Forget broadwell, I'm more interested in Next Gen DGPU Abilities

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by FrozenDarkness, Nov 13, 2013.

  1. FrozenDarkness macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    #1
    I feel like I'm slightly disappointed/irked that both desktop and mobile graphic cards are in the stagnant phase until next year. Does anybody know what kind of improvements we should be looking at for maybe next year's macbook pro in terms of dGPU improvements? I think if Intel is able to make another giant leap forward in their iGPU, this year might be the last. I'm secretly hoping that either AMD and/or Nvidia steps up and delivers a knock out product.
     
  2. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #2
    The next-gen AMD Volcanic Islands have already been released. There are no mobile cards yet, AFAIK.


    The next-gen Nvidia architecture, Maxwell is supposed to come in 2014.
     
  3. FrozenDarkness thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    #3
    the sad thing is that volcanic islands is still on the 28nm process. I think Maxwell will be the next leap forwards both in terms of performance and power efficiency.
     
  4. radiohead14 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    nyc
    #4
  5. PDFierro macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #5
    I wonder if next year will be when Apple finally drops the dGPU. Or will they keep playing the next-gen dGPU game?
     
  6. zI INFINITY Iz macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    #6
    Apple would only drop the dGPU if it sits in the way of their "battery life improving" addiction. Since the next NVIDIA dGPU's will use 3x less power for the same performance, I think it's pretty safe to assume Apple is not dropping the dGPU for at least the next gen (15") MBP's.
     
  7. FrozenDarkness thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    #7
    what i'm reading from this is 3x more performance :)
     
  8. Zodiac.mj macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    #8
    There won't be any dgpu in the future, in the rBMP chassis. You will use TB to connect it as external drive today.

    So in short, you will be able to run demanding tasks while siting at your desk and for remote work (in the field, etc) you will stick to igpu. And for long, very long time due to improved battery life :)
     
  9. john123 macrumors 68000

    john123

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    #9
    I'd give it at least 60% odds of the complete drop in the next revision.

    You're missing the backstory here. First, Intel's foray into the iGPU market and its improvements of late have been partly at the behest of Apple. They've been wanting to get away from dGPUs for a while. This is a symbiotic business decision, and it's pretty clear there's some preferred pricing going on too.

    Second, you have things slightly backward on Maxwell too; the whole point was to deliver 3x on performance per watt, which while it might seem like semantics is not the same as "3x less power for the same performance."

    I'd love to see Maxwell in the next generation. I fired up a game on my 650M today and was reminded why I stopped playing on this thing as the FPS stuttered and the fans ramped up. But wishful thinking aside, I don't think it's in the cards. Often times, when it comes to Apple, "better" is not the guiding mantra for decision making.
     
  10. VanillaCracker macrumors 68030

    VanillaCracker

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    #10
    Why is it that you give it 60% odds? I think you are generalizing the use of a long term focus rather than a short term focus that has a preference of x over y. I'm not insulting your opinion on business, but wouldn't the odds be much less, maybe 30-40% assuming that the big decision was made already (with this year's model) by having the 750M stay despite the small gap and insignificant value it holds this year?

    As I mentioned a bit above, I would assume that if they are willing to keep the 750M as an option/higher model component for this years model, then I think it'd be very unlikely they'd get rid of maxwell for next years model. There are indeed efficiency measures that are at least minor goals in maxwell, and even with that point aside the performance would be beneficial to the rMBP for next year, while maintaining similar wattage uses. I see very little reason they'd neglect the 800 series (in the higher end model), and do not think they would do so due to the decision to stray from dGPU's in the long run. They made that "short" long-term decision with this model, by keeping the 750M, imo.
     
  11. john123 macrumors 68000

    john123

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    #11
    The simple answer is that my reading of the "tea leaves" this year was that they would have preferred not to need the 750M in this year's model. It's going to be the case for a while now that a top-end NVIDIA product will beat the integrated GPU. The question ultimately becomes one of timing. If Broadwell delivers as promised, it means there won't be much regression in any area from what we have today (since the 750M isn't much different from the 650M).

    Apple's just not been oriented around high performance on laptops when it comes to graphics. There are better options than the 750M, and we didn't get any of those. To me, that's telling.

    I think it's slightly more likely than not that the dGPU gets dropped, because it's the first time they can get away with it without there before an uproar over a "regression." I also think putting in Maxwell puts them behind the proverbial regression 8-ball again; they'd have to wait for Intel to catch up to that. It would become an untenable cycle. In other words, there's a perverse incentive not to offer better performance via Maxwell in the next revision.

    Ultimately, though, probability estimates like this are subjective. Neither way will surprise me (hence my 60% estimate).
     
  12. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #12
    Anybody who actually expects 3x performance (per watt or otherwise) will probably be very disappointed.

