Can I get some of whatever you're smoking over there? Now you're just making stuff up man, come on. Show us a 45w quad part with 550 please.
2016 Macbook Pro 15" will be a lagfest in Parallels
- Thread starter dark_mark
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can I get some of whatever you're smoking over there? Now you're just making stuff up man, come on. Show us a 45w quad part with 550 please.
Ok, my bad, I must have missed those in the Intel's list. Could you point me to those models?
Let's just ponder this a moment, shall we?
Software has not caught up with hardware. Note that games are slapped together and shoved quickly to production as fast as possible, not optimized for performance. I think we're in this weird place in personal computing where the horsepower is way ahead of what people are coding for, and as a result is being used up compensating for sub-optimal code.
I blame capitalism. Who's with me? (Badges and secret handshakes of the underground revolution will be shared in future broadcasts.)
I blame capitalism. Who's with me? (Badges and secret handshakes of the underground revolution will be shared in future broadcasts.)
dallas112678
macrumors 6502a
So is everyone missing that there are two quad core processors with Iris Pro 580's? That's almost 3x the graphics performance compared to the 530. Apple simply went with the older and cheaper parts. I have a feeling that Iris Pro 580 would have made a larger impact on system performance than .1 GHz.
"Power Consumption
The Iris Graphics P580 can be found in some mobile high-end quad core processors (45 W). Therefore, they are most likely not used in thin and light laptops."
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Pro-Graphics-P580.158272.0.html
I know the MBP should qualify, but it's clear Apple was shooting for portability, not power. I understand your complaint, but it isn't about cheap parts. They optimized for portability.
The Iris Graphics P580 can be found in some mobile high-end quad core processors (45 W). Therefore, they are most likely not used in thin and light laptops."
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Pro-Graphics-P580.158272.0.html
I know the MBP should qualify, but it's clear Apple was shooting for portability, not power. I understand your complaint, but it isn't about cheap parts. They optimized for portability.
dallas112678
macrumors 6502a
You realize the MBP 15" is already using a 45W processor, right? Power consumption isn't an excuse.
Look, I get it. I do. But there is no "excuse." Portability = Slim Form Factor + Battery Life. That's what they optimized for. The 580 would draw more power. Add the dGPU, and you have a battery hog. And for what? Most of the time, most consumers are not using their laptop for intense tasks. That's Apple's strategy for their laptops.
All these complaints, in every direction, can be boiled down to the portability argument. We may not LIKE that optimization, and we might think it's a flawed approach for a "pro" product. But at the end of the day, the "cheap parts" and "profiteering" arguments fall flat against the reality that this machine IS designed well for what Apple intended.
thekev
macrumors 604
Parallels typically triggers a switch to the discrete chip if one is available. Booting parallels triggers a switch. See allowing OpenGL applications to utilize the integrated gpu.
Apple used these to release integrated only 15" models. I expect them to do the same thing again. They're less problematic than the heat generated by another chip.
dallas112678
macrumors 6502a
Then lets just hope there's no UI lag or something along those lines, because having a slightly shorter battery life would be a much better "experience" as Apple likes to say compared to dropping frames doing simple things like surfing the internet.
this whole macbook pro 2016 story is better than any hollywood movie!!! and I doubt it's got a happy ending for apple (and the buyers of 2016 MBP)
Nobody is missing that. As I have suggested in a number of threads, there are indications that Intel was never able to kick off serious production of Iris Pro enabled Skylakes. In a nutshell, there were reported delays of Skylake chips, Itel canceled Iris Pro for Kaby Lake, barely any computer on the market offers 580 and also, if they were available, I doubt that Apple would go through the trouble of using dGPUs in all the 15" MBP — thats directly agains what they were trying to do before. Basically, I believe that these CPU were simply not an option given the quantities of chips Apple requires. Its one thing to ship them in a workstation somewhere (which probably sell maximally few hundreds per year), and quite another one in a MacBook Pro, which sell in much higher numbers. Apple's problem is that it doesn't just need a particular chip, it needs higher quantities of that chip than anyone else, because they are usually shipping more machines of the same model than anyone else.
