU, often over $6k. Okay, this was 1998, so has the Mini caught up on this over the years?
Compiling source code on a Mini? Really, is that remotely feasible? Or the Mini's that powerful, or has compiling come down to a simple task? I used to support developers of ERP software and always bought the fastest PC's I could. Maxed out RAM, CPU, often over $6k. Okay, this was 1998, so has the Mini caught up on this over the years?
Thanks!
When you consider that it can take up to 16 GB of RAM, has a quad-core processor with using hyper-threading with 4 physical cores and 4 virtual ones for a total of 8, I wouldn't doubt it.
Graphics do need an improvement though and I see good things coming ahead with Haswell and Rockwell depending on the computer's future.
When you consider that it can take up to 16 GB of RAM, has a quad-core processor with using hyper-threading with 4 physical cores and 4 virtual ones for a total of 8, I wouldn't doubt it.
Graphics do need an improvement though and I see good things coming ahead with Haswell and Rockwell depending on the computer's future.
Makes me wonder if I ever needed a Mac Pro in order to run Aperture. I don't even photoshop my photos, just don't like to wait on my computer to get anything done; I like instant results. But if compiling on a Mini is feasible I will definitely reconsider when my MP dies.
The video card might be the least of my worries, I don't play games so don't need below zero ms response time. Just SSD, a 30" screen.
Comments
Agreed with this although I am curious as to why there is no discrete option in the 13" rMBP and I hope that changes in future models though it probably won't. Perhaps it won't need to with graphics improving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Agreed with this although I am curious as to why there is no discrete option in the 13" rMBP and I hope that changes in future models though it probably won't. Perhaps it won't need to with graphics improving.
Me too, especially after it was found the 13" retina has free space... Hmmm.
My bet for the laptop line in 2013:
Air:
Full HD 16:10 equivalent on the Air, IPS obviously, Same form factor, maybe 100 cheaper, 16gb ram option (if 16gb modules available), haswel ULV, 8h battery.
Pro:
Terminate cMBP, 400dollars less on both retina models, quad on the 13", haswel on both, 2013 discrete graphics 15" and 13", 9h battery, 16gb option on the 13", maybe 32 on the 15" (if 16gb modules available).
The other interesting thing is that there is only one GPU variant listed but Intel is rumored to have 3 implementations for Haswell. These could be the low end chips with better GPUs coming.
i imagine we'll be seeing these in late mid, to late 2013.
I don't believe so. It would be nice. But I imagine we might see an extra hour, at the most.
Actually, this is a good bump, as Ivy Bridge was. What are you expecting? To get an average of 15% improvement in power with a 10% reduction in current usage is a pretty good bump for a generation. It wasn't that long ago that Intel's top chips had a TDP of 120 watts, and not long before that, 140. Now, it's 84.
Intel graphics moving to 4600 is a pretty good bump as well. It could be almost twice as fast.
Just like other manufacturers, Apple has no choice. If they're going to sell less expensive, small er machines with good battery life, they have to drop an additional GPU and memory. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. In another year, or two, all cheap graphics cards will disappear from the market, along With the respective GPUs, because built-in graphics is advancing much faster than ATI and Nvidia designs. So we're getting a converging at that level.
For anyone who isn't playing the latest "high end" games, or doing 3D, the 4600 will prove to be just dandy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Actually, this is a good bump, as Ivy Bridge was. What are you expecting? To get an average of 15% improvement in power with a 10% reduction in current usage is a pretty good bump for a generation. It wasn't that long ago that Intel's top chips had a TDP of 120 watts, and not long before that, 140. Now, it's 84.
Intel graphics moving to 4600 is a pretty good bump as well. It could be almost twice as fast.
And that's almost irrelevant for what the Air is all about.
The priority should be given to a better screen and 8gb ram standard, Haswell brings nothing new and won't influence battery life all that much, and since intel is a joke at TDP and optimization, they should be reducing at 50% pace, not 10%, or am I wrong? They are just cruising around, like RIM was... We just have to wait for some "Apple" to appear.
The Air, as a concept, is close to perfection right now.
Originally Posted by pedromartins
The priority should be given to a better screen and 8gb ram standard, Haswell brings nothing new and won't influence battery life all that much, and since intel is a joke at TDP and optimization…
You're mistaking them for IBM.
Haswell brings a lot new. It's a perfectly fine update in both CPU and GPU power, as well as TDP.
Irrelevant to you. Maybe, but not to most other people.
On a slightly related issue, has anyone else with the late 2012 iMac noticed how slow it is to resume from Sleep? The screen takes about 10 secs and the mouse pointer another 5 secs
Space (cooling) and/or power limitations.
Is the 630M worse than HD4000 how about 640M?
It was reported the desktop chips would get GT2:
http://wccftech.com/intel-haswells-tdp-rated-100w-desktop-cpus-feature-gt2-class-igpu-gt3-reserved-notebooks/
which isn't all that fast vs HD 3000 but it doesn't matter because the desktops usually have dedicated GPUs anyway so it's actually better that the power budget is spent on the CPU.
