AMD (ati) GPUs in next MBP (from cnet)

[Monkey194545]

"MacBook models with screen sizes of 13 inches and below are expected to switch to Sandy Bridge-only graphics, while higher-end MacBook Pros are expected to use graphics from Advanced Micro Devices, according to sources. Whether Nvidia will still be present in higher-end models is unclear."



Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20023505-64.html#ixzz17cg69Nhk

Bad for 13 inch MBP's but good for the big guys! I am happy that they will be going to AMD but as a current Imac owner and someone who will be buying a small notebook (13 mbp or mba) in the next refresh am disapppointed if they use intel integrated graphics in the smaller models. It kind of goes against what Steve said why he still used the C2D in the 13 inch.

Thoughts?

 

[mark28]

"MacBook models with screen sizes of 13 inches and below are expected to switch to Sandy Bridge-only graphics, while higher-end MacBook Pros are expected to use graphics from Advanced Micro Devices, according to sources. Whether Nvidia will still be present in higher-end models is unclear."



Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20023505-64.html#ixzz17cg69Nhk

Bad for 13 inch MBP's but good for the big guys! I am happy that they will be going to AMD but as a current Imac owner and someone who will be buying a small notebook (13 mbp or mba) in the next refresh am disapppointed if they use intel integrated graphics in the smaller models. It kind of goes against what Steve said why he still used the C2D in the 13 inch.

Thoughts?

MBP aren't for gaming, so I suppose the Intel GPU works for most people.

I think it's good. Nvidia are back to rebranding again. The 500 series are simply 4xx cards.

 

[Monkey194545]

MBP aren't for gaming, so I suppose the Intel GPU works for most people.

I think it's good. Nvidia are back to rebranding again. The 500 series are simply 4xx cards.

It's not just about gaming (though a $1200 and up computer should be a modest gamer), Intel GPUs can barely play youtube videos correctly. Why take one step forward with the processor and two steps back with the GPU?

On a side note, why can't MBP's be for gaming. They have alright specs for gaming. Can't a person want a high quality machine that is reliable and can do all types of tasks (gaming, video, photos, midi) that isn't a 3 inch thick hunk of windows plastic? It just seems like such a cop-out excuse to always say Macs aren't for gaming.

 

[mark28]

It's not just about gaming (though a $1200 and up computer should be a modest gamer), Intel GPUs can barely play youtube videos correctly. Why take one step forward with the processor and two steps back with the GPU?

On a side note, why can't MBP's be for gaming. They have alright specs for gaming. Can't a person want a high quality machine that is reliable and can do all types of tasks (gaming, video, photos, midi) that isn't a 3 inch thick hunk of windows plastic? It just seems like such a cop-out excuse to always say Macs aren't for gaming.

The Intel GPU plays youtube video's without a problem, those with the i5 CPU's.

I just did a little test for you. I launched Counterstrike Source forcing the Intel GPU. With all settings on high, I get about 30 fps on average at a resolution of 1680 x 1050. From what I saw in benchmark, the core i5/i7 is around the same speed of the 9400m

So you can game with the Intel GPU. And the Intel GPU in the Sandy Bridge is alot faster than of the core i5/i7. .

There are simply hardly any games for Mac at the moment. And GPU wise Mac has always fallen behind the Windows laptops. GPU is not Apple's priority which is the most important part of a gaming machine.

 

[dusk007]

I hope they will finally get decent Intel GPU drivers.
The speed is more than enough for anything but gaming.
It is also much more fixed function and 32nm thus should be much better performance per watt wise than Nvidia.

The current Intel Core iX GPU can decode two 1080p h264 streams in parallel. If some movie doesn't play smooth its the drivers fault the GPU is more than capable.
As for gaming the Sandy Bridge GPU is much faster than the current Arrendale GPU and on par or faster than the 9400M which was more than sufficient in the last generation. Nobody ever complained.
Jes it will be a step back from the 320M but the performance difference only affects gamers or some heavy GPGPU apps which are pretty much still non existent. The minor acceleration that they implement in Browser and Adobe CS can be done by an IGP too.
Yes iphoto sucks on the current IGP but that is not because of the CPU but only because of crappy drivers and implemenation.

Really the only thing you can complain about unless you wanted to game on the 13" is drivers and I sure hope that will change for the better know. It is about time.

 

[icebiker]

hope that's not true...

I'm happy that Steve basically showed the world that the "new and fastest intel processor" wasn't needed to open web pages at lighting speed but that everyone just needed SSD...

