It'll be interesting to see what Apple puts in the iMac in the next few years and I hope they do not consider integrated to be good enough for the iMac. As it is, I don't feel 512 MB of memory in the current cards is acceptable and it should be at least a gig.
<span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">Your needs are understandable but they are not something a large company like Apple can dwell on. They need to offer machines that can be mass produced and sell well. Like it or not the 17" market is dying even in the Windows world, I've seen a number of people give the machines up as being too big to be practical. The format is likely to become a vehicle for niche players.</span>
You obviously are not a PRO user. Its more than "niche". Its a very important segment of the computer business that drives innovation. The writing is on the wall.
I understand what you think you need for your business, nothing wrong with that. All I'm saying is that that business isn't as large as you think. If it was it would have justified the 17" MBP.
As for driving innovation, I really think that is BS. The AIRs have driven laptop innovation more than anything else at Apple. Further they sell really well.
Deny all you want, but these declining trends are evident. Bean counter versus innovation is an old quandary. Too much of either is not good. You think its fine for Apple to abandon this segment. I disagree.
You see this is where I think your perspective here is screwed up. Apple did not forget the segment the segment forgot about Apple. There is little reason to keep a machine on the market that doesn't sell well. This I believe was the problem with the 17" MBP.
Now we can discuss why it sold so poorly but that is really another thread altogether.
Time will tell. One thing I do know. The Pro segment of the market won't settle for inadequate solutions very long and they will find alternatives.
They are free to do so. However screen size doesn't make a computer inadequate
It may be I have the last Apple notebook that can run Pro Tools, which requires a dedicated GPU, among other things. Thats a lot of users BTW.
That is BS! The 15" comes with a GPU and runs Pro tools fine. Mavericks is bringing OpenCL acceleration to some Intel GPUs and in some cases OpenCL is extremely fast on Intels integrated GPUs. Much faster than the NVidia solutions.
If you have followed any of my posts over the years you will see that I'm a strong advocate for discrete GPUs. I advocate them mainly because they extend the life span of the machine and in the past that was the only way to get good OpenCL performance. Those days though are quickly becoming numbered. It is pretty simple really, if Intel Integrated GPUs can deliver better performance then it is foolish to pine for discrete GPUs.
As General Patton said so eloquently: Retreat, never, I don't want to capture the same real estate twice.
Patton was full of good quotes!
The funny thing about this discussion is that Apple has never said that the 17" MBP is gone for good. In fact they have said little about it publicly. Apple could still have plans here. Personally I doubt it, but the little mention of it is interesting. In any event I'm convinced that such a machine can't be a 15" MBP with a bigger screen and be successful.
As for your needs have you written Apple or Cook specifically asking about a new 17" machine? In the end the only way Apple will know about demand is to hear about it.
I'm sorry, Marvin, but Intel integrated graphics stink, IMHO.
Nobody will argue that that has been the case in the past. However you can't make decisions based on the past. Seriously at one time Power PC was all the rage along with Alt-Vec. Nobody in their right mind would go back to the PPC days.
The point is you need to keep an open mind and evaluate each generation of GPUs on their own merits. An Intel Iris Pro chip maybe crap for your needs but you can't rightfully say so until hardware and software ship that leverages the chip.
It'll be interesting to see what Apple puts in the iMac in the next few years and I hope they do not consider integrated to be good enough for the iMac. As it is, I don't feel 512 MB of memory in the current cards is acceptable and it should be at least a gig.
Well that is something to speculate upon! I'm going to come down on the side of Iris Pro only. However Intel doesn't currently offer such a chip in a desktop version. So we are contingent upon an unreleased solution from Intel or Apple going back to mobile processors.
As for video RAM that will get real interesting as we move forward. If the GPU can access system memory then it effectively has access to all of the RAM in the system. I believe Apples new drivers provide at least some support for this heterogeneous access. That would turn the iMac into an interesting beast.
In the end the question of " is integrated graphics good enough for the iMac" is an open one. There are many specific points that have to be addressed.
Well that is something to speculate upon! I'm going to come down on the side of Iris Pro only. However Intel doesn't currently offer such a chip in a desktop version. So we are contingent upon an unreleased solution from Intel or Apple going back to mobile processors.
