GM in 2 weeks? No. I'll be very surprised if there isn't a DP 7 and they go straight to GM from here.
If there's going to be another release, that might mean no Macs until October. The Wall Street Journal said they would do multiple events. I don't suppose there would be any harm in launching them with Mountain Lion but it would be better for the numbers to have them launch with Mavericks. I'd actually rather they launched new machines with the older system as you can be assured it's stable. If you buy a new machine and find something doesn't work properly, you're stuck. That happened to me years ago with a GPU driver bug and the machine came with the bug so it couldn't be downgraded and they took months to fix it.
I don't think there's an urgency to support OpenGL 4.2+ fully. The important part is rendering OpenGL 4 content properly:
One of the comments at the bottom tested HD5000 on Mavericks. He doesn't mention glitches like the HD4000 so I assume it renders everything ok. Iris should be significantly faster than the HD5000 too.
Just getting a look here at Wikipedia. The i7-4558U is $454 so that is either going to be in the server or as a BTO. It is actually more expensive than the i7-4800MQ ($380), 4702MQ, 4702HQ, 4700MQ, and 4700HQ ($383). Of course those quad core i7s have the Intel HD 4600.
I'm disappointed but not surprised that the 13" MBP doesn't get a discrete GPU option. If the 15" goes that route that would simply suck big time.
Agreed, its one of those things i got over, if i had a choice at this point in time id still choose discrete, those day seem to be numbered tho.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The 770m is a 75W GPU. Apple ships their 15" laptops with 85W power supplies. There's a laptop here with a 770m and if you skip to 24:20, you can see the power brick sitting on the desk:
Solid point, the 765M would be a good step then?, its a 60-65W GPU.
Its always a balance between power usage & power thats the issue with mobile devices.
I have a gaming laptop with a crazy size power supply (75W GPU), its fan design is awesome, it keeps cool really well, my rMBP out performs it but it lets you know about it, the fans rev right up.
Just getting a look here at Wikipedia. The i7-4558U is $454 so that is either going to be in the server or as a BTO. It is actually more expensive than the i7-4800MQ ($380), 4702MQ, 4702HQ, 4700MQ, and 4700HQ ($383). Of course those quad core i7s have the Intel HD 4600.
There's a fundamental disconnect here. Who needs super GPU performance? Mostly gamers, but they're not going to rely on a integrated GPU any time soon. They'll still want a dedicated GPU. For non-gamers, the quad core with 4600 graphics is probably a far better choice than a dual core with 5100 graphics.
Agreed, its one of those things i got over, if i had a choice at this point in time id still choose discrete, those day seem to be numbered tho.
Solid point, the 765M would be a good step then?, its a 60-65W GPU.
Its always a balance between power usage & power thats the issue with mobile devices.
Apple's laptops have something like 85W power supplies. They're not likely to use a GPU which eats up 75% of the total power budget. If you want an uber-gaming laptop, you'd best look elsewhere.
Solid point, the 765M would be a good step then?, its a 60-65W GPU.
The overall limit is best not exceeding the power supply in order to prevent the battery draining under load while it's plugged in. It already exceeds 90W under load:
If the display + CPU + GPU + drive are all running together, it will top the 85W charger. The GPU limit for the MBP is around 45W as the quad-i7 is 45W. This is why Iris Pro is ideal because the one chip keeps both CPU and GPU within the set TDP and if they put the TDP at 70W, the performance should be close enough to an NVidia or AMD GPU but at the same time, keeps it drawing less overall power.
I have a gaming laptop with a crazy size power supply (75W GPU), its fan design is awesome, it keeps cool really well, my rMBP out performs it but it lets you know about it, the fans rev right up.
With a lower overall TDP, that means less heat required to dissipate so they may be able to run the fans slower.
Apple's laptops have something like 85W power supplies. They're not likely to use a GPU which eats up 75% of the total power budget. If you want an uber-gaming laptop, you'd best look elsewhere.
Haha true, no one buys a Mac as a gaming machine :P
i'm greedy for fast GPUs, i like to be able to run 3D animation software, so productivity is what i mainly want, playing games too isn't bad too.
its funny that you can spend the same amount of money for a 15 rMBP as a high end gaming laptop, the gaming laptop comes with a poor LCD screen average build quality, massive size, crappy power adapter, then you get your rMBP, amazing screen, amazing build quality, amazingly sleek, best power adapter for any laptop & the mac obviously has OSX & can run windows, better than a PC less driver issues.
its funny that you can spend the same amount of money for a 15 rMBP as a high end gaming laptop, the gaming laptop comes with a poor LCD screen average build quality, massive size, crappy power adapter, then you get your rMBP, amazing screen, amazing build quality, amazingly sleek, best power adapter for any laptop & the mac obviously has OSX & can run windows, better than a PC less driver issues.
