Intel first announced it in January at some event comparing two side by side laptops. One featured the 650M the other featured Haswell graphics. The 650M was still faster but according to controlled tests by very little.
A betters battery certainly wouldn't hurt. However I currently wouldn't consider an AIR at all due to the terrible processor and GPU performance. It is getting real close to the point where Haswell might make a Mini attractive to me. It all depends upon the exact configuration. All I can say is " Go for it Apple".
The **** are you talking about? Ivy Bridge has "terrible" performance? The GPU is also fine for 95% of what people use it for, and a big step up from the last one. I use my Air for absolutely everything, including intensive design work, and it flies through everything like a knife through hot butter. Easily the most responsive computer I've used, has never dissapointed. Yes, if you're constantly rendering video or high end 3D gaming it's not the right choice, but "terrible" performance? Hardly. What exactly do you do that makes the Air insufficient?
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 am desperately clinging to my 2009 17" dspite the kybord starting to wear out and the absence of USB3 (which would be really handy for my use) in the faint hope that the larger screen will be resurrected before I'm forced to replace this one. I don't wanna give up a full quarter of what already feels horizontally cramped sometimes.
The engineer I know at Intel has said as much (though he's on the Cannonlake team, so Haswell is very old news to him), Intel's marketing has pitched it like that, and Marvin agrees (I'm pretty sure; he said as much in the "next Mac Mini" thread here). Then again, Intel's marketing could be overhyping. *shrug*
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.
True. Even though the mini is AC powered, there are still heat concerns.
I wonder if Apple will put any of these in the MacPro they keep promising to release? Or would that require Apple to be a serious computer company and not just a distributor of cheap toxic slave labor made Chinese junk?
I wonder if Apple will put any of these in the MacPro they keep promising to release? Or would that require Apple to be a serious computer company and not just a distributor of cheap toxic slave labor made Chinese junk?
Every computer company uses or has used Chinese labor. Not all computer components are made in China though.
For current models, the 13" Macbook Pro w/ and w/o retina uses only the intel HD4000 too. The 15" w/ and w/o retina have both the intel HD4000 and Nvidia GT 650M, and auto switch between the 2 on the fly. All current mac mini models use only intel HD4000 as well. All the new-ish imac models use discrete Nvidia graphics chips.
My iMac 12,2 aka mid 2011 has the AMD Radeon HD 6970M w/ 2G DDR 5 memory.
Marvin's quite confident in that, from what he has seen, and I know a guy who works at Intel in the "making the chips that will be released five years from now" department (there's probably a classier name for it) who says the same thing about Haswell.
A speedup of 2.5-3x definitely puts it in league with the 650M. I'm more confident that they'll match the 640M but their graphics demos look pretty good. Their speed improvement graph looks good too:
75x in 7 years averages out to roughly double every year. Assuming it does reach 650M, another 6x and Intel IGPs will match the Titan GPU. I doubt Intel will manage that by 2016 but you never know. I definitely expect that level from NVidia.
Intel's still a bit behind because NVidia will move to the 750M this year. NVidia claims it will be up to 75% faster, I reckon it will be closer to 30-40% faster. Still, great performance at every level, finally.
Your point still stands on its own since the Education Macs aren't consumer PCs. Despite the odium toward iGPUs on tech forums I don't think that most consumers care so long as it does what they need it to do. If it was such a problem the 11" MBA, 13" MBA, 13" MBP, and Mac minis wouldn't be as popular as they are.
For me, it's never been an issue since I am not a gamer, and don't edit large images or videos. In fact, the 2012 iMac is my first Mac with a dGPU since my 12" PowerBook circa 2004. That came with a 64MB NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5200. I'd rather have any of the MBP iGPUs than that dGPU.
Yes likely however if retina rises price it might be less, What I hope for is the current one to stay selling(like MacBook Pro) yet at lower price of $700, then this one having a even thinner design! With retina! Reaching a price(at minimum)$1000-1200
The **** are you talking about? Ivy Bridge has "terrible" performance? The GPU is also fine for 95% of what people use it for, and a big step up from the last one. I use my Air for absolutely everything, including intensive design work, and it flies through everything like a knife through hot butter. Easily the most responsive computer I've used, has never dissapointed. Yes, if you're constantly rendering video or high end 3D gaming it's not the right choice, but "terrible" performance? Hardly. What exactly do you do that makes the Air insufficient?