In terms of the mobile side, it should get GT3, which is much faster. I don't think it will be double as they are underclocking it but I expect it to put the mobile platform in league with the desktop 9600GT. This is what shows from their demo running Skyrim on the prototype. That performance would allow you to run Max Payne 3 on the entry 13" Macbook Pro like this:
[VIDEO]
Most settings on high @ 1280x1024 (~720p). This GPU should also support OpenGL 4 from launch as well as OpenCL 1.2. So hopefully, Apple will be able to push OpenGL 4 out with 10.9 Some Kinda Lion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
From an Intel representative:
Backlink image goes to the article.
…has nothing to do with battery life.
Why? I mean yeah, but why should they make faster chips when… they can't? I'd rather they focus on quantum machines.
I meant to quote your other post, but it doesn't matter. Intel talks these things up when they're further out. I think their marketing department takes the white papers from engineering to the bathroom, obviously due to misunderstanding of their appropriate use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
I am ok with a small processor bump. After all, can we really expect major changes every single year, or even every two years? Having said that, competition for Intel is not a bad thing.
Battery engineering ... I am quite happy with the MBA's battery performance but would love to see improvement on the rMBP.
The big question is - will RP come to the MBA? If so, what distinguishes rMBA and rMBP?
Small + light + entry level. It doesn't have to involve Apple's retina marketing. Just a decent IPS implementation would be a big improvement to viewing angles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What is interesting is that some of these are low enough wattage wise to make it into a Mini. 35 maybe even 45 watts are doable in the Mini and might give us a bigger performance boost than normal.
The other interesting thing is that there is only one GPU variant listed but Intel is rumored to have 3 implementations for Haswell. These could be the low end chips with better GPUs coming.
The mini already uses 45W chips in two out of three models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Just like other manufacturers, Apple has no choice. If they're going to sell less expensive, small er machines with good battery life, they have to drop an additional GPU and memory. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. In another year, or two, all cheap graphics cards will disappear from the market, along With the respective GPUs, because built-in graphics is advancing much faster than ATI and Nvidia designs. So we're getting a converging at that level.
For anyone who isn't playing the latest "high end" games, or doing 3D, the 4600 will prove to be just dandy.
NVidia has run into trouble in recent years. They depend heavily on volume sales. The margins are terrible, but they're used to overcome the development costs of their higher margin products. I wonder how far Intel will be able to push it though, and if CUDA/OpenCL will ever receive some form of virtual memory. Most functions today have to fit on the gpu in their entirety to run that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
[...]
For anyone who isn't playing the latest "high end" games, or doing 3D, the 4600 will prove to be just dandy.
I understand such comment if you plan to buy a new computer every year.
Otherwise, if you buy computers every 3 years or so, if you buy today a machine whose GPU isn't supported by the latest games and can run them with good performance, you're losing money, even if you don't plan to play games, because such GPU will become obsolete next year.
I'd buy the 2012 Mac Mini if its GPU was listed as supported by The Sims3, even if I wouldn't buy it for playing TS3. But the HD4000 is listed as "unsupported". I'd buy such Mini for using the 4core i7 for compiling source code, but I'm not going to put my money on it until they upgrade it to some GPU that won't become obsolete next year.
Btw, I don't get the comments saying Apple has no option but to use Intel GPUs. The article was about the iMac. I just don't want the iMac to get Intel GPUs.
Even if you're buying a graphics card for a computer, you're most likely buying a cheaper one. Those cards rarely are good for even a year. So you end up buying a new one on a regular basis. If Apple included a GPU in these machines, as I've already stated, they would be bigger, heavier, consume more power, and be more expensive. Most people would prefer them the way they are now. If you want something with a GPU, then buy it. If you don't like the fact that its bigger, heavier, consumes more power, and is more expensive, then too bad. Life is a compromise. You make your choice, and you spend your money.
And do you understand what's being said here? This isn't a seperate GPU. It's Intel built-in graphics that's on the CPU chip. It's part of the CPU. Pretty much all of Intel's consumer CPU's come with this. You don't want it, then buy a Mac Pro that uses Xeons. All of the machines that use i3, i5,or i7 chips have one of these. But higher end machines also have a discrete GPU with its own graphics RAM. Figure another $100 or so for a lower end one.
Compiling source code on a Mini? Really, is that remotely feasible? Or the Mini's that powerful, or has compiling come down to a simple task? I used to support developers of ERP software and always bought the fastest PC's I could. Maxed out RAM, CPU, often over $6k. Okay, this was 1998, so has the Mini caught up on this over the years?
Thanks!
When you consider that it can take up to 16 GB of RAM, has a quad-core processor with using hyper-threading with 4 physical cores and 4 virtual ones for a total of 8, I wouldn't doubt it.
Graphics do need an improvement though and I see good things coming ahead with Haswell and Rockwell depending on the computer's future.
Makes me wonder if I ever needed a Mac Pro in order to run Aperture. I don't even photoshop my photos, just don't like to wait on my computer to get anything done; I like instant results. But if compiling on a Mini is feasible I will definitely reconsider when my MP dies.
The video card might be the least of my worries, I don't play games so don't need below zero ms response time. Just SSD, a 30" screen.