BUT i'if he's gonna put that crappy integrated Intel IGP in the 13" pro models he can go and trash all those things he said regarding "We rather have a fast GPU than the last CPU" (which totally made sense if you don't make people pay a premium for an old cpu)

Do you agree?

EDIT: hope the ODD gets finally trashed as well...useless...rather go with USB...
that would mean more space inside ---> and consequently a discrete AMD GPU...i really hope this...

 

[Monkey194545]

I'm happy that Steve basically showed the world that the "new and fastest intel processor" wasn't needed to open web pages at lighting speed but that everyone just needed SSD...

BUT i'if he's gonna put that crappy integrated Intel IGP in the 13" pro models he can go and trash all those things he said regarding "We rather have a fast GPU than the last CPU" (which totally made sense if you don't make people pay a premium for an old cpu)

Do you agree?

EDIT: hope the ODD gets finally trashed as well...useless...rather go with USB...
that would mean more space inside ---> and consequently a discrete AMD GPU...i really hope this...

I agree 100%, though I would rather have both. The ODD (for me and I assume most) is pointless. I have stuck a cd-rom in my macbook and my imac probably less the a dozen times in the past year. I would much rather have dedicated graphics (ati or nvidia, doesnt make that much a difference) over an ODD.

Intel does however clain their graphics are twice as fast (as the 9800 I think). But that is an ancient card in tech standards. I hope they dont botch this up. I couldn't see Steve making a 180 degree turn on his previous stance.

 

[Stvwndr219]

Sandy Bridge graphics are not like this current generation so there's no use whining about that...

I'm excited about this new direction - maybe we'll finally have some beefy and cool graphics in here.

 

[Stvwndr219]

Even Anand from AnandTech is saying that it will be two times faster than the current generation of intel graphics.

"I'd say...we can expect (about) 2x the performance of [that latest] graphics," said Anand Shimpi, CEO of tech Web site Anandtech, which has done a preview of Sandy Bridge's graphics performance. "At that level of performance, I don't see a need for discrete [standalone Nvidia or Advanced Micro Devices] graphics at the very low end," he said.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20023505-64.html#ixzz17dqC0cG0

 

[alt]

The Intel GPU plays youtube video's without a problem, those with the i5 CPU's.

I just did a little test for you. I launched Counterstrike Source forcing the Intel GPU. With all settings on high, I get about 30 fps on average at a resolution of 1680 x 1050. From what I saw in benchmark, the core i5/i7 is around the same speed of the 9400m

So you can game with the Intel GPU. And the Intel GPU in the Sandy Bridge is alot faster than of the core i5/i7. .

There are simply hardly any games for Mac at the moment. And GPU wise Mac has always fallen behind the Windows laptops. GPU is not Apple's priority which is the most important part of a gaming machine.

CS: Source is OLD heh. 30fps.....should be getting 60. Gaming should definitely be a factor now. Especially with blizzard being in the picture. World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2!..and more to come (d3?)

I don't want to spend 2 grand on a laptop that can't do EVERYTHING. Just doesn't make sense. It makes sense to make a well rounded laptop at that price heh. There are no excuses.

If the new MBP's are more beefed up..ill be buying one to replace my desktop.

 

[Monkey194545]

Even Anand from AnandTech is saying that it will be two times faster than the current generation of intel graphics.

"I'd say...we can expect (about) 2x the performance of [that latest] graphics," said Anand Shimpi, CEO of tech Web site Anandtech, which has done a preview of Sandy Bridge's graphics performance. "At that level of performance, I don't see a need for discrete [standalone Nvidia or Advanced Micro Devices] graphics at the very low end," he said.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20023505-64.html#ixzz17dqC0cG0

Key phrases from that are "2x faster than current intel graphics" and "at the very low end."

Current graphics are lousy. And "very low end," is that what 13inch mbp's are? I would think that a $1200 notebook is note considered a "very low end" computer.

 

[skottichan]

CS: Source is OLD heh. 30fps.....should be getting 60. Gaming should definitely be a factor now. Especially with blizzard being in the picture. World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2!..and more to come (d3?)

I don't want to spend 2 grand on a laptop that can't do EVERYTHING. Just doesn't make sense. It makes sense to make a well rounded laptop at that price heh. There are no excuses.

If the new MBP's are more beefed up..ill be buying one to replace my desktop.