Yes, my 2010 Air, even with the slower SSD, 1.83ghz Core 2 and nvidia 320M and 2GB RAM runs every desktop app very well. I kept it because it returned a solid 8-10 hours of battery life. Only the 2GB and 128GB of SSD were particularly limiting over time. The current generation Air with the dual core i7 and maxed-out memory is very capable.
Intel's graphics keep getting better and for Haswell I feel the fastest graphics available from that is perfect for an education model. I still do not feel it is ready for a standard base model quite yet though it is getting there and it needs to have a price drop I feel.
It will also be interesting to see what the 750M can do.
Integrated graphics isn't very usefull, but apple must use because of space and energy compustion and even through the 3X gain is nice, it's still not for professional gaming.
I think a solution for Apple is to use an over clocked 16 core G6630 Rouge GPU as standalone discrete graphic. It can achieve performance of mid end graphic cards in about 1 W compustion and its size is just a few dozens of mm^2. They can put it in 13 Mac book retina, 11 inch Mac book Air, maybe even into iPad.
While I detest the "professional gaming" reference there are professional gamers although they are more rare than professional athletes and certainly no more ridiculous than an adult paid millions of dollars to play a child's sport. Furthermore, the gaming industry has continuously pressured computing manufacturers to improve their products to accommodate this small but significant market.
The essence of the post, however, was that ARM SoCs are rapidly approaching the processing power necessary for ultraportables and may provide benefits to battery life as well.
No more ludicrous then any other professional sport, at least with this one normal people can participate.
In concept, no more ludicrous, but outside of South Korea, there really isn't much of a profession to computer game playing. Apple doesn't make gamer machines and I just don't see that realistically changing until there is a successful cable channel dedicated to computer gaming.
Any competitive activity will bias towards people that are more gifted, just different gifts.
"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 a way, that's not a surprise, Starcraft is like the unofficial religion of South Korea.
I don't think Apple really pays much heed to the gamer enthusiast market, it would take too much to surmount the anti-Mac sentiment that exists in the gamer enthusiast community.
I don't want any of fucking integrated video card from Intel! They're fucking sucks. I'd rather use Nvidia or AMD's ATI. Any of Mac devices with integrated Intel video card is so FUCKED!
I thought the native language in Texas was English!
This reads like a Dutch kid who has only just started learning English.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
A betters battery certainly wouldn't hurt. However I currently wouldn't consider an AIR at all due to the terrible processor and GPU performance. It is getting real close to the point where Haswell might make a Mini attractive to me. It all depends upon the exact configuration. All I can say is " Go for it Apple".
The **** are you talking about? Ivy Bridge has "terrible" performance? The GPU is also fine for 95% of what people use it for, and a big step up from the last one. I use my Air for absolutely everything, including intensive design work, and it flies through everything like a knife through hot butter. Easily the most responsive computer I've used, has never dissapointed. Yes, if you're constantly rendering video or high end 3D gaming it's not the right choice, but "terrible" performance? Hardly. What exactly do you do that makes the Air insufficient?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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 am desperately clinging to my 2009 17" dspite the kybord starting to wear out and the absence of USB3 (which would be really handy for my use) in the faint hope that the larger screen will be resurrected before I'm forced to replace this one. I don't wanna give up a full quarter of what already feels horizontally cramped sometimes.
Originally Posted by v5v
Do you recall where you heard/read that?
The engineer I know at Intel has said as much (though he's on the Cannonlake team, so Haswell is very old news to him), Intel's marketing has pitched it like that, and Marvin agrees (I'm pretty sure; he said as much in the "next Mac Mini" thread here). Then again, Intel's marketing could be overhyping. *shrug*
Originally Posted by drblank
Pretty cool.
Yup. Macs are going to be way more "snappy."
Originally Posted by drblank
I wonder what Apple has on tap for the next gen ARM chips? I have a few guesses.
ARM-based MacBook Air is inevitable. Some day. The ARMv8 spec was released in 2011,
and it feature a 64-bit instruction set. That was the last major technical issue preventing OS X
from running on ARM. The next hardware step will be building quad-core 64-bit Ax SoCs.
