I'm using a late 2006 MBP and the ATY Radon X1600 card with 256 Mb of VRAM is just not quite hacking it for some of my work. The laptop runs hot enough to leave red marks on my thighs when processing graphics flat out.
Does anyone know just how much faster the Intel Ivy Bridge processor with integrated graphics might be?? I could stand to have 10 to 20 percent faster graphics than I presently have, but even just as fast would be fine if the laptop ran cooler.
If Apple is planning on making the MBP more compact and lighter, that would be nice, however that also means the internals can't be throwing off the kind of heat my current MBP does.
The HD4000 is seeing double the results of the 3000 in 3D Vantage tests. The 3DMark 06 tests are nearly double and quadruple your current results. The X1600 is ancient and even integrated graphics smoke it now. You should see ridiculous improvements well beyond the 10-20% you are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry
Integrated graphics on a pro model? Are you crazy!
You mean like this *points to 13" MBP* Apple said they couldn't fit a discrete card in there and keep things cool and maintain battery life. If they are removing the optical drive in the next gen, they should be able to do all that.
The Ivy Bridge GPU should get a 40-50% boost over Sandy Bridge. This will give it a score of 547.
So essentially, the GPU is equivalent to the 6630M in the Mini and 6490M in the last-gen 15" MBP. This performance is adequate for most games and will run most of the higher-end titles on low settings - it should be able to run Battlefield 3 for example.
It would be nice to see them moving up all the time but they will probably shave off 10W going with an IGP and this is the first Intel IGP that will handle OpenCL so a decent boost for FCPX on the entry laptops.
It will be a shame to see NVidia blocked as I think their GPUs and drivers are better than AMD's but I'm sure the chosen options will be good. They could even lower the price of the entry 15" laptop or put the money towards a 256GB SSD on the entry model.
One other thing to keep in mind is that IGPs tend to get more video memory than Apple's low-end dedicated GPUs and it goes up if you increase your RAM:
I could see a dramatic move to SSD happening this year at the expense of GPU increases and I would welcome it big time. I am sick to death of that stupid beachball. It would help remove some framerate drops from games too so although the framerate won't go up much at all, it will be easier to sustain at peak.
Just imagine if they shifted every Mac model over to SSD drives: 128GB on the entry MBA and Mini, 256GB on every model above that with options for 512GB on the highest models.
Side-step the graphics for the most part, dramatically increase boot times and loading times, cut power draw by 10W to boost battery life and have thin and light enclosures all round with instant-on. And USB 3 of course.
Pro is an example of Iconic Branding. It is meaningless marketing-speak for those who think product acquisition determines what sort of a person they are.
They are very nice laptop computers. "Pro" ain't got no meaning other than branding.
Yes, its marketing, but I am not sure what you mean by 'Iconic Branding'. I also don't think it is entirely meaningless. It signifies that the machine is of a higher spec. But whether you actually need a higher specked machine as a 'pro' is a silly question. If you are a plumber, or a web developer, a lower specked machine is usually ample.
Most 'Pros' in need of top performance wouldn't be buying anything but the top specked machine, anyway, so its all pretty much academic, imo.
The HD4000 is seeing double the results of the 3000 in 3D Vantage tests. The 3DMark 06 tests are nearly double and quadruple your current results. The X1600 is ancient and even integrated graphics smoke it now. You should see ridiculous improvements well beyond the 10-20% you are talking about.
The HD3000 was barely as good as the (ancient) 9400m and the HD4000 being 'twice' as fast, puts in more or less on par with the 320m (not even the GT330m, which is 2 generations old).
I'll need more than that awful unreadable site's benchmarks to convince me otherwise.
Here are some benchmarks on a website that wasn't designed by a toddler
Note the competing devices are bargain-barrel $40 GPUs, which is barely keeps up with. If you're happy running ultra-low resolution and low-quality texture games, you might see 30 - 50fps (note minimum framerates are more important than average ones).