I think Apple laptops make for very nice Windows laptops. I think Iris Pro will make a nice gaming laptop too. As I mentioned earlier, there's a company selling a gaming laptop just with Iris Pro and no other GPU options:
They tested it side by side with the 740M and 750M. The 750M only got 33% faster in the tests there but they wrote "Although Intel's statement that it could compete with a dedicated GeForce GT 650M is not quite true". Being competitive doesn't have to mean coming in ahead of them and it does beat it in tests for OpenCL. What is really interesting is that their tests of the 750M show almost no difference between the 650M:
It's even slower in some tests. It should be close as it has the same shader count and only clocked 13% higher but it shouldn't be slower. Intel has increased performance dramatically since last year and NVidia only a small amount. If Apple's version has a higher TDP limit then the difference would be negligible. The AMD option would be the 8790M:
Again, it performs very close to the stock Iris Pro GPU.
Intel appears to be taking graphics seriously this time and have demos for advanced shading like multiple layers of transparency and volumetric smoke shadows:
[VIDEO]
If a dedicated GPU costs $150, then with the Intel CPU at $378 and Apple's 30% markup, that comes out to retail at $686.
The entry Iris Pro is $440 so would retail at $572.
The entry rMBP is $2199 so they can drive it down to $1999 at least, maybe more if they get good deals from Intel. They could do what they did with the iMacs and put prices up $100 and ditch the old MBPs.
13" rMBP - $1299 & $1499
15" rMBP - $1899, $2199 & if they decide on 17" $2399 or just the specced up 15" again with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD but all Iris Pro
its funny that you can spend the same amount of money for a 15 rMBP as a high end gaming laptop, the gaming laptop comes with a poor LCD screen average build quality, massive size, crappy power adapter, then you get your rMBP, amazing screen, amazing build quality, amazingly sleek, best power adapter for any laptop & the mac obviously has OSX & can run windows, better than a PC less driver issues.
I think Apple laptops make for very nice Windows laptops. I think Iris Pro will make a nice gaming laptop too. As I mentioned earlier, there's a company selling a gaming laptop just with Iris Pro and no other GPU options:
They tested it side by side with the 740M and 750M. The 750M only got 33% faster in the tests there but they wrote "Although Intel's statement that it could compete with a dedicated GeForce GT 650M is not quite true". Being competitive doesn't have to mean coming in ahead of them and it does beat it in tests for OpenCL. What is really interesting is that their tests of the 750M show almost no difference between the 650M:
It's even slower in some tests. It should be close as it has the same shader count and only clocked 13% higher but it shouldn't be slower. Intel has increased performance dramatically since last year and NVidia only a small amount. If Apple's version has a higher TDP limit then the difference would be negligible. The AMD option would be the 8790M:
Again, it performs very close to the stock Iris Pro GPU.
Intel appears to be taking graphics seriously this time and have demos for advanced shading like multiple layers of transparency and volumetric smoke shadows:
[VIDEO]
If a dedicated GPU costs $150, then with the Intel CPU at $378 and Apple's 30% markup, that comes out to retail at $686.
The entry Iris Pro is $440 so would retail at $572.
The entry rMBP is $2199 so they can drive it down to $1999 at least, maybe more if they get good deals from Intel. They could do what they did with the iMacs and put prices up $100 and ditch the old MBPs.
13" rMBP - $1299 & $1499
15" rMBP - $1899, $2199 & if they decide on 17" $2399 or just the specced up 15" again with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD but all Iris Pro
Very interesting read.
I've noticed a few good clevo slim gaming laptops about.
I can see the upsides to Iris for sure.
Personally would you prefer to see the 15 rMBP go iris instead of discreet?
Personally would you prefer to see the 15 rMBP go iris instead of discreet?
I'd normally prefer NVidia graphics because they run cool, have good performance and you get CUDA support on top. But all that matters in the end is performance and compatibility. The HD 4000 was a bit disappointing but if Iris gets even 80-90% 650M/750M levels of performance, it would be just fine. It allocates 1GB of video memory, which is a decent amount even though it takes away from the stock 8GB RAM and you can't upgrade your own RAM. It'll draw less power so better battery life.
The Retina Macbook Pros are far too expensive just now and if moving to Iris Pro gets them down the required $200-300, I'm all for it - Apple might even maintain their profit margins. If there was a choice between an $1899 Iris Pro and a $2199 750M, my gut reaction would be that the NVidia one would be a better buy but it's based on little more than knowing how bad Intel graphics have been in the past. If Iris works well with Adobe software, they give comparable gaming performance and don't draw glitches like the HD 4000, the benefit to the NVidia is very little.
