Not going to happen.
----------
We will have to wait and see. I still don't trust integrated GPU's since even the Iris Pro can lag OS X which doesn't happen on the 750m.
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.
Waiting for Broadwell MBP Thread
- Thread starter UBS28
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not going to happen.
----------
We will have to wait and see. I still don't trust integrated GPU's since even the Iris Pro can lag OS X which doesn't happen on the 750m.
Are you guys dreaming about the 900+ NVIDIA? The day MBP's crosses over to the (upper) gtx will be a big day. It'll mean Macs will officially become legit gaming computers which they for some reason have always been reluctant to do. And this is not likely to happen any time soon.
GT series ends at 755m for mobile:
http://www.geforce.com/hardware
anything past that is a GTX.
So I'm not expecting anything much better in terms of a graphics card from the next MBP. 755m or maybe a very modest GTX. Not even an 850m, heh, dream on. However, I hope I'm wrong.
NVIDIA makes Quadro graphics card specifically for creative applications, but Macs don't support quadros. Better get a work station (PC) if you want serious and smooth workability. Especially for 3D graphics, depending on detail and file size, MBP is not your best friend. It will most surely lag. The new MBP machine will probably be better than the current one, but not much in terms of dGPU, most likely. The current one is much better than the 2011, though.
GT series ends at 755m for mobile:
http://www.geforce.com/hardware
anything past that is a GTX.
So I'm not expecting anything much better in terms of a graphics card from the next MBP. 755m or maybe a very modest GTX. Not even an 850m, heh, dream on. However, I hope I'm wrong.
NVIDIA makes Quadro graphics card specifically for creative applications, but Macs don't support quadros. Better get a work station (PC) if you want serious and smooth workability. Especially for 3D graphics, depending on detail and file size, MBP is not your best friend. It will most surely lag. The new MBP machine will probably be better than the current one, but not much in terms of dGPU, most likely. The current one is much better than the 2011, though.
Where are you getting all these figures from? I have serious doubts that the hd6000 is anywhere near as fast as the hd5200.
For example the hd5000 while having double the units as the hd4600, is not anywhere near 2x faster than the hd4xxx. Mainly due to large memory bottlenecks. Hd5200 with the edram alleviates this and that's why it is so much faster than hd5000 and hd5100.
Hd6000 and hd6100 does not have edram so I can't see how it can be 2x faster than hd5500.
Hello,
I have been lurking around here for a bit and thank you for being a great source of rumination.
My wife has been saving for the next iteration of the rMBP that everyone is musing about here. We are both very excited about this purchase.
Thank you again. That's all I have to add.
I have been lurking around here for a bit and thank you for being a great source of rumination.
My wife has been saving for the next iteration of the rMBP that everyone is musing about here. We are both very excited about this purchase.
Thank you again. That's all I have to add.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-5500.125586.0.html
HD5000 40 cores - 950 pts in 3dMark11.
HD5500 24 cores - 950 pts in 3dMark11.
HD6000 48 Cores - how many points will it get if it has twice as many cores, and higher clock speed than HD5500?
HD5200 - around 2000 pts in the same benchmark.
The difference is because larger internal chaches for GPU. Architecture change, not just amount of cores thats the game changer here.
One more thing. Dont compare HD4600 to HD5000. Compare HD4400 to HD5000.
Last edited:
Do you have a point? How do you know internal changes make any difference .. Didn't make a huge difference when comparing hd4400 and hd5500.
The hd4400 median is 830
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4400.91979.0.html
Hd4400 20 cores 830
Hd5000 40 cores 950
Doubling of cores results in a stunning 15% increase in this benchmark. Without edram there is huge bottleneck.
Dont compare old architecture, that was not getting benefit from large internal cache, to a new that does.
24 cores with lower clock, are exactly as fast as old one with 40 cores and faster clock.
Wow, 1000 battery cycles. I can see your use of that rMBP far, far exceeds mine. Dead fans, drops. Sounds like "dying" is a good description after all.
Well mine is a current MBP not a retina one (Actually I have 1756 cycles & under 50% of battery life). That was one of the most drawbacks of the retina, its battery stick to the chasis and the price to change it, but if the next one I'll buy lasts 3 years until 1000 cycles (almost like the actual one), I'll be happy.
Sorry I guess I could have explained in more detail. There are several issues with the laptop.
1. There's material flaking off the display glass, the upper layer. If looks terrible. The screen also has quite a few dead pixels.
2. The computer doesn't wake from sleep as it should. Takes about 20 seconds.
3. It's often laggy, without clear reason (I monitor RAM and CPU consumption and keep the drive at least 20% empty)
4. The audio out/in doesn't work anymore (at all).
5. The battery is not only in horrible shape, but the computer also often shuts down when it's at ~50% charged. Sometimes it doesn't do it, but 2/3 of the time it does.
