But then they did it for a reason and only with the 13" model (correct me if I'm wrong). This year, Apple has every reason to use IvyBridge across their product lineup, or better - they have no reason not to.
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.
Additional Sketchy 15" MacBook Pro Specs from Chinese Forum Post
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But then they did it for a reason and only with the 13" model (correct me if I'm wrong). This year, Apple has every reason to use IvyBridge across their product lineup, or better - they have no reason not to.
The 7700M should be based on the same Cape Verde GPU core as its desktop counterpart. Still I would rather have nVidia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap
Nasty little trick. I'm sure it's probably used by our immune systems or somehow in biology.
The thing I'm very much interested with is will Apple be going with the AMD 7770M or nVidia 650M GT, and if they do go back to nVidia will the 650M GT be the GDDR5 or GDDR3 version of the card because apparently there is a big pricing difference regarding those cards.
The 9to5 mac report is probably a fake - Intel doesn't have a quad-core i7 CPU @ 2.6GHz with 8MB L3 cache. only with 6 megabytes. (again - correct me, if I am wrong). Regardless, it looks quite legit.
Apple would never put four USB ports on a laptop. Especially since those specs also mention firewire.
I would also expect the stock versions of the new Macbook Pros to only have 4GB RAM. I can imagine a BTO version with 16GB, but I would not be surprised if 8GB would still be the official cap.
In otherwords: this is fake
I can't imagine Apple jumping from just 4GB stock standard, to 16GB. Sure they will offer it as a BTO option, but to offer it as a stock configuration (8GB is far more likely IMO) really makes me think this is a fake.
A single desktop R5870 can drive 24 megapixels of screen resolution all by itself. There's little reason why the R7700M series, with at least one generation of improvements under its belt, cannot do the same at 8 megapixels.
Gaming at native Retina resolutions, nah.
Pro rendering needs a little more than that, from what I hear. Plus, you're right on the gaming angle. The current gen desktop GPUs can only crank out acceptable performance at the suggested 15" MBP rez when you go to the upper-mid range (7800 series/GT 600 series). High-end mobile barely matches low-end desktop when comparing the current gen. A year too soon, perhaps?
----------
Not necessarily. If Apple wishes to maintain a certain size/rez scaling, and they intend to Retina the 17 inch model, it makes perfect sense. It would allow Apple to maintain a high rez without having to jack up the cost, as has been indicated were they to simply use the same screen res but with Retina (which would also translate to an awkward, non-standard 2880x1800 rez). My guess is, if they intend to only Retina some of the models, it will be:
-13" non-retina 1280x800
-15" 2560x1600
-17" 3840x2160 (close to 4K, which allows for more effective video editing at the pro level)
The GT 640/650M is the current mobile GPU if you want 768/900p gaming in a pinch on a notebook. If AMD can keep the clock speeds high on their Cape Verde based mobile parts, they will be able to compete well. Desktop GK107 is somewhat lacking but the mobile side has a good showing. A lot of notebooks with the HD 7700M series have been announced today. It is now just waiting for someone to benchmark one.
However, now we have a BRAND SPANKING NEW processor just released. If apple doesn't use that then something weird is going on
The mobility 7750/70, 7850/70, and 7950/70 cards are all great. The latter is a basically a desktop 7870 with an under clock, and the former two will be good performers as well but obviously not as good.
The 2560x1600 resolution (1280x800) sounds wrong. The current resolution is 1440x900, or an upgrade to 1680x1050, dropping down to 1280x800 would be horrible.
The disclaimer is missing #2 and #3, and #1 and #4 aren't lining up with what they are on current models.
Why? The NVidia cards don't seem to be as good to me as the AMD's do? What card would you be wanting in there?
I also prefer Nvidia cards. The features that Nvidia provides are far superior than AMD's, such as Optimus technology vs. AMD's Enduro technology. Optimus technology just works flawlessly when switching from discrete to integrated and vice versa, whereas Enduro technology may encounter failures every once in a while. In addition, Nvidia's drivers are more stable and they include many enhancements compared to AMD. I just really hope Apple implements Nvidia cards to all of their Mac lineup despite the premium price tag, like the GTX 680m for additional $300 vs. AMD's 7970m which possibly will be for the new iMac. Otherwise, I hope the 15" and 17" MBPs to receive a GT 650m.
Apple uses their own graphic switching technology though. Optimus works for specific applications, whereas Apple's system switches to the discrete graphics when a certain load is put on the GPU.
I want the 7870M in the high end 15 and 17 inch MacBook Pro, and the 7770M in the low end 15 inch MacBook Pro. I think the 7870M is better than the GT 660M, and the 7700M probably a bit below it or on par with the GT 650M. And I want the 7970M in the high end 27 inch iMac.
Who cares about specs? How thin will it be? Me needs to look cool while I upload all of my personal information to facebook and icloud at starbucks! 
Ivy Bridges Errata sheet is extremely long, maybe there is a show stopper there. However I tend to agree that this report is bogus, especially considering how pathetic NAvidias new video card is.
To play the devils advocate here:
1. Lots of Errata for Ivy Bridge
2. There is very little in the way of CPU performance increases to be had.
3. Production is already ramped up.
It doesn't matter, I still think HiDPI is on the way.
In any event I still think this report is bogus.
----------
Given today's technology it does sound reasonable though.
It is excellent and generally out performs NVidias latest at a lower power draw. Phoronix just reviewed the desktop chips and the AMD solution is extremely good there with excellent OpenCL performance.
I really don't think you grasp what Retina is not the advantages of HiDPI screens. Such a screen would be very impressive.
You may prefer NVidia, but your reasons don't support that position.
I really hope not! AMDs chips use significantly less power while often out performing NVidias latest chips. AMDs OpenCL performance is outstanding too.
Beyond all of that supporting AMD means that Intel has viable competition. Frankly that is a good enough reason to desire an AMD GPU over an NVidia chip.
Apple uses their own system here with no problems that I know of.
This is highly debatable. AMD does very well in many graphics test up aainst NVidia. In any event Mac OS drivers come from Apple, as such they are not the tweaks drivers of the Windows world.
I really hope not! AMDs chips use significantly less power while often out performing NVidias latest chips. AMDs OpenCL performance is outstanding too.
Beyond all of that supporting AMD means that Intel has viable competition. Frankly that is a good enough reason to desire an AMD GPU over an NVidia chip.
Idk, Apple always goes low with RAM, and 16GB is just a ridiculous amount of RAM these days.