It's the Apple way. Same for removing the, woefully underspec'd in VRAM, dGPU in the mini. The second Apple could remove the dGPU, they jumped at the chance.
Last edited:
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.
13" MBP refresh with dGPU. - It's time Apple
- Thread starter Maven1975
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's the Apple way. Same for removing the, woefully underspec'd in VRAM, dGPU in the mini. The second Apple could remove the dGPU, they jumped at the chance.
It could be pretty expensive compared to the dual core processors they're using now. Also the current 13 rMBP processors are in the 35W power and cooling class. Going up to 47W in the 13" should be doable but may cause a decrease in battery life and increase in temperatures
depends on what dual core you are talking about, the standard voltage all got the 4600
given that we dont know whats going to be in there, and as I said the only dual cores standard voltage are equipped with the 4600, and not the 5000 or 5100 or 5200
I'm guessing that the Macbook Air will have the 4600 while the Macbook Pro 13 will have the 5000 or 5200 (assuming it's not just for desktops). The 5000+ seems to have performance similar if not equal to the 650m.
Like you said, we don't know, the 35W have HD4600 in them which would be annoying if Apple used that. I wonder when they're thinking of releasing them and if Apple has early access to them.
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/75024
----------
Might Apple use this 2.9Ghz i5 processor with HD5100 for the base 13"?
http://ark.intel.com/products/75990/Intel-Core-i5-4258U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_90-GHz
And the 3.1Ghz i5 with HD5100 for the improced 13"?
http://ark.intel.com/products/75991/Intel-Core-i5-4288U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz
They both use less power too at 28W maximum making them more efficient; although I do realise these are the ultra low voltage variants.
Last edited:
thats ULV, i think its pretty unlikely ..
Yeah I know :/ suppose it will depend upon if Apple have early access to the mobile variants of the i5.
thats ULV, i think its pretty unlikely ..
exactly
these are the ones you are looking for
http://anandtech.com/show/7021/introducing-the-dualcore-haswell-skus
there is barely any benefit from the mba to the mbp, putting ulv on the rmbp will just kill it, no one would recommend a more expensive model that offers the same thing from the mba, except for the screen
The 28W are meant to replace CPU in notebooks with a 17W Ivy + a low end GPU like a 620M.
Asus Zenbook UX32vd is one such. There are a couple more. It is bascially a 15W with more thermal headroom to deliver more GPU power. It is also BGA and a SoC so much better battery life than normal 37W Dual Cores.
The 28W would also be slower than current 35W. Battery life would be great but otherwise it would be odd.
Maybe Apple will just put in a 37W dual core and add a quad core option and everybody will be stuck with the HD 4600 in 13 rMBP. The drivers for the HD 4600 are better but otherwise that means pretty much the same performance. Just because the Windows drivers are better doesn't mean OSX drivers are too.
I am starting to think the MBA will end up with the faster GPU. There is really no excuse for not at least offering one of the HD 5000 15W chips. While with the rMBP if they go for 37W there is no HD 5X00. Only at 47W or going into ULV space.
Asus Zenbook UX32vd is one such. There are a couple more. It is bascially a 15W with more thermal headroom to deliver more GPU power. It is also BGA and a SoC so much better battery life than normal 37W Dual Cores.
The 28W would also be slower than current 35W. Battery life would be great but otherwise it would be odd.
Maybe Apple will just put in a 37W dual core and add a quad core option and everybody will be stuck with the HD 4600 in 13 rMBP. The drivers for the HD 4600 are better but otherwise that means pretty much the same performance. Just because the Windows drivers are better doesn't mean OSX drivers are too.
I am starting to think the MBA will end up with the faster GPU. There is really no excuse for not at least offering one of the HD 5000 15W chips. While with the rMBP if they go for 37W there is no HD 5X00. Only at 47W or going into ULV space.
No, not at all. Quad-Cores are more efficient, compared to Dual-Core processors. Haswell cores (and previous generation cores) can sleep, if the OS does not need them. In a Dual-Core processor only one core can sleep, and this is highly unlikely, because many applications use all two cores. Many apps and tools use automatic parallelization via GCD (Grand Central Dispatch).
