deansolecki - They will definitely drop the discrete GPU. The Iris 5200 can almost match the 650M and can beat it in OpenCL tests. It also has the advantage of ECC memory unlike the 650M and far lower battery drain. The discrete chip is definitely going away.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!
This year is an opportune time to replace my 4 year old iMac with a Macbook Pro. I'd be happy with Apple replacing Intel 4000 with Iris for battery life under everyday conditions but if I didn't require a discrete GPU the Macbook Air would already cater for all my needs. Having to turn off realistic physics, specularity and bump mapping just to pull an acceptable frame rate in 5 year old games really hampers the experience. I get that integrated graphics are the future but I want a computer that will see me covered for the next 4 years. I'm not willing to take a hit just to usher in four years of incremental progress.
Like the above test showed, Iris is faster than the 650M for OpenCL, sometimes by double. 3D work doesn't require the framerates of games so no problem there, plus it has shared memory so 1GB minimum for everyone (yes it's slower but there's a special Iris model with a fast GDDR5 memory cache). It has OpenGL 4 and OpenCL 1.2 support.
They require framerates. 3d app performance is entirely different. It's first a matter of what you're doing. If it's a specialized role, that role is what matters. Texturing requires a lot of memory if you want to display texture maps in 3d. Modeling can really lag if the poly count is too big for the card. Animation is just about being able to evaluate at 24 fps. The viewports themselves do not behave like game engines, and some cards can really suck. I won't say that about this one as I haven't seen it, but some of the developers have started to certify integrated graphics just because of how many machines ship with them. I'm not sure whether the users are more students or smaller businesses. There are quite a few areas where geometry doesn't get too crazy, archviz being a prime example.
Quote:
If it can lower the price considerably, improve fan noise, improve battery life and sacrifice negligible performance, I'd say it's worth doing.
The CPU in the listing is a very expensive mobile GPU and the TDP is higher than the CPU the 13" uses so it would considerably lower battery life.
I am not prone to trusting intel's claims, but your suggestion that they codename it "eclipse" still makes me laugh.
Quote:
For raw performance, the 2013 NVidia and AMD options would be better but not for power consumption and the performance boost would be unnoticeable for actual professional work and not gaming.
I kind of wonder what the usage breakdown is like on the notebooks.
I have money burning a hole in my pocket waiting for a Haswell-powered 13" Retina. Come on, Apple. Release them already haha.
13"? You mean 17 inch! What kind of actual WORK can you do on a screen that small? I watched some kid using a 13" Air on the train, and I swear he spent as much time shuffling menu windows around so he could see various parts of the screen as he did actually working.
Anyone want to place bets on size vs battery life? Same thickness and dramatically extended life, or roughly the same but 30% (or whatever) thinner?
Normally that would be a sucker bet -- everyone knows Ive has this bizarre fetish for anorexic computers -- but this time they might, just might, take the sensible route for a change.
Both the just-released Airs and rumors about new iOS devices suggest that battery life is the pet design trend at Apple right now, so there's hope...
My expectations of the rMBP with Haswell is to get between 10 to 12 hours of battery life. And with Mavericks maybe this MBP could be more close to 12 hours but that may be too optimistic. I'm truly hoping to get at least 10 hours.
Normally that would be a sucker bet -- everyone knows Ive has this bizarre fetish for anorexic computers -- but this time they might, just might, take the sensible route for a change.
Both the just-released Airs and rumors about new iOS devices suggest that battery life is the pet design trend at Apple right now, so there's hope...
They're at a point right now where I don't think they'll trim a significant amount of weight in the near future, so battery may take precedence. Normally I would say Apple is the post child for anorexia nervosa.
Beyond all of that battery tech is changing so fast it is hard to predict what Apple will be using in the future. There is so much research going on in the field of batteries that predicting what will be in future MBPs is difficult because it might not even be lithium technology. Generally performance goes up at a slow but constant pace for a given technology, it is the dark horses out there that could really upset the mix if they came to market.