Well integrated graphics on the desktop are still primarily a cost cutting solution. You don't have the issue of battery life there. I've always suspected at some point people who use their notebooks in public will no longer have to locate power outlets for extended periods of use. Looking at the chips that incorporate iris pro graphics, it's unlikely that the cost savings is significant over some of the less expensive discrete chips. I can't say for sure as I haven't been able to locate a cost estimate for something like a 650m.
Quote:
As for video RAM that will get real interesting as we move forward. If the GPU can access system memory then it effectively has access to all of the RAM in the system. I believe Apples new drivers provide at least some support for this heterogeneous access. That would turn the iMac into an interesting beast.
In the end the question of " is integrated graphics good enough for the iMac" is an open one. There are many specific points that have to be addressed.
I remember intel some speculation that ram clock frequencies weren't quite there yet. That might explain the additional cache on some chips as opposed to a longer evolutionary path.
In the end the question of " is integrated graphics good enough for the iMac" is an open one. There are many specific points that have to be addressed.
I hope not unless the difference between integrated and the lower level discrete cards are so minimal that it defeats the purpose. The entry level iMac you can argue may have been sufficient at 512 MB for the 640M, the upper 21.5" and entry level 27" should have had BTO options to double their memory. I said this before and I'll say it again. No excuse by Apple not to do it.
Well integrated graphics on the desktop are still primarily a cost cutting solution. You don't have the issue of battery life there. I've always suspected at some point people who use their notebooks in public will no longer have to locate power outlets for extended periods of use. Looking at the chips that incorporate iris pro graphics, it's unlikely that the cost savings is significant over some of the less expensive discrete chips. I can't say for sure as I haven't been able to locate a cost estimate for something like a 650m.
Intel is apparently charging a good penny for the Iris variants. However they keep the price point competitive so that discrete chips aren't appealing.
I remember intel some speculation that ram clock frequencies weren't quite there yet. That might explain the additional cache on some chips as opposed to a longer evolutionary path.
This is a problem that both AMD and Intel have with their APUs. I wouldn't be surprised to find dedicated RAM for the GPU right in the SoC in the future. Right now packaging in a separate RAM die is a compromise to get around the bandwidth to RAM problem. It should also be noted that Intels focus with Iris Pro is on mobile where you don't have the option of wider paths to memory.
I hope not unless the difference between integrated and the lower level discrete cards are so minimal that it defeats the purpose.
In the case of Iris Pro it isn't competing with lower level discrete cards. If you believe the pre release sites Iris Pro is very competitive with the better mobile solutions out there. Further for some OpenCL code it leaves them in the dust. Me, I'm a wait and see guy when it comes to Intel GPUs and Apple drivers.
The entry level iMac you can argue may have been sufficient at 512 MB for the 640M, the upper 21.5" and entry level 27" should have had BTO options to double their memory. I said this before and I'll say it again. No excuse by Apple not to do it.
Well the excuse might be power but I have to agree Apple has been very stingy with GPU RAM. However the equation gets very interesting if the GPU can access RAM itself on Mavericks. Frankly I'm not keyed into the developer world like I have been in the past, but we could see some apps really benefiting from Intels APUs. To many apps leveraging GPUs suffer from the need to move large amounts of data around just to go fast on the GPU. We could be taking a step away from that problem on Mavericks.
Intel is apparently charging a good penny for the Iris variants. However they keep the price point competitive so that discrete chips aren't appealing.
This is a problem that both AMD and Intel have with their APUs. I wouldn't be surprised to find dedicated RAM for the GPU right in the SoC in the future.
Intel's list prices are higher for iris variants. That's why I said it's not terribly synergetic with desktop solutions where the use of integrated graphics remain due to cost effectiveness. There are still $100 desktop cards that can deliver superior performance. It's much more appealing on a notebook if it helps usher in the ability to leave the power brick at home. Speaking of Apple's power bricks, they don't deal well with discrete graphics. The 2011s were the worst in that regard. Mobile gpus aren't that great anyway. I've stated before that some things are still best served by the desktop as a primary machine. A lot of people who require the highest gpu performance are likely to run multiple displays and peripherals, at which point they're anchored to one spot for most things anyway.