Key phrases from that are "2x faster than current intel graphics" and "at the very low end."

Current graphics are lousy. And "very low end," is that what 13inch mbp's are? I would think that a $1200 notebook is note considered a "very low end" computer.

If you're spending $2000 on a laptop, then you're in the mid-range 15", which always had a dedicated GPU. I'm not sure why everyone uses that as the example of a "not well-rounded laptop".


Also, there are three 13" notebooks produced by Apple. Just because CNet is saying 13" and under, that it means it includes all three. With SB as it is (with GPU and Memory Controller/Northbridge on CPU), that may free up enough space to cram a dedicated GPU into the 13" MBP.

 

[mark28]

CS: Source is OLD heh. 30fps.....should be getting 60. Gaming should definitely be a factor now. Especially with blizzard being in the picture. World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2!..and more to come (d3?)

I don't want to spend 2 grand on a laptop that can't do EVERYTHING. Just doesn't make sense. It makes sense to make a well rounded laptop at that price heh. There are no excuses.

If the new MBP's are more beefed up..ill be buying one to replace my desktop.

Since the Sandy Bridge GPU will be 2 times faster, it will be around 60 fps then Btw, I did this test in OS X. In Windows you'll get higher FPS. But I don't know how to force it to the Intel GPU in Windows.

Buy the 15" MBP then if you look for a more beefed up laptop. I don't see what the problem is?

The 13" MBP starts at 1 grand for those who needs a small laptop and don't care about the GPU. Those who need the extra GPU power, can settle for the 15" MBP

 

[Timur]

500 EUR 17" Acer laptop has i3 with ATI 5470
700 EUR 17" Acer laptop has i5 with ATI 5650

2500 EUR 17" Macbook Pro flickers when used with a 100 EUR Displayport-Dual-Link DVI adapter (needed for 30" displays).

 

[wankey]

500 EUR 17" Acer laptop has i3 with ATI 5470
700 EUR 17" Acer laptop has i5 with ATI 5650

2500 EUR 17" Macbook Pro flickers when used with a 100 EUR Displayport-Dual-Link DVI adapter (needed for 30" displays).

Apple will never reduce the price, but at least they can stuff more but they won't.

It's kinda annoying that my retard brother bought a $700 dollar computer that's vastly superior to my $2200 MBP in every way other than design and trackpad and OS.

The aluminum finish and the overall better design doesn't cover the $1500 (!!!!!!) CDN premium I pay over his computer. That's just ridiculous how Apple gets away with this kind of crap.

Macbook pros should all come with 8gb of ram while macbook should have 4gb of ram. All desktop macs should start off at 4gb and easily upgradable.

The really *really* annoying and really pathetic thing that Apple does is include a ridiculously low amount of video memory. 256mb? My bro's laptop has 1gb of video memory, tell me how that works??

But then again, the same stupid people will keep buying Apple computers and get screwed. It's really frustrating why Apple does this. I love Macs but the hit on my credit card when I upgrade every 3-4 years is just ridiculous.

 

[mark28]

Apple will never reduce the price, but at least they can stuff more but they won't.

It's kinda annoying that my retard brother bought a $700 dollar computer that's vastly superior to my $2200 MBP in every way other than design and trackpad and OS.

The aluminum finish and the overall better design doesn't cover the $1500 (!!!!!!) CDN premium I pay over his computer. That's just ridiculous how Apple gets away with this kind of crap.

Macbook pros should all come with 8gb of ram while macbook should have 4gb of ram. All desktop macs should start off at 4gb and easily upgradable.

The really *really* annoying and really pathetic thing that Apple does is include a ridiculously low amount of video memory. 256mb? My bro's laptop has 1gb of video memory, tell me how that works??

But then again, the same stupid people will keep buying Apple computers and get screwed. It's really frustrating why Apple does this. I love Macs but the hit on my credit card when I upgrade every 3-4 years is just ridiculous.

I agree.

17" Dell for example, has a laptop with:

Core i7 740QM 1.73 ghz ( Quad core )
6 gb DDR3
GT 445m
2x USB 3.0
2x USB 2.0
eSata
640 gb HDD
2 year warranty.

Price is only 1300 euro.

I don't know why Apple charges 1200 euro more, and this Dell Laptop has superior hardware. I don't think battery, design and OS are worth 1200 euro to be honest. But whatever, Apple won't bring the prices down

 

[stockscalper]

I don't know why Apple charges 1200 euro more, and this Dell Laptop has superior hardware. I don't think battery, design and OS are worth 1200 euro to be honest.