No chance of Apple ever using Power VR graphics chips on the MacBooks? If a quad core graphics chip can power a retina display iPad i'm pretty sure there is a more advanced model available for laptop class graphics.
Power VR, Geforce 1 and 3dfx Voodoo... Those were the days !
I have a 2011 MBP with Intel graphics driving the 27" Cinema Display and it runs Mac OS and two Windows instances in Parallels just fine. I can only imagine a dedicated GPU is needed for play. For work, Intel's integrated stuff is fine, and Ivy Bridge is supposed to be getting better.
OS X is now OpenGL 3.2+ compliant across the OS. Moving forward will be 4.x compliance and thus requiring baseline GPGPUs to have said compliance.
Sandy Bridge stops at OpenGL 3.0.
I have no doubt the Air series will move forward until the wall finally requires Intel to stop fooling people without a real discrete GPU ala APU via AMD and end their current approach of strapping on a knock-off GPU solution.
The Air with Ivy Bridge will have some Intel 4000HD IGPU.
Very few Ivy Bridge mobile support the 4000 HD graphics set up. The rest use the 2500 HD.
That's 12 - 18 months from now, leaving Intel who is already behind even farther behind.
All AMD APUs will be OpenGL 5.x/OpenCL 2.x compliant by the time Intel is OpenGL 3.2/OpenCL 1.1 compliant.
Sorry, but that's not acceptable. Apple's solutions are more and more moving to OpenCL optimized environments for it's entire suite of sold Applications never mind their OS environments. Knee capping its customers with Intel's integrated graphics won't do for a Pro line of their Laptop.
AMD is meeting it's timelines for the AMD Radeon Mobile 7000 series release dates starting right after WWDC.
I'm expecting Apple to put an AMD Radeon 7000 series Mobile GPU on their new Macbook Pro solutions [presently they use the 6000M series and the low end model uses Intel 3000 HD].
I expect them to have one low end, entry model with an Intel 4000 HD and the rest with discrete 7000M series from AMD.
Anything less would be absurd and damage the brand in the Laptop market space.
The onboard GPU is a joke, it's always a joke, it makes me want to cry when I see new MacBook Air/MacBook Pro's without a dedicated AMD or nVidia GPU part. I can't believe Intel insists on damaging their brand by putting 5 year old GPU performance in brand new CPU's. I'm not asking for the onboard GPU to be be like a top of the line part, but if I'm paying extra for the onboard GPU, it should perform like an entry-level 100$ GPU and not an afterthought.
The fact that the Intel HD3000 is slower than 29$ throwaway GPU makes me wonder why Intel bothers doing this with the desktop parts at all. The laptop parts at least get some energy savings out of the deal. Apple doesn't even support the first generation Macbook Air(3-4 years old) in the current OSX because the Intel Video is is too weak. This should illustrate the point to Intel to stop making video parts with just enough performance to pass certification tests.
Blame goes to apple, not Intel. Try to get the same power per watt performance wont even get some of those fans running on modern gpu
I really hope this is just what the article says it is: a rumor, because if not even the mid-range MBP's have a real GPU, I'll not be buying a MBP at all. I don't want a 17" laptop, I'd very much prefer 13" over 15", and I'm not willing to get stuck with the kind of craptastic GPU's Intel makes, for a laptop I'm planning to use at least 3 years. No matter how many times they say their 'new' GPU architectures will 'double performance' or whatever, they always suck when you try to put them to work. Sandy Bridge was supposed to have twice the graphics performance as well with the HD3000, and while low-resolution, low-detail benchmarks were pretty favorable for Intel's claims, as soon as you ran it at higher resolutions or detail, performance completely fell apart. In practice, my late 2008 alu MacBook performs similarly in games and other graphics apps, as for example my colleague's mid-2011 MBP with an HD3000. In addition to that, the NVidia 9400M in my MB actually supports OpenCL and full GPU accelerated video decoding, while the HD3000 only supports partial accelerated video decoding. It's miserable. Which isn't surprising, considering the fact that the HD3000 is based on the same old architecture as earlier Intel GPU's that also sucked, and most of the performance increase it brought were only because it was better integrated with the CPU, not because the GPU itself was a lot more powerful.