The real problem is not knowing exactly how Iris will perform with a large variety of software until having used one for a long enough period of time - Intel has a very poor multi-decade-long reputation to fix. The HD 4000 went a little way towards repairing the damage but still wasn't good enough. For manufacturers to be making gaming laptops around Iris suggests to me that it's competitive enough for them not to bother even offering NVidia or AMD.
I'd be able to more easily answer if I'd prefer the next iteration of Intel graphics to NVidia or AMD after having experienced Iris Pro. The HD 4000 hasn't filled me with enough confidence to make that judgement beforehand. I'm impressed with the performance tests run on Iris so far though and I really want the rMBP prices to come down.
I have a feeling they'll have a better roadmap going forward than NVidia/AMD for the lower powered chips. NVidia/AMD will still be worthwhile at the 100W+ level but the difference in mobile devices won't be as important as cost and power draw.
If there's going to be another release, that might mean no Macs until October. The Wall Street Journal said they would do multiple events. I don't suppose there would be any harm in launching them with Mountain Lion but it would be better for the numbers to have them launch with Mavericks. I'd actually rather they launched new machines with the older system as you can be assured it's stable. If you buy a new machine and find something doesn't work properly, you're stuck. That happened to me years ago with a GPU driver bug and the machine came with the bug so it couldn't be downgraded and they took months to fix it.
Which is why I hardly ever buy new hardware on opening day anymore. I've been bitten by new hardware bugs myself in the past. Apple does fix things but as you say it often takes months.
I don't think there's an urgency to support OpenGL 4.2+ fully. The important part is rendering OpenGL 4 content properly:
At least Apple focuses on stability over tweaky gaming drivers.
One of the comments at the bottom tested HD5000 on Mavericks. He doesn't mention glitches like the HD4000 so I assume it renders everything ok. Iris should be significantly faster than the HD5000 too.
This is where confusion comes in, I thought all HD5000 and greater where Iris processors while the older GPU technology was called HD4600. In any event Intel should refer to Apple for examples on how to market products as they have way to many SKUs and confusing product lines.
If there was a choice between an $1899 Iris Pro and a $2199 750M, my gut reaction would be that the NVidia one would be a better buy but it's based on little more than knowing how bad Intel graphics have been in the past.
I think people wouldn't mind that at all. They had the 9400M for $1699 in the classic MBP in 2009.
Agreed, its one of those things i got over, if i had a choice at this point in time id still choose discrete, those day seem to be numbered tho.
They are numbered for good reason tho! I'm not sure Haswell is there yet, even though initial reports look good, but the reality is one more process shrink and they can win for most uses by the sheer numbers of transistors available to them. By the way initial reports from Intel fan sites always look good, in this case I think there is some hope that Intel has in fact made a huge leap in performance.
Solid point, the 765M would be a good step then?, its a 60-65W GPU.
Its always a balance between power usage & power thats the issue with mobile devices.
Frankly that is too much power for a mobile device. How many people would want to hold a 60 watt light bulb in their hand. Maybe if Apple was into making transportables or even a refactored 17" MBP, but the overwhelming majority of Apple MBP 15" users want a machine that balances battery lifetimes with performance.
I have a gaming laptop with a crazy size power supply (75W GPU), its fan design is awesome, it keeps cool really well, my rMBP out performs it but it lets you know about it, the fans rev right up.
Yeah this is a problem with Apples machines, that can't sustain high performance without cranking the fans up. Sadly Iris Pro could make this worst as now all of your heat comes from one point. It will be interesting to see the new heat management system.
There's a fundamental disconnect here. Who needs super GPU performance? Mostly gamers, but they're not going to rely on a integrated GPU any time soon. They'll still want a dedicated GPU. For non-gamers, the quad core with 4600 graphics is probably a far better choice than a dual core with 5100 graphics.
This I have to disagree with completely. GPU performance is important to every user of a modern computer even if they don't realize it. Four CPU cores would certainly be desirable, don't get me wrong there, it is just that GPUs are now used in many ways to enhance system and app performance. Even mainstream apps like Safari benefit from GPU acceleration. On top of all of that it really looks like Intel/Apple have made major strides in OpenCL performance so there is even more reason to have a decent GPU on hand.
Probably the biggest reason to select a machine with good GPU performance is that it leads to extending the machines longevity. If you expect to keep a machine for more than three years a good GPU can keep that machine viable longer as the OS and apps continue to leverage the GPU more and more.