    I also have to agree with john123. The low clock rates and disabled turbo of the current 750M that isn't really a 750M at all, suggests that Apple wants to make it easier for a Braodwell iGPU to beat the current dGPU. Enabling the Turbo mode would have been thermally possible and help performance. Just makes no sense for Apple to disable it.

    There is little actual information on Maxwell but based on history of what powerpoints usually promise and what it actually turns out to be, it can be considered certain that performance won't be triple. ALU performance may increase and maybe on mobile in the smartphone TDP range they can scale 3x but not in the notebook desktop space. That would require some huge chip with terrible cost for performance.
     
  13. VanillaCracker, Jan 4, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2014

    VanillaCracker macrumors 68030

    VanillaCracker

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    #13
    While your your line of thought is succinct in relation to general marketing, I cannot (myself) accept that as a good enough explanation to the projection.

    I see that you would project a Broadwell iGPU only 2014 rMBP to be equivalent to the Haswell 750M 2013 rMBP, and that that would mean it is acceptable for Apple to pull off. However nVidia is also moving towards a focus of efficiency in their dGPU's now, and also fundamentally shrinking in size too so it just depends whether in the short long-run, that apple will accept Intel as good enough in graphics while nVidia will likely surpass them in a year or two and staying relatively significant in their lead of performance of the same category. Therefore, MacBooks will go from being an 8/10 for graphics (within their category) to maybe a 6/10 (compared to other nVidia dGPU windows machines, of similar specs). That would be a sad day, but if iGPU is the future, it's likely - and even more likely seeing as Apple has removed the dGPU from the 13" already.
     
  14. john123 macrumors 68000

    john123

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    #14
    I agree with all of this. In a nutshell, I think you just have a more altruistic view of Apple than I do. I really do hope that you're right and I'm wrong.
     
  15. VanillaCracker macrumors 68030

    VanillaCracker

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    #15
    :D me too
     
  16. Wuiffi macrumors 6502a

    Wuiffi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    #16
    I guess it all comes down to release dates.
    If broadwell is out and maxwell not yet Apple is probably going the iGP only way. They can tell us how great that machine is, that gives us better battery life with (nearly) the same graphic performance.

    However if maxwell is already out I guess Apple will go a similar way to this year - optional dGPU (maybe not only on the high end model but just a BTO graphic chip you can put in every 15 MBP)
    I guess it will not be the best GPU the chassis/psu/fans could handle, but some low/midrange GPU, so 2015 Apple can go the integrated GPU way for sure ... :/
     
  17. walkie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    #17
    I think that Apple will drop the rMBP with dGPU in favor of the iGPU models, because:

    Apple will convince you that you don't need a dGPU on a laptop anymore because of the battery life argument and that the next gen of Intel is totally capable to handle those pixels and 3D graphics with OpenCL blah blah blah..., Apple will make the rMBP more profitable using the iGPU alone, if you need more graphic power then Apple will tell you: that's what our new MacPro is for, so you need both in order to be a "Pro" user.
     
  18. doitdada macrumors 6502a

    doitdada

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    #18
    Well, if you are making money by the microsecond, and stuff are mission critical I have no doubt you are in the market for a desktop computer like the Mac Pro.

    The dedicated graphics in Macbooks and iMacs almost always pack a tiny suprise, we hear about overheating, fan noise, problems with both assembly and other production issues, and the bottom line, they don't perform good enough on games and the utilization in software isn't that big of a deal.

    By the way, I am also interested in surviving another century so I can experience the real next generation graphics in 2114. Buy now or supply me with juicy rumours along with a tracable source, not your ambitions.
     
  19. iKrivetko macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    #19
    There has never been one in the first place.
     
  20. Wuiffi macrumors 6502a

    Wuiffi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    #20
    not in the retina, but until the early 2011 models the normal 13" MBP had a dGPU
     
  21. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #21
    No, the 13" MacBook line never had a dGPU, only integrated ones. The iBook had a dGPU.
     
  22. Furifo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    #22
    2008: 9400M - Integrated.
    2009: 9400M - Integrated.
    2010: 320M - Integrated.

    The 13" has never had a dGPU.
     
  23. Wuiffi macrumors 6502a

    Wuiffi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    #23
    Yeah I know that it was integrated into the chipset, what I meant (and I guess VanillaCracker too) is, that it was still a 2 chip setup.
     
  24. stevemiller macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    #24
    Nope. The 13" mbp only ever had one integrated gpu. The only difference you might be thinking of was that it was previously part of an nvidia chipset, which at the time, was still considered better than intel's offerings.
     
  25. Wuiffi macrumors 6502a

    Wuiffi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    #25
    What I meant is, that the pre early 2011 had the GPU integrated into the chipset, while early 2011 and after have it integrated into the cpu (as well as some parts of the chipset). So while you previously had 2 chips (chipset/gpu and cpu), which both needed cooling, you now have one

    pre 2011
    [​IMG]

    2011 and after
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page