Apple's new MacBook Pros get 65% graphics performance boost from Intel's Iris

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 100
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    The rMBP will unfortunately (I don't think) be as powerful graphics wise as the 27" iMac. I like that they went with 2 GB in the 750M which they should have done last year with 650M. To me their biggest competitor is the Razer Blade Pro (as I feel the regular 14" Razer Blade is too small and the fact of it having a 1600x900 resolution is not enough) with 765M (2 GB) and maybe there are a few other gaming notebooks with similar or better build quality.

    Do they go above the x50M mark with Maxwell or whatever they use with AMD? That remains to be seen. I wonder what exactly they can fit in there. I haven't used a laptop in a few years now since I had a netbook so I can't speak for that with regards to pro graphics.

    You can either have thin and beauty without the max graphics or you can have an Alienware where you get the graphics but it's bulky.
  • Reply 42 of 100
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    akqies wrote: »
    More specifically they have Thunderbolt 2 ports which will allow them to drive 4K external displays. This is something no other shipping Mac has so far and, at least to me, the obvious reason why the MBPs did not ship earlier with Haswell despite some people complaining.

    I just noticed that despite having TB2 Apple doesn't mention 4K display support for the MBPs; only for the Mac Pro.
  • Reply 43 of 100
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    akqies wrote: »
    I just noticed that despite having TB2 Apple doesn't mention 4K display support for the MBPs; only for the Mac Pro.

    Probably because they want to sell the fact that the retina screen is already good enough so why have a monitor perhaps?
  • Reply 44 of 100
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    winter wrote: »
    Probably because they want to sell the fact that the retina screen is already good enough so why have a monitor perhaps?

    I like that hypothesis better than the GPUs in the MBPs aren't adequate for 4K monitors.
  • Reply 45 of 100
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member

    What's really funny is that these Iris Pro Graphics are much higher performance than the discrete graphics that shipped with MBP only 2 years ago...yet the complaints continue as people lack any understanding of anything other than integrated = bad, discrete = good.

     

    What is glossed over far too much with the MBP is the lack of CPU performance in the 13" model. IMHO, for what a 13" MBP costs - from base model on up to top end - performance/$ ratio is pathetic.

     

    I find it ridiculous that my early 2011 Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro w/ 2.0 quad core i7 is still ridiculously faster than the most recently released 13" MBP.

     

    But Apple's attitude is to ship meager performance for entry-level professionals, and extort those who need real performance. They know the 15" is simply not irresistible because of its size....most people can get by on 13"....its a good size. Especially with a Retina Display...so they are forced to differentiate on performance to drive any adoption of the more expensive 15". Apple wants to sell 15", not 13" They make a small fortune on every 15" MBP.

     

    So while the 13" is enough size for me, and is definitely what I consider to be my price range to even consider a new Mac....I can't get one....because they are too damn slow for my needs.

     

    What a shame.

  • Reply 46 of 100
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by akqies View Post





    I like that hypothesis better than the GPUs in the MBPs aren't adequate for 4K monitors.

    Well....that's simply preposterous....so....NOT a hypothesis at all.

  • Reply 47 of 100
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    pmz wrote: »
    What's really funny is that these Iris Pro Graphics are much higher performance than the discrete graphics that shipped with MBP only 2 years ago...yet the complaints continue as people lack any understanding of anything other than integrated = bad, discrete = good.

    What is glossed over far too much with the MBP is the lack of CPU performance in the 13" model. IMHO, for what a 13" MBP costs - from base model on up to top end - performance/$ ratio is pathetic.

    I find it ridiculous that my early 2011 Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro w/ 2.0 quad core i7 is still ridiculously faster than the most recently released 13" MBP.

    But Apple's attitude is to ship meager performance for entry-level professionals, and extort those who need real performance. They know the 15" is simply not irresistible because of its size....most people can get by on 13"....its a good size. Especially with a Retina Display...so they are forced to differentiate on performance to drive any adoption of the more expensive 15". Apple wants to sell 15", not 13" They make a small fortune on every 15" MBP.