I'd happily pay more for a powerful 13" than I would a 15". I know that big cell phones are all the rage now but smaller (or midrange) is better for notebooks.
I am fine with a gimped 13" while on the move, but I want power when I dock. That is your design brief Apple, run with it. Possible suggestions from the peanut gallery: good iGPU, great dGPU (require A/C power), or finally external monitors with GPU prowess.
Iris will get close enough to GT650M performance in half the power consumption.
no dGPU will be in 13" or smaller apple machines.
ever.
I suspect even 15" may be intel only soon.
While I agree that 13" will not get dgpu anytime soon I don't think you can rule it out completely for all future models. Remember that they used to have dgpu back when the CPUs were core2duos.
OP really should check my post in the "3 USB ports" thread. It's directed at this thread as well. "It's time Apple". Do u think Apple cares when u think "it's time"? Just the title of this thread reeks. You Sound like you are talking to a junkie at an intervention. Go buy a razr or an Alienware and just be happy and save us more of these narsassistic whine fest treads.
Nice!
Making a post like this, with your opinion as an absolute, and then pointing out more of your fun work?
Who's the narcissist? LMFAO
If users did not discuss their needs, how would companies get feedback?
I value my voice and opinions. Perhaps you want to live in a drone society where your told what to do, use, think or say. A controlled nation where everyone's personal privacy is monitored and are told to accept it.... Wait a second..
Get a grip
Actually they did not. I do not believe any 13" MBP had a discrete GPU.
The 2010 13" MBP had a 320M, which was an NVIDIA integrated GPU.
EDIT: I do not believe it is time for the 13" to have a discrete GPU. I DO think it is time for it to get a quad core CPU with Iris Pro however.
Not like that. The NVIDIA 9400M was an integrated video card which delivered performance much greater than Intel's integrated cards. But Intel was just mad when Apple used these NVIDIA chipsets with Core 2 Duo processors. Intel filed suit against NVIDIA to halt development of alternative chipsets for the future generations of processors. As a result, NVIDIA stopped developing new chipsets and Nehalem only shipped with Intel chipsets. Apple was stuck with Core 2 Duo processors and NVIDIA chipsets for one more generation after the release of Nehalem, but then had to go back to Intel. After this happened, Intel would never give Apple any preferential access to its new processors, as it used to happen.
As much as I remember Intel never filed suit against Nvidia. Nvidia was the one complaining that Intel didn't license DMI and therefore prevent Nvidia from making any chipset whatsoever. Not that and IGP solution connected via DMI would have been any good anyway. The memory controller was on the Intel package and accessing memory over the DMI would not have been feasible.
Arrendale IGP were still bad and that is why Apple stuck with Nvidia for one generation. Also the quad core were too hot and the Arrendale only made it into the 15" and we'd have the old differentiation problem.
Apple still bought their old stock of C2D chips which they otherwise would have sold for Pentium/Celeron prices. I don't think Intel was too mad. Personally I never saw any real indication that Apple ever had any preferential treatment by Intel. Anybody could get the first batches if they payed for it. Anybody could make special demands for special chips if they could convince Intel that it is worthwhile (and possible) and they can generate enough sales.
This whole Intel Apple story was never more than rumors or just normal relations between seller and a big customer.
Arrendale IGP were still bad and that is why Apple stuck with Nvidia for one generation. Also the quad core were too hot and the Arrendale only made it into the 15" and we'd have the old differentiation problem.
Apple still bought their old stock of C2D chips which they otherwise would have sold for Pentium/Celeron prices. I don't think Intel was too mad. Personally I never saw any real indication that Apple ever had any preferential treatment by Intel. Anybody could get the first batches if they payed for it. Anybody could make special demands for special chips if they could convince Intel that it is worthwhile (and possible) and they can generate enough sales.
This whole Intel Apple story was never more than rumors or just normal relations between seller and a big customer.
not 9400M.
its 320M
check it out http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Unibody+Model+A1342+Mid+2010+Teardown/2931/1
its side by side with the CPU