My 13" MBP drives the 27" Cinema Display very well. I'm not sure how it could be better.
Could drive Apple's 4K Cinema Display with 1.5x the resolution (2.25x more pixels) of the current Apple Cinema Display.
I've seen a 27" 4K IPS display for as low as low as $2300, and I've seen 50"+ 4K HDTVs for $1300 and $1500. I have to wonder if a Mac Pro update will also get 802.11ac, which also means new AirPort products, and a new Apple Cinema Display, which likely means following the new iMac styling and going with 4K if the availability for quality panels and price points are within reason. I could see them starting with that 27" product for 4K displays, as well as raising the price past $999 for 4K. I think an extra $500 for 4K wouldn't be a deterrent to that customer base.
PS: I don't think the 27" displays will get 2x like all the iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, 13" MBP and 15" MBPs have received. I think they'll get 1.5x which brings the 2560x1440 display exactly up to the 3840x2160 of UHD 4K. I think Mac OS X has already been made to work with this size without affecting the GUI elements.
PPS: Anyone still holding out hope for a 17" MBP? I do hold a tiny sliver of hope that Apple simply wasn't able to release a 17' MBP because they want the iGPU to be at least capable of pushing the display and it simply wasn't possible to push a 2x 3840x2400 WQUXGA display with Ivy Bridge and/or to get quality panels at a reasonable price last year.
Is there any performance increase on the CPU, or is it just the GPU? I feel like the CPU is becoming my bottleneck nowadays, because there're very fast GPUs, but the same cannot be said for CPUs (because new applications are getting more and more demanding on the CPU). For example, I'd love to hear that the 3x gain is on the CPU. That would be really appreciated. A 3x increase on the GPU is easy to achieve with a discrete card, so no such need for it.
Is there any performance increase on the CPU, or is it just the GPU? I feel like the CPU is becoming my bottleneck nowadays, because there're very fast GPUs, but the same cannot be said for CPUs (because new applications are getting more and more demanding on the CPU). For example, I'd love to hear that the 3x gain is on the CPU. That would be really appreciated. A 3x increase on the GPU is easy to achieve with a discrete card, so no such need for it.
1) There are plenty of CPU performance increases. AnandTech is a good source of information on upcoming CPU changes.
2) There are plenty of reasons why a discrete GPU isn't a reasonable option so an increase in the integrated GPU performance and increased power efficiency in my much appreciated.
Not interested in more performance for the MB Air. Need a better battery
Haswell also brings lower TDP and improved power management features, both of which should help to extend operating time. Reducing power consumption is a better solution than providing more battery power.
The Air is the only Mac product that uses Intel integrated graphics, correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775
I think Mac mini, too
The 13" notebooks and the mini. I wouldn't be surprised if more went that route at a later date. There are some areas where they're terrible, but people get confused on the issue at times. I'm also not talking about benchmarks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
Is there any performance increase on the CPU, or is it just the GPU? I feel like the CPU is becoming my bottleneck nowadays, because there're very fast GPUs, but the same cannot be said for CPUs (because new applications are getting more and more demanding on the CPU). For example, I'd love to hear that the 3x gain is on the CPU. That would be really appreciated. A 3x increase on the GPU is easy to achieve with a discrete card, so no such need for it.
Haswell cpu gains look modest. What kind of software do you use? Xeon E/EP is the only thing that isn't focused on IGPs, as they don't include them. You also have no chance of seeing 3x cpu performance in a given generation and in my opinion no chance of seeing it on the gpu either. Go back and look up some of the early Ivy claims.
PPS: Anyone still holding out hope for a 17" MBP? I do hold a tiny sliver of hope that Apple simply wasn't able to release a 17' MBP because they want the iGPU to be at least capable of pushing the display and it simply wasn't possible to push a 2x 3840x2400 WQUXGA display with Ivy Bridge and/or to get quality panels at a reasonable price last year.
I think there's as much a chance of that as the return of the Xserve, or the dual-linked DVI 30" Cinema Display.
"Lim has a record with 548 wins and 416 losses (56.80%)[2] in his professional career. He is one of the highest-paid professional gamers, with annual earnings that exceed $400,000 US Dollars and endorsement contracts that bring in an additional $90,000 per year." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lim_Yo-Hwan
I think there's as much a chance of that as the return of the Xserve, or the dual-linked DVI 30" Cinema Display.
I would agree it's highly unlikely, but I think there are certainly more reason and more of a clearly path for the 17" MBP if they choose to bring it back as opposed to those other examples.
Professional gaming may seem ludicrous, but it's growing fast. 10 years ago Fatality (there's a number in there, but I forget where) and a bunch of South Korean Starcraft players were the only people making a living on it. Now there are hundreds of people making a living on it in the US, tens of thousands in South Korea, many elsewhere.