Apple's laptops have something like 85W power supplies. They're not likely to use a GPU which eats up 75% of the total power budget. If you want an uber-gaming laptop, you'd best look elsewhere.
Well this I agree with! I'm not sure why anybody would even mention a 60 watt GPU in the context of an Apple laptop. Tho as mentioned above, a refactored 17" MBP might be worth the time and effort. One of the frustrating things about Apples MBP line up in the past was that the 17" cost a hell of a lot more and all you really got for it was a 17" screen. Apple could easily drop discrete GPUs from the 15" machine and reserve discrete GPUs for the 17" machine. Probably down clocked as even in the 17" chassis a 60 watt GPU is a bit much. This would make for a very nice pro machine that could handle just about any arrangement of monitors without the performance regressions currently seen with integrated graphics.
With a lower overall TDP, that means less heat required to dissipate so they may be able to run the fans slower.
Maybe, maybe not! If all the heat comes from a point source, which may run hotter than a plain CPU, then you have a greater thermal management problem. Well potentially anyways. In the end fan speeds will depend more on how they implement the thermal management solution.
I think Apple laptops make for very nice Windows laptops. I think Iris Pro will make a nice gaming laptop too. As I mentioned earlier, there's a company selling a gaming laptop just with Iris Pro and no other GPU options:
It may take awhile for the market to realize the new realities. That is that good GPU performance no longer requires a discrete GPU.
The ship date is estimated as 4th September so they must be getting the CPUs before then. This same laptop appears to be sold in a variety
They tested it side by side with the 740M and 750M. The 750M only got 33% faster in the tests there but they wrote "Although Intel's statement that it could compete with a dedicated GeForce GT 650M is not quite true". Being competitive doesn't have to mean coming in ahead of them and it does beat it in tests for OpenCL. What is really interesting is that their tests of the 750M show almost no difference between the 650M:
Even more interesting is that drivers for the GeForce have been around for awhile so you would imagine that they are pretty stable and well developed. This is fresh out of the box performance for the intel hardware which should impress people. They have basically matched NVidia on a new GPU with new drivers. That is an impressive feat for Intel.
I'm really excited about Mavericks, on some of the developer sites I'm seeing really good comments about OpenCL performance even on older Intel hardware. It really looks like Apple and Intel have worked really hard on getting good performance across the board.
It's even slower in some tests. It should be close as it has the same shader count and only clocked 13% higher but it shouldn't be slower. Intel has increased performance dramatically since last year and NVidia only a small amount. If Apple's version has a higher TDP limit then the difference would be negligible. The AMD option would be the 8790M:
For both NVidia and AMD this year was a respin year. New architectures should come out next year or maybe late this year.
Again, it performs very close to the stock Iris Pro GPU.
Intel appears to be taking graphics seriously this time and have demos for advanced shading like multiple layers of transparency and volumetric smoke shadows:
Can we all collectively say "finally". I still think what will be real interesting is a process shrink allowing Intel to double the number of transistors on the chip which will hopefully happen in 2014. That means we can see either a doubling of the GPU size or maybe the current cache chip being built right into the die. Ether way for us more middle of the road users the time when discrete GPUs are required will have passed.
If a dedicated GPU costs $150, then with the Intel CPU at $378 and Apple's 30% markup, that comes out to retail at $686.
The entry Iris Pro is $440 so would retail at $572.
The entry rMBP is $2199 so they can drive it down to $1999 at least, maybe more if they get good deals from Intel. They could do what they did with the iMacs and put prices up $100 and ditch the old MBPs.
The screens should come down some in price too. This should allow Apple to hit a more acceptable price point. There was talk of a inventory glut early this year with various factors used to explain it, but I think the biggest problem is that Apple was simply charging to much considering what the market was willing to pay for. In fact grossly over priced is how I would describe the retina machines, especially the 13". Retina in a laptop isn't the big draw that it is on an iPad. In the end the MBP line needs a price range refactoring.
13" rMBP - $1299 & $1499
15" rMBP - $1899, $2199 & if they decide on 17" $2399 or just the specced up 15" again with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD but all Iris Pro
Not a terrible price range but I'd like to see everything move another $100 in the negative direction, maybe even more for the 15" rMBP. As for the 17" that would be a good place for a discrete GPU now given a power supply and thermal solution to truly leverage the combo. It would give the 17" a reason for being and a justification for its price. Further if they can run OpenCL code on the Intel GPU while the discrete does normal GPU duties they could have one powerful workstation for visualization and engineering.
I'd normally prefer NVidia graphics because they run cool, have good performance and you get CUDA support on top. But all that matters in the end is performance and compatibility. The HD 4000 was a bit disappointing but if Iris gets even 80-90% 650M/750M levels of performance, it would be just fine. It allocates 1GB of video memory, which is a decent amount even though it takes away from the stock 8GB RAM and you can't upgrade your own RAM. It'll draw less power so better battery life.