Yes, and that Dell is a heavy brick with a lousy screen, a lousy keyboard and an unusable trackpad. Plus it will last about two years before burning out. You get what you pay for. Every Mac laptop I've bought since the mid 90's is still running. My friends are constantly having to replace their Dells after about 18 months. I'll gladly pay extra for a machine that works, is easy to use and lasts.

 

[mark28]

Yes, and that Dell is a heavy brick with a lousy screen, a lousy keyboard and an unusable trackpad. Plus it will last about two years before burning out. You get what you pay for. Every Mac laptop I've bought since the mid 90's is still running. My friends are constantly having to replace their Dells after about 18 months. I'll gladly pay extra for a machine that works, is easy to use and lasts.

1200 euro is alot of money though, i'm just saying I think Apple has pretty good margin on it

 

[Monkey194545]

Yes, and that Dell is a heavy brick with a lousy screen, a lousy keyboard and an unusable trackpad. Plus it will last about two years before burning out. You get what you pay for. Every Mac laptop I've bought since the mid 90's is still running. My friends are constantly having to replace their Dells after about 18 months. I'll gladly pay extra for a machine that works, is easy to use and lasts.

I'll second that, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't get discrete graphics in a $1200 usd notebook (and at least a hybrid hdd ).

 

[aimbdd]

Apple will never reduce the price, but at least they can stuff more but they won't.

It's kinda annoying that my retard brother bought a $700 dollar computer that's vastly superior to my $2200 MBP in every way other than design and trackpad and OS.

The aluminum finish and the overall better design doesn't cover the $1500 (!!!!!!) CDN premium I pay over his computer. That's just ridiculous how Apple gets away with this kind of crap.

Macbook pros should all come with 8gb of ram while macbook should have 4gb of ram. All desktop macs should start off at 4gb and easily upgradable.

The really *really* annoying and really pathetic thing that Apple does is include a ridiculously low amount of video memory. 256mb? My bro's laptop has 1gb of video memory, tell me how that works??

But then again, the same stupid people will keep buying Apple computers and get screwed. It's really frustrating why Apple does this. I love Macs but the hit on my credit card when I upgrade every 3-4 years is just ridiculous.

I don' even know where to start with this post.

1. Video Ram: Only any noticeable difference on high settings even at that... its only 3 or 4 fps difference... so thats a FAIL.

2.If were so stupid why do you buy one? Everyone to their own. Go by a windows machine then...

3.Ram is cheap, 4 gb is plenty for even photoshop. No reason to start with 8gb. Does just fine as it is. Sure it would be nice to have 8, but not necessary... for those that need it, you can go buy it for less then 100 after selling the old ram

4.Okay so the price difference:

• Remember your also paying for the OS, their new versions are a LOT cheaper then Windows.
• Design: You do have to pay for it
• Size: Try and find a laptop that is as thin as the macBook pro with the same specs, they start out similar prices... :O immagine that...
• Battery: I don't think a 10 hour battery is anything to laugh at.
• Dual Graphics cards: also a premium item on any laptop.
• Higher gamut screen
• Trackpad- I havnt used any track pad as amazing as apples. (yes i have used plenty of windows laptops)
• What about customer service? Being ranked the top must have some kind of value, and I am sure it cost them money.
• WEIGHT: I was looking at a 15" from acer, it weighted 7 lbs... who would want to carry that all day... It is a laptop after all.
• Software: It Has OSX and not windows. Personally that is a huge plus (this one is opinion though)

 

[SPEEDwithJJ]

Current graphics are lousy. And "very low end," is that what 13inch mbp's are? I would think that a $1200 notebook is note considered a "very low end" computer.

Yes, in the notebook world, I agree that a $1,200 notebook is generally not considered "low end" but when you compare it strictly across the Apple line-up, IMHO, whether you like it or not, one has got to admit that a $1,200 Apple notebook can be considered "low end".

It has always been a case of if you want more features, you've unfortunately got to pay more for what you want. I'm not defending Apple in this case, but this does not only apply to Apple, it also applies to other manufacturers too.

Anyway, I think overall the latest rumors are definitely good for everyone. At least, we're very likely going to see the Sandy Bridge Intel Core i processors in the MBP 13", which definitely can do with a newer & faster CPU. Unfortunately, Nvidia & Intel most likely wouldn't be able to come to a settlement soon enough with their court case but I think we may still have a chance to see a Nvidia IGP/chipset in the future refreshes after this next big one. This is if Apple will still consider using Nvidia IGP in the future if they're available, of course.