[doublepost=1478380457][/doublepost]
Actually, its a more complex story. There were some tests that showed that Iris Pro models often throttle down quicker when GPU is under heavy load because they need to cool both a very powerful CPU and a GPU over the same package. Distributing the heat over multiple sources might result in more stable operation.
Are you saying you expect Apple to go backward and produce a 15" with the 580 and no dGPU?
thekev
macrumors 604
What do you mean by backward? Discrete gpus aren't a new concept. Apple released the rmbp in 2012 with a 650m for $2200. Prior to that they started at $1800. When they switched to the iris pro, the base model dropped back to $2000. It did not come with discrete graphics. Why would you expect this to be any different when it's possible to drive the the 15" without them?
dallas112678
macrumors 6502a
What if I told you that the Iris Pro 580 has 15% more compute performance compared to the Radeon 540?
Would actually be a pretty interesting concept.
HD 530 with dGPU and Iris 580 without dGPU + filling up the empty space with battery.
First would be the performance model for graphics intensive tasks and the second one would be for developers and others who just don't need the GPU performance.
I asked a question that remains unanswered.
[doublepost=1478381394][/doublepost]My anticipation is that they engineered a platform more than they engineered a computer. I expect they've taken all this time for an update for that reason. So the parts will swap, but the basic config (iGPU + dGPU, for example) to remain the same on their high end model. That's how I understand what's going on with the new design, and why they are putting all their eggs in USB-C. They are camping out on this engineering platform for a while.
[doublepost=1478381394][/doublepost]My anticipation is that they engineered a platform more than they engineered a computer. I expect they've taken all this time for an update for that reason. So the parts will swap, but the basic config (iGPU + dGPU, for example) to remain the same on their high end model. That's how I understand what's going on with the new design, and why they are putting all their eggs in USB-C. They are camping out on this engineering platform for a while.
Macintosh IIcx
macrumors 6502a
Maybe, maybe not. Having the efficient Polaris 11 GPU might have changed their mind. After all, there are benefits from dividing the CPU and GPU task into two 35 watts parts, so the CPU can better sustain max turbo clock speeds.
thekev
macrumors 604
How is that different from the last 4 years?
Listen, you are thinking I'm trying to start some sort of argument. This is not the case. You said you expect Apple to have a 580-class iGPU without a dGPU. I asked you if you really expected them to do that, given their current course. You have not answered the question. This is where we are in the discussion. Do you really expect them to do this, or not?
burgman
macrumors 68030
Noob haters based on speculation without data are special
thekev
macrumors 604
I just tend to phrase things that way. It's not really a point of conflict for me. I thought they would do roughly the same thing. In both 2012 and 2016, it was an increase of $400 in the US. Last time this accompanied a switch from HDD to 256 ssd along with the shift to retina display and stuff. They dropped it back by $200 after the gpu shift, which included better integrated graphics yet dropped discrete in the base model.
I think they'll do something similar here. It may not shift back to $2000 or it might. They kept last year's base model at the same price to hold down the $2k starting price for a 15" model, so this would be a fairly logical direction.
Personally I think the value added in the last round was terrible, given the price increase.
Thank you for your cogent response. I understand your logic.
I personally do not think pricing is a priority for Apple. We're talking about a company that charges about a thousand dollars for a phone. A PHONE. Their market shares (computing and phones) are small, and they remain a boutique technology company pandering to the pseudo-creatives. I think they discovered the largest part of their market was not actual creative professionals, but people with money who like pretty things. And in the interest of sustaining competitiveness, aimed themselves squarely at that market. Truth be told, I don't think anyone else can compete with them in that space. They own it, from hardware to OS to iOS.
The iGPU/dGPU combo is a controversial area where they straddle several markets simultaneously. Everything else is straightforward portability optimization, and keeping things pretty. I agree that the cleanest, purest implementation would have been to do something like a 580 without a dGPU. But they are clearly stretching their config for segments that want 3D graphics performance. I think product cycles within this current platform will bring much higher performance parts going forward (eg, the dGPU). They just got stuck introducing the platform at a crappy time in personal computing where the technology is disjointed in that "smooth, clean lines" space they are aiming for.