Even if I'm not interested in playing BF3 or some other graphics-heavy games on my laptop, I'd still like to be able to play some less demanding games like the new SimCity that is due next year. I think you can almost forget running that with an HD4000 if it is only 50% faster than an HD3000. The HD3000 doesn't even run 4 year old games that aren't very graphics intensive at good frame rates, such as Anno 1404, which runs perfectly on my 2008 MB
If the low/mid range MBP's only have integrated graphics, I could just as well get the highest spec MBA, which would likely be faster for many tasks than the base 13" MBP models, unless the MBP's will also have an SSD by default.
Well to be honest its not like anyone uses a macbook for gaming. Indeed, ANY laptop for serious gaming.
For the kinds of games likely to be played on a laptop, ivy bridge is fine.
If you want BF3 at ultra settings in high res though, well dedicated graphics is the only way....for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninadpchaudhari
Guys but y only NVidia ?
in fact AMD has a gr8 name in gaming industry ...
then y only Nvidia ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
You must be jealous you can't buy one.
J.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boriscleto
So I haven't been using Aperture on my 2009 mini for the last 2 years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus
Who gives 2 shits what Apple puts into its refreshed MBP as long as there is a performance gain.
They could put a graphics card from a Macintosh Color Classic and if they could get better performance out of it than what they are getting now, why would anyone care?
Really don't get why people focus on specs. A computer is a tool to get a job done. It doesn't matter how it does the job as long as it does the job better and faster than the previous generation.
No, a computer isn't a tool to measure your penis size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus
How do you know, has Apple released their new generation of MBP yet?
'Pro' is not a brand, its a model. Or rather, it is a model classification. Apple is an iconic brand. The 'MBP Pro', many would argue, is an iconic product.
Pro's may use their laptops for editing but anyone who relies on them for rendering or any serious work is just misguided. I used to be a specialist and I always put customer's need for a laptop into question. Laptops are portable, desktops are powerful, that's all there is to it.
Well, sort of. But two things regarding Apple have changed this for pros in both audio and image work, and they are that high end MBPs have shown to be very suitable for heavy lifting in these areas (especially with an external monitor) and that Apple desktops have been extremely underwhelming for too long. Pros who don't need the slots have not been motivated to go the desktop route, since the desktops have been so long in the tooth for so long. When that changes it will change, but whether it's the most powerful rig or not, OSX pros that aren't rendering haven't bought many desktops in recent years, so the MBP market for them has been very strong. You'd be surprised how many highest end photographers with Macs don't have a desktop anymore. A MBP with an awesome monitor has been the route for many.
'Pro' is not a brand, its a model. Or rather, it is a model classification. Apple is an iconic brand. The 'MBP Pro', many would argue, is an iconic product.
I would say it's both a brand and a model. A simpler example would be the iPhone 4S. That is the official branding *? a type of product manufactured by a particular company under a particular name ? and the model which refers not to only to the Speedier version of the iPhone 4, but also signifies, at least to us, that it's the 5th gen iPhone.
How do you know, has Apple released their new generation of MBP yet?
His point was completely valid. Why would they have to release them? We know what the old generations does and we can speculate on what using Ivy Bridge's HD4000 will do by using existing benchmarks on the web. No matter how much magic you think Apple has, they can't make the HD4000 outperform a dedicated solution. Fact.
Comments
I'm using a late 2006 MBP and the ATY Radon X1600 card with 256 Mb of VRAM is just not quite hacking it for some of my work. The laptop runs hot enough to leave red marks on my thighs when processing graphics flat out.
Does anyone know just how much faster the Intel Ivy Bridge processor with integrated graphics might be?? I could stand to have 10 to 20 percent faster graphics than I presently have, but even just as fast would be fine if the laptop ran cooler.
