Another myth about MBP - the CPU

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by aevan, Nov 12, 2016.

  1. aevan macrumors 68020

    aevan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Location:
    Serbia
    #1
    Everywhere I go, I read how MacBook Pro is underpowered - and people mostly mention "the last-gen CPU" as the main reason.

    Of course, this is not true - so if anyone is interested - here's the real situation. Please note I'm talking about the 15" version, I did not do the research for the 13".

    First of all, yes, Kaby Lake exists, but there are no quad-core or i7 Kaby Lake processors available at the moment. Fine, we all know that.

    But there is another controversy - the one about which Skylake is used. Because, as you might have heard, there si a newer quad-core i7 Skylake available, than the one used in the new MBP. So everyone is assuming it's better, right?

    Well, no. The new Skylake i7 is the i7-6970HQ which comes with the Iris Pro 580 internal GPU. The i7 used in MBP is the "older" i7-6920HQ which comes with a weaker HD 530. So, why did Apple use the "older" one? Because it was faster.

    1. All MBP 15" come with Radeons that are faster than Iris 580 Pro. The HD 530 is more power efficient, so when you don't need the GPU power, it is a better choice. When you do - you get the Radeons.
    2. The "CPU part" is actually faster on the "older" i7. The 6970HQ goes only to 2.8Ghz/3.7Ghz Turbo.
    http://ark.intel.com/products/93336/Intel-Core-i7-6970HQ-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz

    The 6920HQ goes to 2.9/3.8Ghz and that's the highest one you can get on a MBP
    http://ark.intel.com/products/88972/Intel-Core-i7-6920HQ-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz

    The 6920HQ is the faster processor.
    http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/14...6920HQ_vs_Intel_Core_i7_Mobile_i7-6970HQ.html
     
  2. mrex macrumors 68030

    mrex

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    Location:
    europe
    #2
    what myths?

    sounds like you are making them by yourself. the first one was the ram, now cpu.. what next? dgpu? the explanation for dgpu would be nice to hear...

    the benefits from kaby is not the power but other things.
     
  3. aevan thread starter macrumors 68020

    aevan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Location:
    Serbia
    #3
    Seriously?

    Did you even read what I wrote? There is no quad-core Kaby Lake. It doesn't exist. Not yet. There is only Skylake, and Apple is using the best one.
     
  4. xWhiplash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    #4
    I am so sick of hearing "Kaby Lake Kaby Lake Kaby Lake" from people. Please do your research before saying that Kaby Lake is Soooooooooooo much better than all of the Skylakes.
     
  5. duervo macrumors 68000

    duervo

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    #5
    Never underestimate the power of additional eDRAM cache that the 6970HQ has over the 6920HQ.

    Also, as a side note, there is an optional setting for both of those processors. Their default TDP is 45W, but Intel gives OEMs the ability to drop that down to 35W to save power, at the expense of performance. Which way do you want to guess that Apple went? That's what really makes me curious, so I'll be looking for that specifically once reviews start showing up online for these new Touch Bar units.
     
  6. aevan thread starter macrumors 68020

    aevan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Location:
    Serbia
    #6
    Agreed. It will be better, when their high-power variants are out, later next year. Even then, it won't be better by a huge amount, just a bit more power efficient.

    Honestly, and this is not an insult but a fact, most people here don't know what they are talking about.
     
  7. protoxx macrumors 6502a

    protoxx

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #7
    7th gen 2 core processors out there. Definitely i7 available.
    4 core not yet. Apple won't be the first to sell a 4 core 7th gen system. Other mfgrs don't have the same we'll come up with a new system every 4-8 years and maybe refresh once a year.

    There are notebooks shipping with 7th generation aka Kaby Lakes processors
    Example
    http://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/Laptops/hp-spectre-13-v151nr-w2k31ua-aba
    Review

    Dell XPS 13" is available also with 7th gen processors.
     
  8. mrex macrumors 68030

    mrex

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    Location:
    europe
    #8
    honestly... i didnt. :/

    im sick of tired of reading these why apple did this and that... i sold my apple shares right after i saw what they gave us with their new "pros" - no pro for pros. and im happy i sold, i got 7-8dollars more for each share what the value is now.

    but yeah, you are right.. with qc cpus. but then im disagree with the gpu/dgpu they offered. it is not all about the cpu...
     
  9. aevan thread starter macrumors 68020

    aevan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Location:
    Serbia
    #9
    I am underestimating, I don't think the eDRAM will make any difference in overall performance and I think the 6920HQ will come on top in the benchmarks.

    As for the second question: the 45W.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookec...formance-nvidia-no-show-telling/#310879f86fa6
     
  10. Cougarcat macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    #10
    For the 13", there aren't 28W Kaby Lake chips yet either. But Apple could have put a KL in the 15W base 13" MBP.
     