But...I don't think many are using Macs. And even if they are, they're certainly not using integrated graphics for many games, which is the point the earlier poster was trying to make, I think. Integrated graphics have a very long way to go to catch up with discrete GPUs.
Even aside from professional gamers, there are millions of other people playing the same games and hoping for the same frame rates (not to mention those who are running two or three monitors). A lot of games just aren't playable by those standards on current generations of integrated graphics.
We'll see about Haswell and its successors. It used to be (5-15 years ago) the case that games were pushing the hardware, but I think that's less true now. AAA titles' budgets have gotten so high that they can't afford to develop only for the bleeding edge. Integrated graphics might have a chance to catch up.
AAA titles' budgets have gotten so high that they can't afford to develop only for the bleeding edge. Integrated graphics might have a chance to catch up.
The budgets are high because 50% of that is marketing and paying reviewers for higher reviews. Yes, that has an effect on the quality of both gameplay and visuals.
Graphically there aren't really any improvements happening anymore, since games are tailored for consoles first and computers second.
The question that remains is whether or not Apple will use the i7-4900HQ in one of the mini models. I am not so sure they will. Still, I am ready to replace my dual-core Sandy Bridge mini.
Assuming that these performance numbers are remotely close to what Intel claims that they are, Apple may not use or may not need to use discreet graphics in the 15" rMBP if they go with the i7-4950HQ. This could potentially provide a nice boost to battery performance as well.
This technology is actually pretty advanced. What they have done is removed the need to go the bus when CPU shares data with the GPU. They put it in main memory, mark it, and then the GPU is allowed to use it. Currently, the CPU can only send data over the bus. I saw some demos of this and it is quite impressive they have been able to come up with this solution.
Graphically there aren't really any improvements happening anymore, since games are tailored for consoles first and computers second.
This isn't true at all. Have you seen the recent improvements in real time ray tracing and rigid body destruction? PC gaming is on a much higher level than consoles.
Assuming that these performance numbers are remotely close to what Intel claims that they are, Apple may not use or may not need to use discreet graphics in the 15" rMBP if they go with the i7-4950HQ. This could potentially provide a nice boost to battery performance as well.
Yeah I am a bit apprehensive there. If they went for just the classic 15" MBP and not the retina then fine. Even still though, I am not so sure.
Also I meant to add the 4950HQ as well as the 4900HQ to my previous post but since there are other replies after mine, I will add that now.
2. The laptop Haswell iGPU is equivalent to a GeForce 650.
Do you recall where you heard/read that?
Personally I don't really care whether the GPU is integrated or discrete -- it's not like it can be upgraded in a laptop anyway -- as long as it's capable of handling what a user is going to ask of it. If these are, and offer power savings to boot, hooray for Haswell.
In my case in particular, "what a user is going to ask of it" is probably more than what a web-browsing hobby photographer will require. Intel's reports of speed increases are encouraging, but I'd still like to know how they compare to discrete alternatives. Knowing where the various Haswell options sit in comparison to well-documented alternatives will help with choosing the right model when the time comes.
Comments
No more ludicrous then any other professional sport, at least with this one normal people can participate.
3 55" 4K monitors, you know for better viewing of spreadsheets and such.
Could drive Apple's 4K Cinema Display with 1.5x the resolution (2.25x more pixels) of the current Apple Cinema Display.
I've seen a 27" 4K IPS display for as low as low as $2300, and I've seen 50"+ 4K HDTVs for $1300 and $1500. I have to wonder if a Mac Pro update will also get 802.11ac, which also means new AirPort products, and a new Apple Cinema Display, which likely means following the new iMac styling and going with 4K if the availability for quality panels and price points are within reason. I could see them starting with that 27" product for 4K displays, as well as raising the price past $999 for 4K. I think an extra $500 for 4K wouldn't be a deterrent to that customer base.
PS: I don't think the 27" displays will get 2x like all the iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, 13" MBP and 15" MBPs have received. I think they'll get 1.5x which brings the 2560x1440 display exactly up to the 3840x2160 of UHD 4K. I think Mac OS X has already been made to work with this size without affecting the GUI elements.
PPS: Anyone still holding out hope for a 17" MBP? I do hold a tiny sliver of hope that Apple simply wasn't able to release a 17' MBP because they want the iGPU to be at least capable of pushing the display and it simply wasn't possible to push a 2x 3840x2400 WQUXGA display with Ivy Bridge and/or to get quality panels at a reasonable price last year.
1) There are plenty of CPU performance increases. AnandTech is a good source of information on upcoming CPU changes.