If Apple is planning on making the MBP more compact and lighter, that would be nice, however that also means the internals can't be throwing off the kind of heat my current MBP does.
X1600
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mob...00.2163.0.html
HD3000 (Sandy Bridge iGPU)
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-H...0.37948.0.html
HD4000 (Ivy Bridge iGPU)
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-H...0.69168.0.html
The HD4000 is seeing double the results of the 3000 in 3D Vantage tests. The 3DMark 06 tests are nearly double and quadruple your current results. The X1600 is ancient and even integrated graphics smoke it now. You should see ridiculous improvements well beyond the 10-20% you are talking about.
Integrated graphics on a pro model? Are you crazy!
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...ly/macbook_pro
You mean like this *points to 13" MBP* Apple said they couldn't fit a discrete card in there and keep things cool and maintain battery life. If they are removing the optical drive in the next gen, they should be able to do all that.
They'll continue forward to use AMD Radeon 7000M series.
Apple drops Nvidia? They don't use Nvidia and they sure as hell won't use Intel's on chip version.
They'll continue forward to use AMD Radeon 7000M series.
Apple have regularly switched between AMD and nVidia for the last few years - nVidia was a reasonable bet for the next generation.
The current 13" MBP Sandy Bridge i7 chip scores 365:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gp...el+HD+i7-2620M
The current 15" MBP Radeon 6750M scores 1131:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gp...adeon+HD+6750M
The 6770M scores 1749:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gp...Radeon+HD+6770
The one they used to use - the 6490M scores 645:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gp...adeon+HD+6490M
The Ivy Bridge GPU should get a 40-50% boost over Sandy Bridge. This will give it a score of 547.
So essentially, the GPU is equivalent to the 6630M in the Mini and 6490M in the last-gen 15" MBP. This performance is adequate for most games and will run most of the higher-end titles on low settings - it should be able to run Battlefield 3 for example.
It would be nice to see them moving up all the time but they will probably shave off 10W going with an IGP and this is the first Intel IGP that will handle OpenCL so a decent boost for FCPX on the entry laptops.
It will be a shame to see NVidia blocked as I think their GPUs and drivers are better than AMD's but I'm sure the chosen options will be good. They could even lower the price of the entry 15" laptop or put the money towards a 256GB SSD on the entry model.
One other thing to keep in mind is that IGPs tend to get more video memory than Apple's low-end dedicated GPUs and it goes up if you increase your RAM:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1173602
I could see a dramatic move to SSD happening this year at the expense of GPU increases and I would welcome it big time. I am sick to death of that stupid beachball. It would help remove some framerate drops from games too so although the framerate won't go up much at all, it will be easier to sustain at peak.
Just imagine if they shifted every Mac model over to SSD drives: 128GB on the entry MBA and Mini, 256GB on every model above that with options for 512GB on the highest models.
Side-step the graphics for the most part, dramatically increase boot times and loading times, cut power draw by 10W to boost battery life and have thin and light enclosures all round with instant-on. And USB 3 of course.
It never was "Pro".
Pro is an example of Iconic Branding. It is meaningless marketing-speak for those who think product acquisition determines what sort of a person they are.
They are very nice laptop computers. "Pro" ain't got no meaning other than branding.
Yes, its marketing, but I am not sure what you mean by 'Iconic Branding'. I also don't think it is entirely meaningless. It signifies that the machine is of a higher spec. But whether you actually need a higher specked machine as a 'pro' is a silly question. If you are a plumber, or a web developer, a lower specked machine is usually ample.
Most 'Pros' in need of top performance wouldn't be buying anything but the top specked machine, anyway, so its all pretty much academic, imo.
X1600
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mob...00.2163.0.html
HD3000 (Sandy Bridge iGPU)
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-H...0.37948.0.html
HD4000 (Ivy Bridge iGPU)
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-H...0.69168.0.html
The HD4000 is seeing double the results of the 3000 in 3D Vantage tests. The 3DMark 06 tests are nearly double and quadruple your current results. The X1600 is ancient and even integrated graphics smoke it now. You should see ridiculous improvements well beyond the 10-20% you are talking about.