Quote:
Right now packaging in a separate RAM die is a compromise to get around the bandwidth to RAM problem. It should also be noted that Intels focus with Iris Pro is on mobile where you don't have the option of wider paths to memory.
Vram in discrete gpus is faster than what you have available for main memory. I just figured that was probably the achilles heel for intel and apus at the moment.
The combination of 6750m/6770m and quad cpus drew too much power for the adapter used. The problem was probably not as severe with the 6490m, although it may have been there. I never had any direct experience with that model.
The combination of 6750m/6770m and quad cpus drew too much power for the adapter used. The problem was probably not as severe with the 6490m, although it may have been there. I never had any direct experience with that model.
Ah I didn't know if it started early or late in 2011.
Ah I didn't know if it started early or late in 2011.
Early 2011 used a 6750m on some models. Just the $1800 model had the 6490m, which imo was ridiculous (use of a distinctly low end gpu for what it cost).
Big deal who really cares if these macs are not released until Oct. More essential things in life than this.
The NFL Season starts tonight! : D
Anyway, I honestly hope they at least announce the new MacBook Pro next Tuesday even if it is not due out for another 1-2 months. I live for the announcements though so much the products themselves.
Looks like there's very minor issues, have you come across anything seriously wrong? How come screen recordings aren't compatible with older versions of OS X, are they not using H.264?
Comments
As for driving innovation, I really think that is BS. The AIRs have driven laptop innovation more than anything else at Apple. Further they sell really well. You see this is where I think your perspective here is screwed up. Apple did not forget the segment the segment forgot about Apple. There is little reason to keep a machine on the market that doesn't sell well. This I believe was the problem with the 17" MBP.
Now we can discuss why it sold so poorly but that is really another thread altogether. They are free to do so. However screen size doesn't make a computer inadequate That is BS! The 15" comes with a GPU and runs Pro tools fine. Mavericks is bringing OpenCL acceleration to some Intel GPUs and in some cases OpenCL is extremely fast on Intels integrated GPUs. Much faster than the NVidia solutions.
If you have followed any of my posts over the years you will see that I'm a strong advocate for discrete GPUs. I advocate them mainly because they extend the life span of the machine and in the past that was the only way to get good OpenCL performance. Those days though are quickly becoming numbered. It is pretty simple really, if Intel Integrated GPUs can deliver better performance then it is foolish to pine for discrete GPUs.
Patton was full of good quotes!
The funny thing about this discussion is that Apple has never said that the 17" MBP is gone for good. In fact they have said little about it publicly. Apple could still have plans here. Personally I doubt it, but the little mention of it is interesting. In any event I'm convinced that such a machine can't be a 15" MBP with a bigger screen and be successful.
As for your needs have you written Apple or Cook specifically asking about a new 17" machine? In the end the only way Apple will know about demand is to hear about it.
Nobody will argue that that has been the case in the past. However you can't make decisions based on the past. Seriously at one time Power PC was all the rage along with Alt-Vec. Nobody in their right mind would go back to the PPC days.
The point is you need to keep an open mind and evaluate each generation of GPUs on their own merits. An Intel Iris Pro chip maybe crap for your needs but you can't rightfully say so until hardware and software ship that leverages the chip.
Well that is something to speculate upon! I'm going to come down on the side of Iris Pro only. However Intel doesn't currently offer such a chip in a desktop version. So we are contingent upon an unreleased solution from Intel or Apple going back to mobile processors.
As for video RAM that will get real interesting as we move forward. If the GPU can access system memory then it effectively has access to all of the RAM in the system. I believe Apples new drivers provide at least some support for this heterogeneous access. That would turn the iMac into an interesting beast.
In the end the question of " is integrated graphics good enough for the iMac" is an open one. There are many specific points that have to be addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Well that is something to speculate upon! I'm going to come down on the side of Iris Pro only. However Intel doesn't currently offer such a chip in a desktop version. So we are contingent upon an unreleased solution from Intel or Apple going back to mobile processors.
