Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Shares Details on New 'Iris' Integrated Graphics for Haswell Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The HD3000 was crap, the 4000 at least for light video editing a MBA is good enough. Any more speed will be welcome but we'll have to see right, 50% would be noticeable I'm sure.
But did some test with my MBA vs Mini with AMD 6330 and the mini is a lot faster when adding color effects, both machines have a similar setup processor wise.
But did some test with my MBA vs Mini with AMD 6330 and the mini is a lot faster when adding color effects, both machines have a similar setup processor wise.
When talking about integrated graphics, I can't help but think that if GPU performance matters to you, you don't want integrated graphics.
It would be like talking about racing turtles or something.
How about snails?
It's a cycle of planned obsolescence.
But you feel compelled to play along.
You want to work with the best gear and once you buy it and something new comes out you have to flip it while the resale value is still worth something and get the new thing.
But you feel compelled to play along.
You want to work with the best gear and once you buy it and something new comes out you have to flip it while the resale value is still worth something and get the new thing.
I still don't get it.. I'm running a Core2Quad Extreme Edition from '06 and 1st Gen CoreI7 Dual core from 2010 and am perfectly pleased. I don't think anyone is saying intel reinvents the wheel every year, for gods sake bragging about integrated graphics is like racing turtles as someone said earlier.
They still stiff their customers less than Apple, though I suppose they look bad next to AMD.
Why is "planned obsolescence" ? How many times must Intel wait to release a new CPU? One year, two years, three years?
The Iris Pro, i.e. the top of the line. Also, that chip is using 47w, compared to the Ivy Bridge chip at 45w, so in addition to increased performance, the power footprint should be about the same. Given the Iris Pro is said to perform on par with the 650m, one wonders what the dGPU in the next 15" RMBP will be, or if it will even have one.
Last edited:
Well Apple's computers are only as fast as Intel makes them. Look, if people hate Apple's prices then just put your dollars elsewhere, simple as that. I have never in my life wasted hours of complaining about a company's business practices, high prices and arrogance of "stiffing" customers and yet still bought from them. WHY? Makes no sense. You're doing the same thing here, you're complaining but you're still supporting Apple.
. It won't get better until you stop supporting.
This is good news / bad news IMO. Good, because performance boosts make me happy. Bad, because it might encourage Apple to drop discrete graphics chips entirely, resulting in little or no performance improvement, making me sad.
Sure, to some people smaller/slimmer/longer battery life trumps performance, but I'm not one of them.
Sure, to some people smaller/slimmer/longer battery life trumps performance, but I'm not one of them.
Ah thank you. I wondered what the current rMBP CPU TDP was. (christ, acronyms much)
Well Apple's computers are only as fast as Intel makes them. Look, if people hate Apple's prices then just put your dollars elsewhere, simple as that. I have never in my life wasted hours of complaining about a company's business practices, high prices and arrogance of "stiffing" customers and yet still bought from them. WHY? Makes no sense. You're doing the same thing here, you're complaining but you're still supporting Apple.
Well, I haven't supported Apple's computer business because they don't make the kind of computer I want(Well since PPC Mac, but I was too young then)... regardless of profit margins. the post took all of 1 minute to write. Just saying, criticizing Intel while championing Apple does not compute.
I want the best performance possible, and since I like the Air and I game on it, advances in integrated GPUs are great: I could use higher detail settings.
But for MOST users, the integrated GPUs from two years ago are still acceptable today. Relatively few people really need a discrete GPU at all. Integrated graphics advances definitely have their place.
But for MOST users, the integrated GPUs from two years ago are still acceptable today. Relatively few people really need a discrete GPU at all. Integrated graphics advances definitely have their place.
When talking about integrated graphics, I can't help but think that if GPU performance matters to you, you don't want integrated graphics.
It would be like talking about racing turtles or something.
Haha very true, however my '08 MacBook Pro has an integrated Nvidia 9600M which is pretty damn good, especially compared to the Intel Integrated of the time. If Intel hadn't been such bastards, breaking their agreement with Nvidia and suing them over making a chipset, we'd have really decent integrated graphics based on the Geforce 400 or 600. I know the GPU is part of the i7 CPU, but the agreement was Nvidia would allow Intel to use some of their tech/patents to make better integrated GPUs. But no, Intel decided they'd go it alone. Intel have always sucked at making GPUs. Really sucked. And it seems they still do.
Current 15" retinas use a 45w Ivy Bridge processor, so the new ones at 47w will use more power, but if there's less switching to discrete card there may be better overall power savings. The discrete card will likely be an Nvidia gt750 which is essentially a rebadged gt650 with a higher clock speed.
Oh, sorry, misunderstood, I see your sig now. I remember you from before. My mistake, figured since you're on a Mac forum, discussing processors for Apple's computers that you might be using one? I know that's far fetched. Definitely makes more sense for this forum to be made up of people that buy Windows machines. Why would anyone here discuss Macs?
I wasn't criticizing Intel and Championing Apple. But no problem, I see a few people on here act like they work for Intel and taking my post personally. Interesting how you can call my posts "Championing Apple" (When I wasn't) but you can say they "STIFF" customers.
I have to wonder why are you even here if Apple doesn't seem to make a computer that you want? There's really nothing for you to contribute here other than to criticize.
Well they need you to feel that your current computer is slow and outdated. A company can't keep living on prior sales. They need new sales.
Microsoft and Intel work together in a symbiotic relationship. Intel makes a fast new chipset. Microsoft writes some new software to make that computer seem slow. Customer response? I gotta replace this clunker.
How many people on this site are serial iPhone owners?
I know I am.
Case closed.
It's actually 45w
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_microprocessors#Ivy_Bridge_microarchitecture_2
Core i7-3840QM is the 2.8 GHz top end part for the 15" rMBP, the 13" uses a 35w processor.
Oh, sorry, misunderstood, I see your sig now. I remember you from before. My mistake, figured since you're on a Mac forum, discussing processors for Apple's computers that you might be using one? I know that's far fetched. Definitely makes more sense for this forum to be made up of people that buy Windows machines. Why would anyone here discuss Macs?
I wasn't criticizing Intel and Championing Apple. But no problem, I see a few people on here act like they work for Intel and taking my post personally. Interesting how you can call my posts "Championing Apple" (When I wasn't) but you can say they "STIFF" customers.
I have to wonder why are you even here if Apple doesn't seem to make a computer that you want? There's really nothing for you to contribute here other than to criticize.
Because I'm interested in Tech / find some of the posters here interesting and I want Apple to make a tower . I would buy it - we've been over this. Isn't an outsiders perspective worthwhile sometimes? I'm not the only one here. You were criticizing Intel for something Apple is more guilty of, in many people's opinion.