The HD3000 was barely as good as the (ancient) 9400m and the HD4000 being 'twice' as fast, puts in more or less on par with the 320m (not even the GT330m, which is 2 generations old).
I'll need more than that awful unreadable site's benchmarks to convince me otherwise.
Here are some benchmarks on a website that wasn't designed by a toddler
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5626/i...re-i7-3770k/11
Note the competing devices are bargain-barrel $40 GPUs, which is barely keeps up with. If you're happy running ultra-low resolution and low-quality texture games, you might see 30 - 50fps (note minimum framerates are more important than average ones).
Power VR, Geforce 1 and 3dfx Voodoo... Those were the days !
I'm sure that's why I see them used by professional musicians, sound techs, graphic artists, movie directors and other pros everyday huh?
The people are professionals. The laptops are used by a variety of people, including professionals.
Buying a particular product does not make anybody a professional, except in their own minds.
I have a 2011 MBP with Intel graphics driving the 27" Cinema Display and it runs Mac OS and two Windows instances in Parallels just fine. I can only imagine a dedicated GPU is needed for play. For work, Intel's integrated stuff is fine, and Ivy Bridge is supposed to be getting better.
OS X is now OpenGL 3.2+ compliant across the OS. Moving forward will be 4.x compliance and thus requiring baseline GPGPUs to have said compliance.
Sandy Bridge stops at OpenGL 3.0.
I have no doubt the Air series will move forward until the wall finally requires Intel to stop fooling people without a real discrete GPU ala APU via AMD and end their current approach of strapping on a knock-off GPU solution.
The Air with Ivy Bridge will have some Intel 4000HD IGPU.
Very few Ivy Bridge mobile support the 4000 HD graphics set up. The rest use the 2500 HD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bri...ile_processors
Intel's running into a problem. AMD's APU approach is the intelligent solution moving forward and to avoid the Law of Diminishing Returns.
Intel claims when Haswell is available will it support OpenGL 3.2 and OpenCL 1.1 in their HD Series of GPUs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...el_HD_Graphics
That's 12 - 18 months from now, leaving Intel who is already behind even farther behind.
All AMD APUs will be OpenGL 5.x/OpenCL 2.x compliant by the time Intel is OpenGL 3.2/OpenCL 1.1 compliant.
Sorry, but that's not acceptable. Apple's solutions are more and more moving to OpenCL optimized environments for it's entire suite of sold Applications never mind their OS environments. Knee capping its customers with Intel's integrated graphics won't do for a Pro line of their Laptop.
AMD is meeting it's timelines for the AMD Radeon Mobile 7000 series release dates starting right after WWDC.
I'm expecting Apple to put an AMD Radeon 7000 series Mobile GPU on their new Macbook Pro solutions [presently they use the 6000M series and the low end model uses Intel 3000 HD].
I expect them to have one low end, entry model with an Intel 4000 HD and the rest with discrete 7000M series from AMD.
Anything less would be absurd and damage the brand in the Laptop market space.
You're missing the point; a huge performance loss would be had by switching to integrated graphics.
How do you know, has Apple released their new generation of MBP yet?
I am not sure what you mean by 'Iconic Branding'.
Iconic brands are defined as having aspects that contribute to consumer's self-expression and personal identity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand#Types_of_brand_names
I wish Intel was even half serious about SoC.
The onboard GPU is a joke, it's always a joke, it makes me want to cry when I see new MacBook Air/MacBook Pro's without a dedicated AMD or nVidia GPU part. I can't believe Intel insists on damaging their brand by putting 5 year old GPU performance in brand new CPU's. I'm not asking for the onboard GPU to be be like a top of the line part, but if I'm paying extra for the onboard GPU, it should perform like an entry-level 100$ GPU and not an afterthought.