The 1GB of video RAM allocation isn't as bad as it sounds as I've seen mention of the GPU access non video RAM under Mavericks. It is hard to tell exactly what was beings said as I didn't have time to read the whole thread. As to RAM upgrades I have to wonder if deleting the discrete GPU would allow for RAM sockets. I would expect the first 8 or 16 GB to be soldered in but slots cold offer the ability to go to 32 GB. I'm not certain that the mobile processors support two RAM arrays though.
The Retina Macbook Pros are far too expensive just now and if moving to Iris Pro gets them down the required $200-300, I'm all for it - Apple might even maintain their profit margins. If there was a choice between an $1899 Iris Pro and a $2199 750M, my gut reaction would be that the NVidia one would be a better buy but it's based on little more than knowing how bad Intel graphics have been in the past. If Iris works well with Adobe software, they give comparable gaming performance and don't draw glitches like the HD 4000, the benefit to the NVidia is very little.
Yeah, apparently after the early adopter rush, the people with more sense than money said NO WAY! Frankly I don't blame them at all, the retina screen isn't worth the extra dollars for many users.
The real problem is not knowing exactly how Iris will perform with a large variety of software until having used one for a long enough period of time - Intel has a very poor multi-decade-long reputation to fix. The HD 4000 went a little way towards repairing the damage but still wasn't good enough. For manufacturers to be making gaming laptops around Iris suggests to me that it's competitive enough for them not to bother even offering NVidia or AMD.
Intels reputation is why I'm so cautious when it comes to Haswell. Each iteration of Intel GPUs has been supported by much in the way of positive press before release (reporting paid for by Intel?). Hopefully Iris stands apart from past practice of exciting the market and then disappointing the market.
I'd be able to more easily answer if I'd prefer the next iteration of Intel graphics to NVidia or AMD after having experienced Iris Pro. The HD 4000 hasn't filled me with enough confidence to make that judgement beforehand. I'm impressed with the performance tests run on Iris so far though and I really want the rMBP prices to come down.
The problem here is that it may take some time for software to leverage the new hardware completely. Even with the extremely good OpenCL numbers it could take developers a long time to have updates ready to leverage that GPU.
As to the rMBP, Apple has no choice here, they either find a way to lower the cost or they will have to discontinue the feature. The market has spoken loudly here, Apple has basically destroyed the MBP line up by not adjusting price to reflect market realities.
I have a feeling they'll have a better roadmap going forward than NVidia/AMD for the lower powered chips. NVidia/AMD will still be worthwhile at the 100W+ level but the difference in mobile devices won't be as important as cost and power draw.
Exactly! Intel has apparently fixed its performance issue, so the goal now is performance per watt. In this regard though I think you dismiss AMD too fast. AMD has a lot of GPU experience and BRAZOS shows that they can still beat Intel at its own game. Even AMDs other APUs aren't that bad performance per watt. AMD struggles with process technology but a move to TSMC might fix that issue. However this just supports the idea that performance per watt is just about everything to Apple.
Can we all collectively say "finally". I still think what will be real interesting is a process shrink allowing Intel to double the number of transistors on the chip which will hopefully happen in 2014. That means we can see either a doubling of the GPU size or maybe the current cache chip being built right into the die. Ether way for us more middle of the road users the time when discrete GPUs are required will have passed.
I think Apple in general has a lot of experience in determining what people will accept. It seems like they tend to go for something when "acceptable" is attainable within an extra generation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The 1GB of video RAM allocation isn't as bad as it sounds as I've seen mention of the GPU access non video RAM under Mavericks. It is hard to tell exactly what was beings said as I didn't have time to read the whole thread. As to RAM upgrades I have to wonder if deleting the discrete GPU would allow for RAM sockets. I would expect the first 8 or 16 GB to be soldered in but slots cold offer the ability to go to 32 GB. I'm not certain that the mobile processors support two RAM arrays though.
I am doubtful on that one. The rmbp switched to pentalobe screws at the bottom. The bottom shell itself uses Apple's choice of anti-tamper screws. That isn't really a positive sign. The choice to go with soldered seems like it was a matter of height and viewing upgradable ram as a low priority. You would need 2 additional sodimms to get to 32GB, probably until DDR4. Apple has never gone with 4 installable in a notebook. If I recall correctly the really old imacs were limited to 2. I'm not so much arguing what they could do, more over past prioritization.