Apple needs to stop paying boutique prices for Intel CPUs. (AKA "The Intel Tax.")
The benefits would of course be higher margins and/or lower retail pricing.
Yet more bad news for Intel and the brain-dead Ultrabook-making copycats.
True. Even though the mini is AC powered, there are still heat concerns.
Every computer company uses or has used Chinese labor. Not all computer components are made in China though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonyo
For current models, the 13" Macbook Pro w/ and w/o retina uses only the intel HD4000 too. The 15" w/ and w/o retina have both the intel HD4000 and Nvidia GT 650M, and auto switch between the 2 on the fly. All current mac mini models use only intel HD4000 as well. All the new-ish imac models use discrete Nvidia graphics chips.
My iMac 12,2 aka mid 2011 has the AMD Radeon HD 6970M w/ 2G DDR 5 memory.
IHTH.
Duplicate. Oops!
Oh yeah, I forgot about that model:
http://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/05/apple-launches-1099-21-5-inch-imac-with-3-3-ghz-dual-core-i3-processor-for-educational-institutions/
They use a Core-i3 and it's $200 cheaper. They still put that one up $100 vs the last model.
A speedup of 2.5-3x definitely puts it in league with the 650M. I'm more confident that they'll match the 640M but their graphics demos look pretty good. Their speed improvement graph looks good too:
75x in 7 years averages out to roughly double every year. Assuming it does reach 650M, another 6x and Intel IGPs will match the Titan GPU. I doubt Intel will manage that by 2016 but you never know. I definitely expect that level from NVidia.
Intel's still a bit behind because NVidia will move to the 750M this year. NVidia claims it will be up to 75% faster, I reckon it will be closer to 30-40% faster. Still, great performance at every level, finally.
Your point still stands on its own since the Education Macs aren't consumer PCs. Despite the odium toward iGPUs on tech forums I don't think that most consumers care so long as it does what they need it to do. If it was such a problem the 11" MBA, 13" MBA, 13" MBP, and Mac minis wouldn't be as popular as they are.
For me, it's never been an issue since I am not a gamer, and don't edit large images or videos. In fact, the 2012 iMac is my first Mac with a dGPU since my 12" PowerBook circa 2004. That came with a 64MB NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5200. I'd rather have any of the MBP iGPUs than that dGPU.
Originally Posted by shredx1
I wonder if Apple will put any of these in the MacPro they keep promising to release?
Given that they have until December 31, 2013 to release it under their original promise, there's something wrong with what you're saying.
Or would that require Apple to be a serious computer company and not just a distributor of cheap toxic slave labor made Chinese junk?
Just shut up and go away.
Yes, my 2010 Air, even with the slower SSD, 1.83ghz Core 2 and nvidia 320M and 2GB RAM runs every desktop app very well. I kept it because it returned a solid 8-10 hours of battery life. Only the 2GB and 128GB of SSD were particularly limiting over time. The current generation Air with the dual core i7 and maxed-out memory is very capable.
It will also be interesting to see what the 750M can do.
While I detest the "professional gaming" reference there are professional gamers although they are more rare than professional athletes and certainly no more ridiculous than an adult paid millions of dollars to play a child's sport. Furthermore, the gaming industry has continuously pressured computing manufacturers to improve their products to accommodate this small but significant market.
The essence of the post, however, was that ARM SoCs are rapidly approaching the processing power necessary for ultraportables and may provide benefits to battery life as well.
In concept, no more ludicrous, but outside of South Korea, there really isn't much of a profession to computer game playing. Apple doesn't make gamer machines and I just don't see that realistically changing until there is a successful cable channel dedicated to computer gaming.
Any competitive activity will bias towards people that are more gifted, just different gifts.
In a way, that's not a surprise, Starcraft is like the unofficial religion of South Korea.
I don't think Apple really pays much heed to the gamer enthusiast market, it would take too much to surmount the anti-Mac sentiment that exists in the gamer enthusiast community.
GPU is not just for games. Just look at Apple's iLife and Pro apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexDeafy
I don't want any of fucking integrated video card from Intel! They're fucking sucks. I'd rather use Nvidia or AMD's ATI. Any of Mac devices with integrated Intel video card is so FUCKED!
I thought the native language in Texas was English!
This reads like a Dutch kid who has only just started learning English.