They're at a point right now where I don't think they'll trim a significant amount of weight in the near future, so battery may take precedence. Normally I would say Apple is the post child for anorexia nervosa.
Beyond all of that battery tech is changing so fast it is hard to predict what Apple will be using in the future. There is so much research going on in the field of batteries that predicting what will be in future MBPs is difficult because it might not even be lithium technology. Generally performance goes up at a slow but constant pace for a given technology, it is the dark horses out there that could really upset the mix if they came to market.
That could be because it's a decent motivator. You like myself are old enough to remember when mobile phones practically required car chargers due to their battery life. This was especially true with early smartphones. We have devices like the iPad and smartphones in general, yet most people wouldn't bring their notebook without the charger. I'm sure everyone would enjoy getting away from that habit. I don't pay enough attention to battery technology to really speculate on future advancements there.
You hit on something that is very important, a lot of people just don't understand ho important batteries are to Apples devices. For a long time I avoided cell phones simply because of the issues you highlight, battery life was so bad that you really needed a good reason to even own a cell phone. Now I can put a UNIX based cell phone in my pocket and know it will be ready all day. It really is amazing.
By the way, for those that want to point out the details, yes I know that process technologies have played a big role in making portable electronics viable. The technology advancement in chips makes the performance possible but still the newer battery tech is a big factor in reliable performance of these smart phones.
That could be because it's a decent motivator. You like myself are old enough to remember when mobile phones practically required car chargers due to their battery life. This was especially true with early smartphones. We have devices like the iPad and smartphones in general, yet most people wouldn't bring their notebook without the charger. I'm sure everyone would enjoy getting away from that habit. I don't pay enough attention to battery technology to really speculate on future advancements there.
You hit on something that is very important, a lot of people just don't understand ho important batteries are to Apples devices. For a long time I avoided cell phones simply because of the issues you highlight, battery life was so bad that you really needed a good reason to even own a cell phone. Now I can put a UNIX based cell phone in my pocket and know it will be ready all day. It really is amazing.
By the way, for those that want to point out the details, yes I know that process technologies have played a big role in making portable electronics viable. The technology advancement in chips makes the performance possible but still the newer battery tech is a big factor in reliable performance of these smart phones.
Well it's an issue of both power supply and consumption. Given that there's a focus at both ends, I suspect if that continues we could see some very cool improvements. I would like to be able to treat a notebook or really whatever form accomplishes the tasks of one and treat it like I do a phone, just charge it at night.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers
deansolecki - They will definitely drop the discrete GPU. The Iris 5200 can almost match the 650M and can beat it in OpenCL tests. It also has the advantage of ECC memory unlike the 650M and far lower battery drain. The discrete chip is definitely going away.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!
This year is an opportune time to replace my 4 year old iMac with a Macbook Pro. I'd be happy with Apple replacing Intel 4000 with Iris for battery life under everyday conditions but if I didn't require a discrete GPU the Macbook Air would already cater for all my needs. Having to turn off realistic physics, specularity and bump mapping just to pull an acceptable frame rate in 5 year old games really hampers the experience. I get that integrated graphics are the future but I want a computer that will see me covered for the next 4 years. I'm not willing to take a hit just to usher in four years of incremental progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
There's one here on the left, I'm sure it sells quite well:
http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs-retina/
Like the above test showed, Iris is faster than the 650M for OpenCL, sometimes by double. 3D work doesn't require the framerates of games so no problem there, plus it has shared memory so 1GB minimum for everyone (yes it's slower but there's a special Iris model with a fast GDDR5 memory cache). It has OpenGL 4 and OpenCL 1.2 support.