2) There are plenty of reasons why a discrete GPU isn't a reasonable option so an increase in the integrated GPU performance and increased power efficiency in my much appreciated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacHarry de
Not interested in more performance for the MB Air. Need a better battery
Haswell also brings lower TDP and improved power management features, both of which should help to extend operating time. Reducing power consumption is a better solution than providing more battery power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unicron
The Air is the only Mac product that uses Intel integrated graphics, correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775
I think Mac mini, too
The 13" notebooks and the mini. I wouldn't be surprised if more went that route at a later date. There are some areas where they're terrible, but people get confused on the issue at times. I'm also not talking about benchmarks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
Is there any performance increase on the CPU, or is it just the GPU? I feel like the CPU is becoming my bottleneck nowadays, because there're very fast GPUs, but the same cannot be said for CPUs (because new applications are getting more and more demanding on the CPU). For example, I'd love to hear that the 3x gain is on the CPU. That would be really appreciated. A 3x increase on the GPU is easy to achieve with a discrete card, so no such need for it.
Haswell cpu gains look modest. What kind of software do you use? Xeon E/EP is the only thing that isn't focused on IGPs, as they don't include them. You also have no chance of seeing 3x cpu performance in a given generation and in my opinion no chance of seeing it on the gpu either. Go back and look up some of the early Ivy claims.
Originally Posted by hmm
The 13" notebooks and the mini.
And the 15".
I'd like to see what it pays.
I think there's as much a chance of that as the return of the Xserve, or the dual-linked DVI 30" Cinema Display.
"Lim has a record with 548 wins and 416 losses (56.80%)[2] in his professional career. He is one of the highest-paid professional gamers, with annual earnings that exceed $400,000 US Dollars and endorsement contracts that bring in an additional $90,000 per year."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lim_Yo-Hwan
"In 2007, Lee signed a three-year contract with WeMade FOX for approximately 690,000 USD."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Yun-Yeol
I would agree it's highly unlikely, but I think there are certainly more reason and more of a clearly path for the 17" MBP if they choose to bring it back as opposed to those other examples.
Professional gaming may seem ludicrous, but it's growing fast. 10 years ago Fatality (there's a number in there, but I forget where) and a bunch of South Korean Starcraft players were the only people making a living on it. Now there are hundreds of people making a living on it in the US, tens of thousands in South Korea, many elsewhere.
But...I don't think many are using Macs. And even if they are, they're certainly not using integrated graphics for many games, which is the point the earlier poster was trying to make, I think. Integrated graphics have a very long way to go to catch up with discrete GPUs.
Even aside from professional gamers, there are millions of other people playing the same games and hoping for the same frame rates (not to mention those who are running two or three monitors). A lot of games just aren't playable by those standards on current generations of integrated graphics.
We'll see about Haswell and its successors. It used to be (5-15 years ago) the case that games were pushing the hardware, but I think that's less true now. AAA titles' budgets have gotten so high that they can't afford to develop only for the bleeding edge. Integrated graphics might have a chance to catch up.
Originally Posted by Arlor
AAA titles' budgets have gotten so high that they can't afford to develop only for the bleeding edge. Integrated graphics might have a chance to catch up.
The budgets are high because 50% of that is marketing and paying reviewers for higher reviews. Yes, that has an effect on the quality of both gameplay and visuals.
Graphically there aren't really any improvements happening anymore, since games are tailored for consoles first and computers second.
Assuming that these performance numbers are remotely close to what Intel claims that they are, Apple may not use or may not need to use discreet graphics in the 15" rMBP if they go with the i7-4950HQ. This could potentially provide a nice boost to battery performance as well.
This technology is actually pretty advanced. What they have done is removed the need to go the bus when CPU shares data with the GPU. They put it in main memory, mark it, and then the GPU is allowed to use it. Currently, the CPU can only send data over the bus. I saw some demos of this and it is quite impressive they have been able to come up with this solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
...
Graphically there aren't really any improvements happening anymore, since games are tailored for consoles first and computers second.
This isn't true at all. Have you seen the recent improvements in real time ray tracing and rigid body destruction? PC gaming is on a much higher level than consoles.
Yeah I am a bit apprehensive there. If they went for just the classic 15" MBP and not the retina then fine. Even still though, I am not so sure.
Also I meant to add the 4950HQ as well as the 4900HQ to my previous post but since there are other replies after mine, I will add that now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
2. The laptop Haswell iGPU is equivalent to a GeForce 650.
Do you recall where you heard/read that?
Personally I don't really care whether the GPU is integrated or discrete -- it's not like it can be upgraded in a laptop anyway -- as long as it's capable of handling what a user is going to ask of it. If these are, and offer power savings to boot, hooray for Haswell.
In my case in particular, "what a user is going to ask of it" is probably more than what a web-browsing hobby photographer will require. Intel's reports of speed increases are encouraging, but I'd still like to know how they compare to discrete alternatives. Knowing where the various Haswell options sit in comparison to well-documented alternatives will help with choosing the right model when the time comes.