  11. duervo macrumors 68000

    duervo

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    #11
    I'm afraid that doesn't answer anything about the possibility of Apple dropping the TDP of the 6920HQ down to 35W. It only repeats the rest of the blogs stating the use of a CPU with a default 45W TDP.

    It's up to Apple to drop the TDP of them. Intel doesn't do it for them. Until people start getting their hands on these things, and putting them through their paces, it's way too early to start speculating on this stuff.
     
  12. aevan, Nov 12, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2016

    aevan thread starter macrumors 68020

    aevan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Location:
    Serbia
    #12
    First of all, I was clearly talking about quad-core CPUs.

    Second, the laptop you mention uses a 15W Kaby Lake while MacBook Pro (the Touchbar models) use the more powerful 25W Skylakes. Also, their GPU is faster, the Kaby Lake comes with HD 620 while the Skylake used in MBP comes with faster Iris 540 and 550 GPUs.

    So, these Kaby Lake available today are not in the same class as the ones on MacBook Pros with Touch Bars. (They could've used the Kaby Lake for MBP without Touch Bar - that is true).

    As I said - people are not familiar with facts. No shame in that, but everyone should know they are getting top-of-the-line CPUs in MacBook Pros (other than the non-Touch Bar model)
    --- Post Merged, Nov 12, 2016 ---
    Sure, but we don't know that, do we? The fact is - what we *do* know is that they chose the best CPU available. They can choose to lower it's power, to underclock it, ship broken computers, whatever - we really don't know. We'll have to wait for the reviews (and I'm pretty confidend they'll show that MBPs are among the fastest laptops on the planet - but let's wait). Still, it doesn't change the fact that they could've put better CPUs inside, does it?

    People seem bent on proving these laptops are somehow underpowered, don't they?
    --- Post Merged, Nov 12, 2016 ---
    My point:

    Currently the best CPUs for all models except the one without the Touch Bar.

    You can Google it, fact check it, but it's how things are. If you think that's not the case, do some research. I hate to sound so arrogant, but it's really getting tiring that people are trying to fit facts to their emotions.
     
  13. ixxx69 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Location:
    United States
    #13
    And I'm sick and tired of people posting who aren't interested in facts or reality.
     
  14. mrex macrumors 68030

    mrex

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    Location:
    europe
    #14
    while i agree that macbook pro are decent machines, and people should think about more about specs than just "the latest - the greatest" or so, i have still lots to handle with the name "macbook pro". i would rather call them "macbook +" than pros (13" models).
     
  15. duervo macrumors 68000

    duervo

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    #15
    Maybe, I dunno. I stopped caring about stuff like that ages ago. I've learned that you really cannot change the way a person thinks.

    People do what they want based on a certain set of values that they were taught or learned throughout their life. When they get an idea in their mind about something, for whatever reason, they will often come up with reasons to support that idea. The more "crazy" the idea seems, then the more "crazy" those reasons appear.

    No amount of reasoning is going to change the minds of anybody. Meanwhile, after all the arguing is done, what's been accomplished? More often than not, I've found that a bunch of time has been lost that in hindsight could have been put to better use.
     
  16. mrex macrumors 68030

    mrex

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    Location:
    europe
  17. aevan thread starter macrumors 68020

    aevan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Location:
    Serbia
    #17
    Not the topic of this thread. I disagree completely, but there are numerous discussions about that around the forum. This is about the misconception that Apple is using underpowered CPUs in their MacBook Pros. They are not - which is what I was trying to prove.
     
  18. mrex macrumors 68030

    mrex

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    Location:
    europe
    #18
    i would like to rather think that there are some of us thinking that there are just too many compromises to call them "macbook pros", for example what comes to gpu/dgpu.
     
  19. Ma2k5 macrumors 6502a

    Ma2k5

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    #19
    I usually agree with your posts but you are wrong about this one I'm afraid. Having an Iris Pro 580 over a 530 is so much better I don't know where to begin. There will be many times the dGPu won't be used but a performance difference will be noticeable with the Iris Pro 580. I am willing to bet a lot of UI lag present in the new 15", particularly when running more than one monitor.

    Also to compare the upgraded CPU which has only 0.1ghz difference to proclaim it as the faster processor is a bit meh. I think you are trying too hard to look for the positives of Apple.

    I'm guessing they used the current chip because they couldn't get enough yield on the Iris Graphics. They probably would have also offered an iGPU version if they were not forced into this crappy 530.

    I think 99.9% would take the Iris Pro 580 version over the current.
     
