Sidebar Sidebar
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

dusk007 said:
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.
Click to expand...

thats pretty much what happened, good summary

devilcm3 said:
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
Click to expand...
its still an igpu, the 320m is in the chipset, not to mention it shares memory with the system
 
Mr. RPG said:
Here's another question: Do we need a dedicated GPU?

How many of you guys actually play games on your Macs.. which is the main reason people have GPUs on their Macs?
Click to expand...

Ooooh, dangerous to suggest people here would play games. When I posted a similar thought in last year's discussions about laptop upgrades, everybody all of a sudden required it for hardware accelerated photo/video processing and (most obviously) high-end multi-threaded calculations.

Or could it be possible that those few are just way more verbal ?

Anyway, I think the next generation should satisfy 99% of the Mac users, with the 1% consisting indeed mainly of gamers and a few photo/video/simulation users. The days that the Mac was the standard platform for creative work are long over.


Peter.
 
tmanto02 said:
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.
Click to expand...

At the rate intel is ramping up performance vs power consumption in the last 4 years, I suspect the mobile discrete GPU market will be pretty much dead inside 2 years.

All they need to do is get dual socket CPU+GPU out there and NVIDIA and AMD mobile video is toast.

Why would you spend 90 watts on CPU + GPU when you could spend 90 watts on CPU + CPU with 2 sets of integrated video and get 2x the CPU power to boot?


Agreed now is the time for the 13" pro to go quad core with integrated IRIS GPU.
 
If Apple figures out a way to put a quad Iris Pro CPU inside a rMBP 13 chassis, keep it cooled properly, and get 8+ hour battery life out of it, they could seriously justify the price tag they're asking.
It could be incredibly hard though. It would be the holy grail of notebooks. So I think they'll stick to 28W Iris chips, same power as Haswell MBA but better graphics (so it means it would be less powerful than today's rMBP?) and seriously improved battery or thinner chassis.

But if they get the Iris Pro affair done on a 13", it would be a seriously hardcore machine. Maybe unrealistic, since Iris Pro chips are 47w and the current ones are 35w.
 
gpat said:
If Apple figures out a way to put a quad Iris Pro CPU inside a rMBP 13 chassis, keep it cooled properly, and get 8+ hour battery life out of it, they could seriously justify the price tag they're asking.
It could be incredibly hard though.
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't.
It would be a simple thing. Now there is enough space to in theory add a 2.5" drive which they didn't. If they move to PCIe SSDs and integrate that more towards the logic board and forget about a 2.5" drive space they aren't using anyway, they can move the battery packs around a bit.
A little redesign of the the logic board and there should be plenty of room to grow the fans enough to handle 47W. Chances are 47W is already doable but in any case it would require much.
Whether they do that or just shrink the whole thing more and go for a ultra long life 28W ULV remains to be seen. Going for a 47W is definitely not hard. It is only expensive given that the 4850hq costs about twice as much as the current cpu. A 28W ULV retina MBP would probably offer them a better profit margin assuming the price stays the same and a 28W ULV won't cannibalise the expensive high margin 15" rMBP.

The decision is pure sales numbers and not at all too difficult for engineers.
The best thing for consumers would be a aim at 47W but selling the entry level with a 28W for those that prefer battery life and a cool notebook. They could charge enough of a markup for the 47W HD 5200 version to make it their sales people happy and they probably sell lots of either.
Sooner or later they have to give the 13" a quad core option or it gets ridiculous.
 
dusk007 said:
No it wouldn't.
It would be a simple thing. Now there is enough space to in theory add a 2.5" drive which they didn't. If they move to PCIe SSDs and integrate that more towards the logic board and forget about a 2.5" drive space they aren't using anyway, they can move the battery packs around a bit.
A little redesign of the the logic board and there should be plenty of room to grow the fans enough to handle 47W. Chances are 47W is already doable but in any case it would require much.
Whether they do that or just shrink the whole thing more and go for a ultra long life 28W ULV remains to be seen. Going for a 47W is definitely not hard. It is only expensive given that the 4850hq costs about twice as much as the current cpu. A 28W ULV retina MBP would probably offer them a better profit margin assuming the price stays the same and a 28W ULV won't cannibalise the expensive high margin 15" rMBP.

The decision is pure sales numbers and not at all too difficult for engineers.
The best thing for consumers would be a aim at 47W but selling the entry level with a 28W for those that prefer battery life and a cool notebook. They could charge enough of a markup for the 47W HD 5200 version to make it their sales people happy and they probably sell lots of either.
Sooner or later they have to give the 13" a quad core option or it gets ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You're right. I was thinking that the rMBP 13" didn't have any free space in its chassis, but iFixit showed me otherwise.
This could be huge. A $1599 rMBP with i7 Quad, Iris Pro and 256GB SSD could be a huge hit in the face of high-end PCs. And there would be no doubt that it would deserve the "Pro" name.
But it would cannibalize the 15" Pro if they don't give it some super cool key feature, even if the 13" would be a pretty high margin machine anyways.
But giving the 13" a 28w chip, making it as powerful as the Air, but heavier, more expensive and with only the Retina display as a selling point, with some uber-long battery life which would be way over the useful mark (the Air is a better machine to carry around for light work, anyways) doesn't sound like a better plan to me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back