Well integrated graphics on the desktop are still primarily a cost cutting solution. You don't have the issue of battery life there. I've always suspected at some point people who use their notebooks in public will no longer have to locate power outlets for extended periods of use. Looking at the chips that incorporate iris pro graphics, it's unlikely that the cost savings is significant over some of the less expensive discrete chips. I can't say for sure as I haven't been able to locate a cost estimate for something like a 650m.
Quote:
As for video RAM that will get real interesting as we move forward. If the GPU can access system memory then it effectively has access to all of the RAM in the system. I believe Apples new drivers provide at least some support for this heterogeneous access. That would turn the iMac into an interesting beast.
In the end the question of " is integrated graphics good enough for the iMac" is an open one. There are many specific points that have to be addressed.
I remember intel some speculation that ram clock frequencies weren't quite there yet. That might explain the additional cache on some chips as opposed to a longer evolutionary path.
I hope not unless the difference between integrated and the lower level discrete cards are so minimal that it defeats the purpose. The entry level iMac you can argue may have been sufficient at 512 MB for the 640M, the upper 21.5" and entry level 27" should have had BTO options to double their memory. I said this before and I'll say it again. No excuse by Apple not to do it.
This is a problem that both AMD and Intel have with their APUs. I wouldn't be surprised to find dedicated RAM for the GPU right in the SoC in the future. Right now packaging in a separate RAM die is a compromise to get around the bandwidth to RAM problem. It should also be noted that Intels focus with Iris Pro is on mobile where you don't have the option of wider paths to memory.
Well the excuse might be power but I have to agree Apple has been very stingy with GPU RAM. However the equation gets very interesting if the GPU can access RAM itself on Mavericks. Frankly I'm not keyed into the developer world like I have been in the past, but we could see some apps really benefiting from Intels APUs. To many apps leveraging GPUs suffer from the need to move large amounts of data around just to go fast on the GPU. We could be taking a step away from that problem on Mavericks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Intel is apparently charging a good penny for the Iris variants. However they keep the price point competitive so that discrete chips aren't appealing.
This is a problem that both AMD and Intel have with their APUs. I wouldn't be surprised to find dedicated RAM for the GPU right in the SoC in the future.
Intel's list prices are higher for iris variants. That's why I said it's not terribly synergetic with desktop solutions where the use of integrated graphics remain due to cost effectiveness. There are still $100 desktop cards that can deliver superior performance. It's much more appealing on a notebook if it helps usher in the ability to leave the power brick at home. Speaking of Apple's power bricks, they don't deal well with discrete graphics. The 2011s were the worst in that regard. Mobile gpus aren't that great anyway. I've stated before that some things are still best served by the desktop as a primary machine. A lot of people who require the highest gpu performance are likely to run multiple displays and peripherals, at which point they're anchored to one spot for most things anyway.
Quote:
Right now packaging in a separate RAM die is a compromise to get around the bandwidth to RAM problem. It should also be noted that Intels focus with Iris Pro is on mobile where you don't have the option of wider paths to memory.
Vram in discrete gpus is faster than what you have available for main memory. I just figured that was probably the achilles heel for intel and apus at the moment.
The combination of 6750m/6770m and quad cpus drew too much power for the adapter used. The problem was probably not as severe with the 6490m, although it may have been there. I never had any direct experience with that model.
Ah I didn't know if it started early or late in 2011.
Ah I didn't know if it started early or late in 2011.
Early 2011 used a 6750m on some models. Just the $1800 model had the 6490m, which imo was ridiculous (use of a distinctly low end gpu for what it cost).
If there's going to be another release, that might mean no Macs until October
Well, DP7 doesn't feel GMish either.
Too bad TS was too chicken to make the bet.
Too bad TS was too chicken to make the bet.
Too bad whatever bet you're talking about was based in fallacy.
Big deal who really cares if these macs are not released until Oct. More essential things in life than this.
The NFL Season starts tonight! : D
Anyway, I honestly hope they at least announce the new MacBook Pro next Tuesday even if it is not due out for another 1-2 months. I live for the announcements though so much the products themselves.
This site lists issues with DP7:
http://fairerplatform.com/2013/09/os-x-mavericks-developer-preview-7/
Looks like there's very minor issues, have you come across anything seriously wrong? How come screen recordings aren't compatible with older versions of OS X, are they not using H.264?