Yes--this was brought up in a thread by a Haswell MBP owner who noticed the battery charge decreasing while playing a graphics-heavy game.
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.
Are we paying for inaccessible performance?
- Thread starter exigentsky
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes--this was brought up in a thread by a Haswell MBP owner who noticed the battery charge decreasing while playing a graphics-heavy game.
I'm glad it still does that rather than being throttled faster.
A bit OT but everyone says to wait for the AnandTech review to get a lot more in-depth info. When is it expected?
Nobody knows. Anand tweeted 5 days ago that he got a 2.3/750M/16GB/512GB model (the same every reviewer got). I hope they go into detail WHY Apple chose Intel Iris Pro AND GT750M.
Sometime before Broadwell is released, hopefully...!
I think it should be out early next week. He usually has a 2-week turnaround for models that require a lot of testing.
Great! I'm looking forward to it. I just hope he'll comment on my concerns here. I've never seen a review that addressed this.
What do you mean why did Apple chose the Iris Pro and 750m? Apple has had an iGPU and a dGPU in their MBPs for a long time. Iris pro comes with the CPUs they wanted and the 750m fits their max thermal and max power capacities.
A lot of people were surprised to see Apple go with both Iris Pro and the 750M because the performance difference between the two is much less than we're used to seeing in dual-GPU MBPs.
I wasn't, I would have shocked if Apple didn't put a dGPU on at least one of the rMBPs. It's still a substantial difference. If someone needs a lot of GPU power the Iris Pro just isn't enough. The 750m is only on the top model so Apple is leaving it for people who want it.
No argument there--I just think a lot of folks were expecting a lower-powered/lower-spec'ed iGPU to be used instead of the Iris Pro, potentially to keep costs down. (This was before we knew exactly which CPUs were going into the MBPs, of course.)
In hindsight, it all makes sense. But I was surprised--and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
No argument there--I just think a lot of folks were expecting a lower-powered/lower-spec'ed iGPU to be used instead of the Iris Pro, potentially to keep costs down. (This was before we knew exactly which CPUs were going into the MBPs, of course.)
In hindsight, it all makes sense. But I was surprised--and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
Personally I expected Apple to use a slower processor with Iris Pro, and then offer a faster processor with only Iris and a dedicated GPU.
No argument there--I just think a lot of folks were expecting a lower-powered/lower-spec'ed iGPU to be used instead of the Iris Pro, potentially to keep costs down. (This was before we knew exactly which CPUs were going into the MBPs, of course.)
In hindsight, it all makes sense. But I was surprised--and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
I think a lot of people would have been up in arms if Apple put any thing but the top Iris Pro in the 15". They did put a lower powered iGPU in the 13". I just don't think Apple can get away with anything but top tier iGPUs yet.
No argument there--I just think a lot of folks were expecting a lower-powered/lower-spec'ed iGPU to be used instead of the Iris Pro, potentially to keep costs down. (This was before we knew exactly which CPUs were going into the MBPs, of course.)
In hindsight, it all makes sense. But I was surprised--and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
I wasand sorta still am, but with a giant caveatwith johnnylarue on this one. Using Iris Pro in a model that also has a dGPU is kind of silly. Under Mavericks, the HD4000 is perfectly up to snuff for most day-to-day tasks that don't trigger the dGPU, and given the improvement in the HD4600, it certainly would have been more than adequate. Given that the Crystalwell chips were already extremely expensivebasically meaning that Iris Pro+a dGPU would entail basically paying for two GPUsthat led me to think we wouldn't see that combination.
I have to believe, though, that Apple got a pretty sweet deal from Intel on pricing, and that's why this was possible. And you can imagine how the conversation and thought process went, too. Consumer confusion would abound if there were three different GPUs in the mix. And, having Iris Pro as standard across the board is good for Intel's long-term plans from a reputation standpoint, too. So my guess is they worked out some sort of win-win arrangement.
Apple has the largest margins in the computer industry and part of that is their excellent volume manufacturing deals. If they did it, you can be assured that the hit was minimal. It's only a midrange GPU anyway.
I was a bit disappointed that the 755m (almost the same) or 765m weren't options but then again it seems to be the case for most manufacturers. Thin and light has to have some sacrifices in performance due to cooling space and battery life issues. If they still had a 17-inch model I'm sure it wouldn't have been any trouble to add a better GPU though. Since Apple is the only hardware manufacturer for OS X based computers I don't get why they have so incredibly few hardware choices.
I was a bit disappointed that the 755m (almost the same) or 765m weren't options but then again it seems to be the case for most manufacturers. Thin and light has to have some sacrifices in performance due to cooling space and battery life issues. If they still had a 17-inch model I'm sure it wouldn't have been any trouble to add a better GPU though. Since Apple is the only hardware manufacturer for OS X based computers I don't get why they have so incredibly few hardware choices.
I think you have just answered your own question: If they increased their hardware options, the volumes of each unit would go down.
I know Apple has huge margins. I know the hit would be minimal, I was just wondering how big it was, $60?
I agree with orangezorki, you answered your own question. Also for most things having too many choices hurts sales.
I really haven't. Since OS X is an attraction but people still need the right hardware for it, they might be shooting themselves in the foot by offering so little choice (like no 17-in workstation). Some people would want to switch but don't have hardware that meets their needs. Obviously they can't offer the choice of the PC market with hundreds of companies but at least one product per category would be nice.
Perhaps you're right that it would hurt sales.
I could handle it! Now throw in dual GTX 780's SLI'd
Ok THAT would be unrealistic haha. Maybe in the future we'll see a 17" rMBP with nothing less than an Nvidia Quadro K5000 in it...dreaming here...don't ruin it Personally I find it interesting that so many Haswell 15" rMBP buyers are finding the 2.3GHz model to be fine, sort of reaffirms my believe that the miniscule CPU upgrade is rarely worth it.
Yup its been well documented by not only myself
but many others. Im curious what happens if the battery were completely drain while plugged in and gaming with the dGPU at max settings or multi-stream 4K editing with large amounts of visual effects in the background rendering.
Yup its been well documented by not only myself
I think it would just slow up to avoid dying.
Dell's adapter for the m3800 is much smaller than that and I'm sure Apple's engineering can find a clever way to shrink it too. In any case I wouldn't much care since it'll just be sitting on the floor. Plus, if there are concerns of carrying it, you could just get a 90W one for that purpose and use the 130W one when you need the extra power.
Seriously I couldn't care any less about what the charger looks like or how big it is, hell they can make it as big as my Xbox360's transformer with its giant built in fan XD XD (just make the connector small
).