They require framerates. 3d app performance is entirely different. It's first a matter of what you're doing. If it's a specialized role, that role is what matters. Texturing requires a lot of memory if you want to display texture maps in 3d. Modeling can really lag if the poly count is too big for the card. Animation is just about being able to evaluate at 24 fps. The viewports themselves do not behave like game engines, and some cards can really suck. I won't say that about this one as I haven't seen it, but some of the developers have started to certify integrated graphics just because of how many machines ship with them. I'm not sure whether the users are more students or smaller businesses. There are quite a few areas where geometry doesn't get too crazy, archviz being a prime example.
Quote:
If it can lower the price considerably, improve fan noise, improve battery life and sacrifice negligible performance, I'd say it's worth doing.
The CPU in the listing is a very expensive mobile GPU and the TDP is higher than the CPU the 13" uses so it would considerably lower battery life.
I am not prone to trusting intel's claims, but your suggestion that they codename it "eclipse" still makes me laugh.
Quote:
For raw performance, the 2013 NVidia and AMD options would be better but not for power consumption and the performance boost would be unnoticeable for actual professional work and not gaming.
I kind of wonder what the usage breakdown is like on the notebooks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuddyRevell
I have money burning a hole in my pocket waiting for a Haswell-powered 13" Retina. Come on, Apple. Release them already haha.
13"? You mean 17 inch! What kind of actual WORK can you do on a screen that small? I watched some kid using a 13" Air on the train, and I swear he spent as much time shuffling menu windows around so he could see various parts of the screen as he did actually working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmlco
Anyone want to place bets on size vs battery life? Same thickness and dramatically extended life, or roughly the same but 30% (or whatever) thinner?
Normally that would be a sucker bet -- everyone knows Ive has this bizarre fetish for anorexic computers -- but this time they might, just might, take the sensible route for a change.
Both the just-released Airs and rumors about new iOS devices suggest that battery life is the pet design trend at Apple right now, so there's hope...
My expectations of the rMBP with Haswell is to get between 10 to 12 hours of battery life. And with Mavericks maybe this MBP could be more close to 12 hours but that may be too optimistic. I'm truly hoping to get at least 10 hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Normally that would be a sucker bet -- everyone knows Ive has this bizarre fetish for anorexic computers -- but this time they might, just might, take the sensible route for a change.
Both the just-released Airs and rumors about new iOS devices suggest that battery life is the pet design trend at Apple right now, so there's hope...
They're at a point right now where I don't think they'll trim a significant amount of weight in the near future, so battery may take precedence. Normally I would say Apple is the post child for anorexia nervosa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Beyond all of that battery tech is changing so fast it is hard to predict what Apple will be using in the future. There is so much research going on in the field of batteries that predicting what will be in future MBPs is difficult because it might not even be lithium technology. Generally performance goes up at a slow but constant pace for a given technology, it is the dark horses out there that could really upset the mix if they came to market.
That could be because it's a decent motivator. You like myself are old enough to remember when mobile phones practically required car chargers due to their battery life. This was especially true with early smartphones. We have devices like the iPad and smartphones in general, yet most people wouldn't bring their notebook without the charger. I'm sure everyone would enjoy getting away from that habit. I don't pay enough attention to battery technology to really speculate on future advancements there.
By the way, for those that want to point out the details, yes I know that process technologies have played a big role in making portable electronics viable. The technology advancement in chips makes the performance possible but still the newer battery tech is a big factor in reliable performance of these smart phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You hit on something that is very important, a lot of people just don't understand ho important batteries are to Apples devices. For a long time I avoided cell phones simply because of the issues you highlight, battery life was so bad that you really needed a good reason to even own a cell phone. Now I can put a UNIX based cell phone in my pocket and know it will be ready all day. It really is amazing.
By the way, for those that want to point out the details, yes I know that process technologies have played a big role in making portable electronics viable. The technology advancement in chips makes the performance possible but still the newer battery tech is a big factor in reliable performance of these smart phones.
Well it's an issue of both power supply and consumption. Given that there's a focus at both ends, I suspect if that continues we could see some very cool improvements. I would like to be able to treat a notebook or really whatever form accomplishes the tasks of one and treat it like I do a phone, just charge it at night.