 

[alt]

Since the Sandy Bridge GPU will be 2 times faster, it will be around 60 fps then Btw, I did this test in OS X. In Windows you'll get higher FPS. But I don't know how to force it to the Intel GPU in Windows.

Buy the 15" MBP then if you look for a more beefed up laptop. I don't see what the problem is?

The 13" MBP starts at 1 grand for those who needs a small laptop and don't care about the GPU. Those who need the extra GPU power, can settle for the 15" MBP

For some reason I thought you were testing on a 15''.....my bad.

 

[spacetoaster]

if apple will keep the white macbook, then i would understand if they go with the intel card. But a laptop called "pro" should at least have a mid-range dedicated graphiccard. Plus gaming is coming to mac these days it would be such a step backwards to put an igp in the next gen of 13 inch mbps. i'd rather save 200 bucks and get the old version then.

 

[Timur]

Every Mac laptop I've bought since the mid 90's is still running.

There is a distinction between running and running good. 2008/09 Macbook Pros come with epidemic failure on both ExpressCard (data-corruption, freezes, whatnot) and Displayport (loss of color and flickerin with 30" adapter). It all depends on how you use your computer (most people don't use these two).

3.Ram is cheap

Obviously Apple prefers to have a higher margin instead of putting cheap RAM into their premium products. Not to mention that they ask for an additional 360 Euro for the 8 gb configuration.

Remember your also paying for the OS, their new versions are a LOT cheaper then Windows.

Windows 7 Home Premium starts at 75 Euro, Professional at 110 Euro. And you don't get a new major version every year like with OS X.

Design: You do have to pay for it
Size: Try and find a laptop that is as thin as the macBook pro with the same specs, they start out similar prices... :O immagine that...

This is a valid point. In fact you are mainly paying for design when you buy Apple, and design does have its worth.

Battery: I don't think a 10 hour battery is anything to laugh at.

When did you ever (successfully) use your battery for 10 hours?

Dual Graphics cards: also a premium item on any laptop.

With unique issues and culprits. In practice you have to deal with these issues just so that Apple can advertise its 10 hours battery.

Higher gamut screen

If it's higher than sRGB then it is a drawback for anything other than professional print work. The world works in sRGB (Internet, HDTV, PAL, consumer printers, photo printing shops, consumer cameras), not Adobe RGB or NTSC. If it's still smaller than sRGB then it's just a minor advantage.

Just to mention it, my friend had a Powerbook with a screen that had a *lot* bigger viewing angles. I'd say it was either an IPS or (S)PVA panel. Current Macbooks are TN just like any other *****. But for the same price you get a *real* high-gamut IPS panel in an HP Elitebook.

Trackpad- I havnt used any track pad as amazing as apples. (yes i have used plenty of windows laptops)

No arguing here, trackpads stink, Apple's is quite usable (still prefer the mouse).

What about customer service? Being ranked the top must have some kind of value, and I am sure it cost them money.

What about it? Any 500 Euro business PC comes with 2 years/48 h on-site repair and replacement. For 50-100 Euro you can extend that to 3 years/24 h. Applecare costs a fortunate and you are still frakked if no Apple Store/Genius Bar is around.

Personally I'm waiting for 2 years for a solution to the broken ExpressCard slot. Only when after 22 months an Apple Store opened in my area I could finally get an Apple tech to verify/acknowledge the issues. I'm waiting for 5 weeks for a 2010 MBP replacement now that only takes 3 days to order via the online store (first got stolen on its 3-week way from China, 1 week for clarification, another 2-3 weeks for a new one to arrive from China).

WEIGHT: I was looking at a 15" from acer, it weighted 7 lbs... who would want to carry that all day... It is a laptop after all.

There are lightweight alternatives, although they are usually not among the cheap laptops.

Software: It Has OSX and not windows. Personally that is a huge plus (this one is opinion though)

Both have their advantages and drawbacks. Music production software usually offers more performance on the same hardware when run on Windows compared to OS X. I just found out that OS X Preview has the best search function of *any* PDF Viewer I have tested. But most applications have the very same workflow on Windows and OS X, and in the end you are mostly using applications, not the OS.

 

[mulo]

MBP aren't for gaming, so I suppose the Intel GPU works for most people.

lol?