    So while the 13" is enough size for me, and is definitely what I consider to be my price range to even consider a new Mac....I can't get one....because they are too damn slow for my needs.

    What a shame.

    The i7-2635QM (2.0 GHz Sandy Bridge) was only available on the 15" MBP though. Where I think Apple did go wrong this year is by dropping the price of the 13" rMBP only to offer 4 GB of memory and a 128 GB SSD (even if it is PCIe) by default. I also think the model last year should have either been done away with or dropped to $999. I think $1,299 or even $1,199 would be fine for 8 GB of memory and 256 GB of storage.

    I do ask, are the dual-core low voltage processors with Iris graphics (i5-4258U, i5-4288U, and i7-4558U) really that bad? I think they're pretty good for most users. Maybe I'm wrong?
    pmz wrote: »
    Well....that's simply preposterous....so....NOT a hypothesis at all.

    I will not go out and say I'm right but 4K is not sought after by the majority right now for a variety of reasons but mainly cost so the retina screens on these notebooks are more than adequate.
  • Reply 48 of 100
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    pmz wrote: »
    Well....that's simply preposterous....so....NOT a hypothesis at all.

    Being preposterous in no way prevents an idea from being a hypothesis, and frankly at this point I've seen no evidence that would suggest Winter's comment is absurd.

    If they aren't ignoring 4K display support for the new MBPs with TB2 but are advertising it for the Mac Pro then what other hypothesis do you propose? That it can't run because of a technical reason? I'd like to think (hope) that Iris can adequately power a 4K display on the new MBPs but I until we see sufficient testing (or word from Apple) all we have are untested hypotheseses.
  • Reply 49 of 100
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    Right now 4K monitors (the good ones from Asus and Viewsonic for example) are over $3,000. For someone who is already getting a 13" MBP, I don't think it is in their budget though I do not mean to underestimate people. Also if you are considering a 4K monitor you may want to go above Iris to either the 15" rMBP with Iris Pro or the Iris Pro and 750M or better yet the Mac Pro. In fact those who are using a 4K monitor, I would say go for the Mac Pro for the best possible experience. If you have the cash, stock up on the best performance possible and don't settle for what might be able to get the job done.

    Iris is good, no doubt and Iris Pro is even better especially from the HD 4000 and even more from the HD 3000 in my 2011 Mac mini. The thing is, I am not going to pay the price of a MacBook Pro to get the performance of Iris let alone Iris Pro. I am only willing to pay the price of a mini which for Iris should be less than $800 in my view. $599 would be ideal if they go the route of 4 GB of memory and 128 GB of storage but they will probably up it to $699.

    If they do not use Iris graphics and go for the HD 4600 with a dual core processor, I am not even interested unless they were to go to possibly $499.
  • Reply 50 of 100
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    Honestly, this is a big "who cares?"

    There are no "gaming laptops" out there that are legitimately useable for gaming. It used to be because the GPU power or CPU power was pathetic, now it's because the cooling is.

    Please, seriously, do not buy ANY laptop if you intend to play games longer than an hour.

    The MacMini (2012 model) with the Ivy Bridge, is dead silent until you try to play a game. Then it makes some pretty horrible noise, and can get maybe 30fps out of a 6 year old game. Maybe in 6 more years Intel will release a part that is feature parity with mid-range cards, but so far they're only feature parity for low-end cards, and not even at a level that is really useable without turning all graphical detail settings off. I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather play the game at 30fps with all the details on, and I can't find a game that works good enough to do this. Maybe some Japanese and Korean Freemium games have old enough engines to do this (freemium games often work on 10 year old systems because they're designed to be played on the lemons that are sold as laptops.)

    Here's what you do, grab the benchmark program for http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/benchmark/download/ , stick it on a USB drive and then run it on the store demos at bestbuy. You'll probably find that none of them are playable. The onboard graphics on Intel's high-end desktop haswell parts can't run the game at 30fps even with most of the graphic settings off.
  • Reply 51 of 100
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Winter View Post





    The i7-2635QM (2.0 GHz Sandy Bridge) was only available on the 15" MBP though.