  20. aevan thread starter macrumors 68020

    aevan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Location:
    Serbia
    #20
    Do you seriously want me to repeat that "not the topic of this thread" or are you willing to stick to the subject?
     
  21. protoxx macrumors 6502a

    protoxx

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #21
    For the 4 core systems out there the elephant in the room is actually the dgpu. The latest 10xx nvidia is a giant upgrade from the 9 series. Saw a reviewer saying hold off until your favorite system until the new nvidia cards are in them. If they start shipping to mfgrs in numbers it will be interesting to see who gets out a kaby lakd + 10xx nvidia system out there.

    From the 2 core systems that have been reviewed and had benchmarks run, looks like a modest speed bump (no surprise) but a nice power usage improvement. But thats not a guarantee for the 4 core systems. But hopeful.
     
  22. koyoot macrumors 601

    koyoot

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #22
    There is more than 0.1 GHz difference in Skylake and Haswell. Register File size is bigger, Floating Point and Integer factor are bigger in Skylake, there is more uOps that can be done and scheduled by the CPU in Skylake than it is in Haswell. Thats why Skylake will be faster both in Single Threaded and Multithreaded applications. However, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between Kaby Lake CPUs and Skylake CPUs, apart from slightly more mature process.

    As I have said in one of other posts. Kaby Lake CPU compared with Skylake offers 7% higher performance - all due to higher core clock, 3% higher power consumption and no difference in terms of iGPU performance.

    On the other hand. If the CPU has access to eDRAM - there will be difference in performance. Will it be big? No. Kaby Lake, because it is exactly the same uArchitecture as Skylake, but on slightly more mature process, will bring exactly the same levels of performance, and all performance gain will be thanks to higher core clocks on the CPU.

    Did that reviewer also have said anything about Thermal Threshold in Macbook Pro, or any system? Has he said anything about 35W Nvidia GPU offerings?

    No. Because there is nothing in the world. GTX 1050 Ti, downclocked from 75W to 35W will have the same level of performance as Radeon Pro 460.
     
  23. hj576 macrumors regular

    hj576

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #23
    The 15W Kaby Lakes available in the market come with Intel HD graphics, the 15W Skylake processor used in the baseline MBPr 13 w/o touch has Intel Iris Graphics.
    the 15W Kaby Lake i5 gives around 10% better CPU performance.
    on the iGPU, the 15W Skylake i5 used in MBPr baseline, gives 50% better performance than even the Kabylake i7 available in the market.

    So Apple may have selected it for the far superior iGPU that it ships with. Personally I would take 50% better Graphics over 10% Better Processing power.

    Of course people might want more processing power, but I think apple made the right trade off here
     
  24. aevan thread starter macrumors 68020

    aevan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Location:
    Serbia
    #24

    Hm. Finally some real discussion :)

    Of course, you could be right. In a more moderate environment, my post wouldn't be so dramatic :) But, respectfully, I think you're wrong :) Let me explain.

    I think the 530 was the better choice. I don't know about your experiences, but on my MacBook Pro 2013, the dGPU is used practically all the time. Even when I start something lightweight like the Photos app - it turns on the dGPU (when connected to power). Really - almost anything I do other than browsing activates the dGPU.

    And the Radeons are faster than the Iris Pro 580.

    You're right, the 0.1% is not the point (although I did enjoy mentioning that it is faster :) - the reason is, in my opinion, the lower power draw when not using the dGPU. Sure, maybe yields too. But we don't really know.

    But whatever their reason was, I think it was the better choice for users too.

    I am not sure how much power the Iris Pro spends, but the CPU is 45W while, for the first time, the dGPUs are lower than the CPU - 35W. It would be funny if the dGPUs actually used less power than the integrated one :) It is quite possible that putting the Iris Pro 580 inside would actually be pointless, because you'd just turn on the Radeons permanently and have both better performance and battery life.

    I think they were forced to use Iris Pros in previous MacBooks because they offered versions without dGPUs. But now that every MBP 15" has a dGPU, and that those dGPUs are highly efficient (really, Polaris kicks ass in this regard) - why not offer a solution that offers a lower power requirement for trivial tasks?

    Where do you think you'll actually need the Iris Pro 580? For anything that requires even a little more performance, the Radeons will kick in. You'll only be using the integrated GPU to browse websites (in fact, some of the websites with 3D content activate the dGPU too!) and email and Finder. And for that, you won't really see a difference between the 530 and Iris Pro.

    Do you disagree? (honest question)
     
  25. Ma2k5 macrumors 6502a

    Ma2k5

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    #25
    I think you misquoted me? I am talking about the choice of skylake processor they used, not that they shouldn't go to skylake. I would have liked them to use the Iris Pro 580 cpu.
     

Share This Page