Quote:
Yeah, apparently after the early adopter rush, the people with more sense than money said NO WAY! Frankly I don't blame them at all, the retina screen isn't worth the extra dollars for many users.
IPS in a notebook in general has been kind of a niche market thing. A few oems have tried it, as there is some amount of desire for a really nice display while mobile. Even the rmbp is nowhere near the quality you can get in a good desktop display. Of course those can be quite expensive depending on your demands. I'm not familiar with all of the engineering problems that might arise trying to build to the space and power restrictions of a notebook.
The hardware gap between the proposed Macbook Pro, LOL and what is offered outside the Mac eco system is just too big. I would love to buy a 17 inch MBP
with 32 gb ram, a nvidia 780m, a TB SSD, a blu ray burner, a couple of Thunderbolt and Firewire ports with USB 3, and a 6 CORE Intel chip. Audio visual pros would go crazy for something like that.
Comments
If there's going to be another release, that might mean no Macs until October. The Wall Street Journal said they would do multiple events. I don't suppose there would be any harm in launching them with Mountain Lion but it would be better for the numbers to have them launch with Mavericks. I'd actually rather they launched new machines with the older system as you can be assured it's stable. If you buy a new machine and find something doesn't work properly, you're stuck. That happened to me years ago with a GPU driver bug and the machine came with the bug so it couldn't be downgraded and they took months to fix it.
I don't think there's an urgency to support OpenGL 4.2+ fully. The important part is rendering OpenGL 4 content properly:
http://www.geeks3d.com/20130507/gputest-0-4-0-cross-platform-opengl-benchmark-released-opengl-4-tessellation-test-enabled-under-mac-osx/
One of the comments at the bottom tested HD5000 on Mavericks. He doesn't mention glitches like the HD4000 so I assume it renders everything ok. Iris should be significantly faster than the HD5000 too.
Just getting a look here at Wikipedia. The i7-4558U is $454 so that is either going to be in the server or as a BTO. It is actually more expensive than the i7-4800MQ ($380), 4702MQ, 4702HQ, 4700MQ, and 4700HQ ($383). Of course those quad core i7s have the Intel HD 4600.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
I'm disappointed but not surprised that the 13" MBP doesn't get a discrete GPU option. If the 15" goes that route that would simply suck big time.
Agreed, its one of those things i got over, if i had a choice at this point in time id still choose discrete, those day seem to be numbered tho.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The 770m is a 75W GPU. Apple ships their 15" laptops with 85W power supplies. There's a laptop here with a 770m and if you skip to 24:20, you can see the power brick sitting on the desk:
Solid point, the 765M would be a good step then?, its a 60-65W GPU.
Its always a balance between power usage & power thats the issue with mobile devices.
I have a gaming laptop with a crazy size power supply (75W GPU), its fan design is awesome, it keeps cool really well, my rMBP out performs it but it lets you know about it, the fans rev right up.
There's a fundamental disconnect here. Who needs super GPU performance? Mostly gamers, but they're not going to rely on a integrated GPU any time soon. They'll still want a dedicated GPU. For non-gamers, the quad core with 4600 graphics is probably a far better choice than a dual core with 5100 graphics.
Apple's laptops have something like 85W power supplies. They're not likely to use a GPU which eats up 75% of the total power budget. If you want an uber-gaming laptop, you'd best look elsewhere.
The overall limit is best not exceeding the power supply in order to prevent the battery draining under load while it's plugged in. It already exceeds 90W under load:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1426601
If the display + CPU + GPU + drive are all running together, it will top the 85W charger. The GPU limit for the MBP is around 45W as the quad-i7 is 45W. This is why Iris Pro is ideal because the one chip keeps both CPU and GPU within the set TDP and if they put the TDP at 70W, the performance should be close enough to an NVidia or AMD GPU but at the same time, keeps it drawing less overall power.
With a lower overall TDP, that means less heat required to dissipate so they may be able to run the fans slower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Apple's laptops have something like 85W power supplies. They're not likely to use a GPU which eats up 75% of the total power budget. If you want an uber-gaming laptop, you'd best look elsewhere.