     

    Yes, that's what I have. My point was how miffed I am that both A) dual-core versions of the latest Intel have not caught up to Sandy Bridge quad-core performance, and B) Apple hasn't even offered quad-core options on the 13". They make it so that I can't get a 13" because there are no acceptable performance options for that size model. My 2.5 year old base model 15" is much faster.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Winter View Post





    I do ask, are the dual-core low voltage processors with Iris graphics (i5-4258U, i5-4288U, and i7-4558U) really that bad? I think they're pretty good for most users. Maybe I'm wrong?

    They're probably great. Like I was saying, I'm pretty sure they would be equal or better than the discrete card in my 2.5 year old 15". 

    I have no problem having Integrated-only if it performs on the level of what I have now. I have a AMD Radeon HD 6750M 1 GB VRAM.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Winter View Post





    I will not go out and say I'm right but 4K is not sought after by the majority right now for a variety of reasons but mainly cost so the retina screens on these notebooks are more than adequate.

    I'd be very surprised if they couldn't.

  • Reply 52 of 100
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    I don't think the idea is for the dual-core processors to catch up to the quad-core processors in a sheer raw power sense though again I could be wrong. I believe graphics however are a different story and that Intel is going from laughable to mediocre to dare I say solid B class while still preserving battery life.
  • Reply 53 of 100
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,401member

    This article is about MacBook Pro's and as such, the story should be about why it doesn't come with a discrete and more powerful video card instead of whooping up the integrated graphics.

     

    Integrated graphics suck suck and suck. 

  • Reply 54 of 100
    Originally Posted by sc_markt View Post



    This article is about MacBook Pro's and as such, the story should be about why it doesn't come with a discrete and more powerful video card instead of whooping up the integrated graphics.

     

    Integrated graphics suck suck and suck. 


     

    Stop.

     

    Originally Posted by pmz View Post

    What's really funny is that these Iris Pro Graphics are much higher performance than the discrete graphics that shipped with MBP only 2 years ago...yet the complaints continue as people lack any understanding of anything other than integrated = bad, discrete = good.

  • Reply 55 of 100
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmz View Post

     

    What's really funny is that these Iris Pro Graphics are much higher performance than the discrete graphics that shipped with MBP only 2 years ago...yet the complaints continue as people lack any understanding of anything other than integrated = bad, discrete = good.


     

    What is not funny that Apple tries to sell people very expensive laptops in the year 2013 that have Iris Pro Graphics that are at the same level as some middle-end laptop GPUs sold in 2011...

  • Reply 56 of 100
    Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

    What is not funny that Apple tries to sell people very expensive laptops in the year 2013 that have Iris Pro Graphics that are at the same level as some middle-end laptop GPUs sold in 2011...


     

    It’s almost as though you’re completely missing something, isn’t it?

  • Reply 57 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    It’s almost as though you’re completely missing something, isn’t it?


     

    Yes, if I bought a sub $2.500 MacBook Pro late 2013 I'd be completely missing a discrete graphics chip and thus a lot of fps... It's funny that I can get dual NVidia GPUs in a non-Apple laptop for less than $1.500... And a quad-core i7 as well.

  • Reply 58 of 100
    Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

    It's funny that I can get dual NVidia GPUs in a non-Apple laptop for less than $1.500... And a quad-core i7 as well.


     

    Enjoy Windows… and that build quality.

  • Reply 59 of 100
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Enjoy Windows… and that build quality.


     

    Ever heard of Hackintosh? :) Works quite nicely, thank you...

  • Reply 60 of 100
    Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

    Works quite nicely, thank you...


     

    Not for any actual work, it doesn’t. If you’re really a professional, you’d buy the real thing instead of pretending a hack job can get anything done.

     

    And good luck with OS X on a laptop.

Sign In or Register to comment.