The fact that the Intel HD3000 is slower than 29$ throwaway GPU makes me wonder why Intel bothers doing this with the desktop parts at all. The laptop parts at least get some energy savings out of the deal. Apple doesn't even support the first generation Macbook Air(3-4 years old) in the current OSX because the Intel Video is is too weak. This should illustrate the point to Intel to stop making video parts with just enough performance to pass certification tests.
Blame goes to apple, not Intel. Try to get the same power per watt performance wont even get some of those fans running on modern gpu
Even if I'm not interested in playing BF3 or some other graphics-heavy games on my laptop, I'd still like to be able to play some less demanding games like the new SimCity that is due next year. I think you can almost forget running that with an HD4000 if it is only 50% faster than an HD3000. The HD3000 doesn't even run 4 year old games that aren't very graphics intensive at good frame rates, such as Anno 1404, which runs perfectly on my 2008 MB
If the low/mid range MBP's only have integrated graphics, I could just as well get the highest spec MBA, which would likely be faster for many tasks than the base 13" MBP models, unless the MBP's will also have an SSD by default.
Well to be honest its not like anyone uses a macbook for gaming. Indeed, ANY laptop for serious gaming.
For the kinds of games likely to be played on a laptop, ivy bridge is fine.
If you want BF3 at ultra settings in high res though, well dedicated graphics is the only way....for now.
Guys but y only NVidia ?
in fact AMD has a gr8 name in gaming industry ...
then y only Nvidia ??
You must be jealous you can't buy one.
J.
So I haven't been using Aperture on my 2009 mini for the last 2 years?
Who gives 2 shits what Apple puts into its refreshed MBP as long as there is a performance gain.
They could put a graphics card from a Macintosh Color Classic and if they could get better performance out of it than what they are getting now, why would anyone care?
Really don't get why people focus on specs. A computer is a tool to get a job done. It doesn't matter how it does the job as long as it does the job better and faster than the previous generation.
No, a computer isn't a tool to measure your penis size.
How do you know, has Apple released their new generation of MBP yet?
Stupid people on this thread.
Stupid people on this thread.
There was nothing really wrong with the last two quotes you had.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand#Types_of_brand_names
'Pro' is not a brand, its a model. Or rather, it is a model classification. Apple is an iconic brand. The 'MBP Pro', many would argue, is an iconic product.
Pro's may use their laptops for editing but anyone who relies on them for rendering or any serious work is just misguided. I used to be a specialist and I always put customer's need for a laptop into question. Laptops are portable, desktops are powerful, that's all there is to it.
Well, sort of. But two things regarding Apple have changed this for pros in both audio and image work, and they are that high end MBPs have shown to be very suitable for heavy lifting in these areas (especially with an external monitor) and that Apple desktops have been extremely underwhelming for too long. Pros who don't need the slots have not been motivated to go the desktop route, since the desktops have been so long in the tooth for so long. When that changes it will change, but whether it's the most powerful rig or not, OSX pros that aren't rendering haven't bought many desktops in recent years, so the MBP market for them has been very strong. You'd be surprised how many highest end photographers with Macs don't have a desktop anymore. A MBP with an awesome monitor has been the route for many.
'Pro' is not a brand, its a model. Or rather, it is a model classification. Apple is an iconic brand. The 'MBP Pro', many would argue, is an iconic product.
I would say it's both a brand and a model. A simpler example would be the iPhone 4S. That is the official branding *? a type of product manufactured by a particular company under a particular name ? and the model which refers not to only to the Speedier version of the iPhone 4, but also signifies, at least to us, that it's the 5th gen iPhone.
Stupid people on this thread.
Ya. Because the under speced iPhone and iPad (compared to the competition) really suffers in terms of performance.
How do you know, has Apple released their new generation of MBP yet?
His point was completely valid. Why would they have to release them? We know what the old generations does and we can speculate on what using Ivy Bridge's HD4000 will do by using existing benchmarks on the web. No matter how much magic you think Apple has, they can't make the HD4000 outperform a dedicated solution. Fact.