Finally, my wife's 2009 MBP is completely shot (screen/GPU, motherboard, battery) and she desperately needs a new computer. I can't be without one for the repair duration of the RMBP I'm talking about here, so I was thinking of getting this one fixed under Apple Care while getting a new one. Problem is that I KNOW that I don't want to invest $2,500 into already outdated hardware, and will want Skylake RMBP or the new RMBP 12" Air when it comes out. So it's a given that I'll sell the new RMBP (which I've already bought, just not opened yet as I'm hesitating) as soon as either of the above come out. I likely want the 12" Air, since I walk about 10 miles per day with the laptop on my back and every ounce matters. But how much will I get for an early 2014 RMBP $2,500 in pristine shape in ~2 months? Maybe $2,000? That would be worth it I guess, but what if I only get $1,500 because it's going to be such a dinosaur when Skylake comes out?
One option is to wait just a few more to see if they do that minor bump on the Air (not 12" rMBA) that it's rumoured to happen in 28 Febr. In that case, you'll know for sure that you won't have an Skylake MBP or a rMBA until Q3/2015 at least (being optimistic).
Do you really need a quad-core to work while they are will be repairing your rMBP? Because you could get a 13" rMBP meanwhile (instead of a rMBP $2,500) and then give it to your wife once you got yours repaired. If she was going on still with a 2009 before that problems, she will be more than happy with a new 13" rMBP.
Thanks for the thoughts. She's so used to her 17" MBP, and is not using an external monitor (usually works while on the go) that it sounds like she'll have troubles adjusting to a <15" screen.
Well, another option is looking for a 2nd hand (but in good condition) 17" 2011 or a 15" 2011 as a temporary replacement for you, as they have a quad-core and are similar in CPU performance than your 2012 rMBP, and then give it to her. The drawback is that those might have the Radeon problems but would be definitely much cheaper than the 2500$ MBP you bought and plan to sell.
but the chip destined for mpb wont be available on launch
i believe, like in the past, they will roll out core m/low power first ---> top skylake SKUs
so, maybe 3-x months after initial release
i believe, like in the past, they will roll out core m/low power first ---> top skylake SKUs
so, maybe 3-x months after initial release
It seems that Broadwell and Skywell will coexist, with Broadwell using the Haswell socket acting as a speedbump for the OEMs not wanting to invest on a new platform, and Skywell for the ones who do.
Apple is an high-end OEM, and isn't afraid of scrapping legacy technologies in order to optimize the hardware with cutting-edge components.
So skipping Broadwell is definitely a possibility, even if not sure.
And I think that skipping Broadwell and having Skylake on availability day one makes much more sense than having delayed Broadwell macbooks and even more delayed Skylake ones.
P.S. Skylake-H are the ones you're looking for. There are going to be 35W dual and especially quad-core SKUs, the ones you want in 15" rMBP. Could be useful for the 13" rMBP as well. Confirmed for 2H 2015
Last edited:
That's a home-made "problem", nobody forces you to value having the latest-and-greatest higher than having a perfectly capable machine at the point in time when you actually need it as replacement...
Maybe not a 980, but I don't see why they can't get a 970 in there. Razer has one in their new blade, and it's as thin or thinner than the 15" MBP. It's a 14" too, so should be a little smaller all around. I wouldn't buy that laptop, but I think at $2500 the hardware in the rMBP needs improvement.
Yeah, but a 970 would reduce a lot their benefits margin, so I doubt Apple will go for one. Apple is not known for going after the best graphics on their computers (with the exception of the last Mac Pro).
Here you go. Found a review of the hd6000.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015...pc-is-a-next-generation-ultrabook-in-a-box/3/
As expected hd6000 is nowhere near as fast as the iris pro 5200
With jugments of HD6000 I will wait for more tests
.As it goes:
ArsTechnica said:
So a card with twice as many Cores, and higher clock speed will be only 20-30% faster? Even if a card that has 40% less cores is as fast as a HD5000?
Nope, its illogical, despite its Integrated, and it has new architecture with bigger internal cache for GPU cores.
I still say it will be twice as fast, and in 3dMark11 will get double the score of HD5500, and in HD5200 range.
Edit. Performance can be dumped still because of drivers.
With jugments of HD6000 I will wait for more tests
As it goes:
So a card with twice as many Cores, and higher clock speed will be only 20-30% faster? Even if a card that has 40% less cores is as fast as a HD5000?
Nope, its illogical, despite its Integrated, and it has new architecture with bigger internal cache for GPU cores.
I still say it will be twice as fast, and in 3dMark11 will get double the score of HD5500, and in HD5200 range.
Edit. Performance can be dumped still because of drivers.
Results make perfect sense. It indicates a bottleneck in memory performance. That's the reason why edram was introduced in iris pro. Without it, scaling with more execution units is minimal.
We've seen it in hd4400->hd5000 and seeing exact same pattern in hd5500->hd6000. No amount of drivers will fix this.
It doesn't look like broadwell does much to alleviate this bottleneck (sky lake with ddr4 will to some extent though)