Haha true, no one buys a Mac as a gaming machine :P
i'm greedy for fast GPUs, i like to be able to run 3D animation software, so productivity is what i mainly want, playing games too isn't bad too.
its funny that you can spend the same amount of money for a 15 rMBP as a high end gaming laptop, the gaming laptop comes with a poor LCD screen average build quality, massive size, crappy power adapter, then you get your rMBP, amazing screen, amazing build quality, amazingly sleek, best power adapter for any laptop & the mac obviously has OSX & can run windows, better than a PC
I think Apple laptops make for very nice Windows laptops. I think Iris Pro will make a nice gaming laptop too. As I mentioned earlier, there's a company selling a gaming laptop just with Iris Pro and no other GPU options:
http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/LandingPages/ZeusHercules/
The ship date is estimated as 4th September so they must be getting the CPUs before then. This same laptop appears to be sold in a variety of brands:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7182/90-minutes-with-the-clevo-w740su-featuring-iris-pro-hd-5200
Notebookcheck tested another brand out here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Schenker-S413-Clevo-W740SU-Notebook.98313.0.html
They tested it side by side with the 740M and 750M. The 750M only got 33% faster in the tests there but they wrote "Although Intel's statement that it could compete with a dedicated GeForce GT 650M is not quite true". Being competitive doesn't have to mean coming in ahead of them and it does beat it in tests for OpenCL. What is really interesting is that their tests of the 750M show almost no difference between the 650M:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-750M.90245.0.html
It's even slower in some tests. It should be close as it has the same shader count and only clocked 13% higher but it shouldn't be slower. Intel has increased performance dramatically since last year and NVidia only a small amount. If Apple's version has a higher TDP limit then the difference would be negligible. The AMD option would be the 8790M:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-8790M.86796.0.html
Again, it performs very close to the stock Iris Pro GPU.
Intel appears to be taking graphics seriously this time and have demos for advanced shading like multiple layers of transparency and volumetric smoke shadows:
[VIDEO]
If a dedicated GPU costs $150, then with the Intel CPU at $378 and Apple's 30% markup, that comes out to retail at $686.
The entry Iris Pro is $440 so would retail at $572.
The entry rMBP is $2199 so they can drive it down to $1999 at least, maybe more if they get good deals from Intel. They could do what they did with the iMacs and put prices up $100 and ditch the old MBPs.
13" rMBP - $1299 & $1499
15" rMBP - $1899, $2199 & if they decide on 17" $2399 or just the specced up 15" again with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD but all Iris Pro
Very interesting read.
I've noticed a few good clevo slim gaming laptops about.
I can see the upsides to Iris for sure.
Personally would you prefer to see the 15 rMBP go iris instead of discreet?
I'd normally prefer NVidia graphics because they run cool, have good performance and you get CUDA support on top. But all that matters in the end is performance and compatibility. The HD 4000 was a bit disappointing but if Iris gets even 80-90% 650M/750M levels of performance, it would be just fine. It allocates 1GB of video memory, which is a decent amount even though it takes away from the stock 8GB RAM and you can't upgrade your own RAM. It'll draw less power so better battery life.
The Retina Macbook Pros are far too expensive just now and if moving to Iris Pro gets them down the required $200-300, I'm all for it - Apple might even maintain their profit margins. If there was a choice between an $1899 Iris Pro and a $2199 750M, my gut reaction would be that the NVidia one would be a better buy but it's based on little more than knowing how bad Intel graphics have been in the past. If Iris works well with Adobe software, they give comparable gaming performance and don't draw glitches like the HD 4000, the benefit to the NVidia is very little.
The real problem is not knowing exactly how Iris will perform with a large variety of software until having used one for a long enough period of time - Intel has a very poor multi-decade-long reputation to fix. The HD 4000 went a little way towards repairing the damage but still wasn't good enough. For manufacturers to be making gaming laptops around Iris suggests to me that it's competitive enough for them not to bother even offering NVidia or AMD.
I'd be able to more easily answer if I'd prefer the next iteration of Intel graphics to NVidia or AMD after having experienced Iris Pro. The HD 4000 hasn't filled me with enough confidence to make that judgement beforehand. I'm impressed with the performance tests run on Iris so far though and I really want the rMBP prices to come down.
I have a feeling they'll have a better roadmap going forward than NVidia/AMD for the lower powered chips. NVidia/AMD will still be worthwhile at the 100W+ level but the difference in mobile devices won't be as important as cost and power draw.
This is where confusion comes in, I thought all HD5000 and greater where Iris processors while the older GPU technology was called HD4600. In any event Intel should refer to Apple for examples on how to market products as they have way to many SKUs and confusing product lines.
I think people wouldn't mind that at all. They had the 9400M for $1699 in the classic MBP in 2009.
Probably the biggest reason to select a machine with good GPU performance is that it leads to extending the machines longevity. If you expect to keep a machine for more than three years a good GPU can keep that machine viable longer as the OS and apps continue to leverage the GPU more and more.
Well this I agree with! I'm not sure why anybody would even mention a 60 watt GPU in the context of an Apple laptop. Tho as mentioned above, a refactored 17" MBP might be worth the time and effort. One of the frustrating things about Apples MBP line up in the past was that the 17" cost a hell of a lot more and all you really got for it was a 17" screen. Apple could easily drop discrete GPUs from the 15" machine and reserve discrete GPUs for the 17" machine. Probably down clocked as even in the 17" chassis a 60 watt GPU is a bit much. This would make for a very nice pro machine that could handle just about any arrangement of monitors without the performance regressions currently seen with integrated graphics.
I'm really excited about Mavericks, on some of the developer sites I'm seeing really good comments about OpenCL performance even on older Intel hardware. It really looks like Apple and Intel have worked really hard on getting good performance across the board. For both NVidia and AMD this year was a respin year. New architectures should come out next year or maybe late this year. Can we all collectively say "finally". I still think what will be real interesting is a process shrink allowing Intel to double the number of transistors on the chip which will hopefully happen in 2014. That means we can see either a doubling of the GPU size or maybe the current cache chip being built right into the die. Ether way for us more middle of the road users the time when discrete GPUs are required will have passed. The screens should come down some in price too. This should allow Apple to hit a more acceptable price point. There was talk of a inventory glut early this year with various factors used to explain it, but I think the biggest problem is that Apple was simply charging to much considering what the market was willing to pay for. In fact grossly over priced is how I would describe the retina machines, especially the 13". Retina in a laptop isn't the big draw that it is on an iPad. In the end the MBP line needs a price range refactoring.
Not a terrible price range but I'd like to see everything move another $100 in the negative direction, maybe even more for the 15" rMBP. As for the 17" that would be a good place for a discrete GPU now given a power supply and thermal solution to truly leverage the combo. It would give the 17" a reason for being and a justification for its price. Further if they can run OpenCL code on the Intel GPU while the discrete does normal GPU duties they could have one powerful workstation for visualization and engineering.
As to the rMBP, Apple has no choice here, they either find a way to lower the cost or they will have to discontinue the feature. The market has spoken loudly here, Apple has basically destroyed the MBP line up by not adjusting price to reflect market realities. Exactly! Intel has apparently fixed its performance issue, so the goal now is performance per watt. In this regard though I think you dismiss AMD too fast. AMD has a lot of GPU experience and BRAZOS shows that they can still beat Intel at its own game. Even AMDs other APUs aren't that bad performance per watt. AMD struggles with process technology but a move to TSMC might fix that issue. However this just supports the idea that performance per watt is just about everything to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Can we all collectively say "finally". I still think what will be real interesting is a process shrink allowing Intel to double the number of transistors on the chip which will hopefully happen in 2014. That means we can see either a doubling of the GPU size or maybe the current cache chip being built right into the die. Ether way for us more middle of the road users the time when discrete GPUs are required will have passed.
I think Apple in general has a lot of experience in determining what people will accept. It seems like they tend to go for something when "acceptable" is attainable within an extra generation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The 1GB of video RAM allocation isn't as bad as it sounds as I've seen mention of the GPU access non video RAM under Mavericks. It is hard to tell exactly what was beings said as I didn't have time to read the whole thread. As to RAM upgrades I have to wonder if deleting the discrete GPU would allow for RAM sockets. I would expect the first 8 or 16 GB to be soldered in but slots cold offer the ability to go to 32 GB. I'm not certain that the mobile processors support two RAM arrays though.
I am doubtful on that one. The rmbp switched to pentalobe screws at the bottom. The bottom shell itself uses Apple's choice of anti-tamper screws. That isn't really a positive sign. The choice to go with soldered seems like it was a matter of height and viewing upgradable ram as a low priority. You would need 2 additional sodimms to get to 32GB, probably until DDR4. Apple has never gone with 4 installable in a notebook. If I recall correctly the really old imacs were limited to 2. I'm not so much arguing what they could do, more over past prioritization.
Quote:
Yeah, apparently after the early adopter rush, the people with more sense than money said NO WAY! Frankly I don't blame them at all, the retina screen isn't worth the extra dollars for many users.
IPS in a notebook in general has been kind of a niche market thing. A few oems have tried it, as there is some amount of desire for a really nice display while mobile. Even the rmbp is nowhere near the quality you can get in a good desktop display. Of course those can be quite expensive depending on your demands. I'm not familiar with all of the engineering problems that might arise trying to build to the space and power restrictions of a notebook.
Very disappointing. Not worthy of the PRO designation.
The hardware gap between the proposed Macbook Pro, LOL and what is offered outside the Mac eco system is just too big. I would love to buy a 17 inch MBP
with 32 gb ram, a nvidia 780m, a TB SSD, a blu ray burner, a couple of Thunderbolt and Firewire ports with USB 3, and a 6 CORE Intel chip. Audio visual pros would go crazy for something like that.