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.
Graphics Card for new 15" rMBP?
- Thread starter GrumbleFly
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I feel like people buy the 15 inch laptop to do so because they use it for actual work.
And the type of actual work that is done on macs are usually graphic design and video editing. Why would anyone who needs their laptop for these purposes buy the newest laptop if it has inferior graphics performance... Has apple ever regressed in terms of graphics performance between iterations before?
And the type of actual work that is done on macs are usually graphic design and video editing. Why would anyone who needs their laptop for these purposes buy the newest laptop if it has inferior graphics performance... Has apple ever regressed in terms of graphics performance between iterations before?
Yes, when they dropped the 13" dGPU and when they switched to AMD for a generation.
When will Apple switch back to AMD Radeon GPU?
hopefully never.
Paying premium price, expecting premium hardware.
Using AnandTech's review of the Intel Iris Pro 5200 (cited above), please look at the BF3 section, or the 3DMark Benchmarks. The 650M is only marginally better than the Iris Pro, and in some cases is surpassed by the Iris Pro.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Iris Pro 5200 is most likely to be the sole graphics solution in the next generation MacBook Pro.
Last edited:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but unless it is faster than the 750M, which is in turn faster than a regular 660M, I do not see that happening.
Since when has Apple truly cared about graphics performance? The CPU has always been very good (usually close to top-tier). However, Apple has NEVER used a top-tier GPU. Performance is good enough for the AVERAGE user. In addition, the 750M is not a solid-enough release to warrant an upgrade from the 650M. Furthermore, Intel increased the TDPs of their mobile GPUs. How will Apple compensate for this?
Apple's goal is to create a system that will satisfy the majority of users. Unfortunately, a dedicated GPU is no longer necessary now that integrated graphics is close to the current generation of rMPBs. The Iris Pro 5200 is more than adequate for the average user. We at MacRumors are, on average, at the extreme in our need for performance.
From the Anandtech review:
Iris Pro's main advantage is in space, power usage and cooling requirements. The 15" rMBP has already been engineered to provide space, power, and cooling for a dedicated GPU.
Now in a machine like the 13" rMBP which doesn't have the space, power, and cooling for a dedicated GPU, Iris Pro could be really useful.
What would be the advanage to Apple with going with Iris Pro in the 15" rMBP? It's the same price as adding a dedicated GPU and it wouldn't let them quote higher battery life numbers because they already quote battery life on the integrated graphics.
Apple markets the 15" rMBP towards professionals. Just take a look at their website. Using just Iris will bring a decrease in pure performance. I think Apple is very wary to do that since the 320M/X3100 fiasco.
The inside of the the rMBP is designed for a single large heat source. The same heat pipe is currently used for both the GPU and CPU. Because of this limitation, inter-heating occurs and the fans are unable to cool components separately. If the dGPU is removed, both fans are able to cool one component. No doubt, this means the system will run cooler.
But how much of a decrease? Look at the Anandtech benchmarks. In 3DMarks benchmark, the Iris Pro had higher scores in multiple incidences.
I know you really want a new, kick*** GPU, but look at the facts: the Iris Pro allows Apple a way to improve cooling, while reducing the number of components that can become defective.
The Anandtech review's 650M is not as fast as the rMBP's.The rMBP's is factory overclocked so it is similar or better than a 660M. Due to this, there would be a larger decrease than the benchmarks show.
From the AnandTech review (Page: The Comparison Points) :
"Intel sort of dropped this CRB off without anything to compare it to, so I scrambled over the past week looking for things to put Iris Pros performance in perspective. The obvious candidate was Apples 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display. I expect its successor will use Iris Pro 5200, making this a perfect comparison point."
Please sir, do your research.
What I would like to see is:
ditch the nvidia discrete GPU
add a second Haswell CPU
intel/apple run the equivalent of SLI or crossfire with 2x Haswells.
8 cores, 16 threads plus GPU performance that would blow the Nvidia GPUs out of the water, in the same power profile.
On battery? turn off a CPU and you've got a machine that will be almost as fast as the current model at 3d in HALF the power consumption.
I realise it probably wont happen because i don't think haswell supports multiple sockets?
But it's what i WANT.
ditch the nvidia discrete GPU
add a second Haswell CPU
intel/apple run the equivalent of SLI or crossfire with 2x Haswells.
8 cores, 16 threads plus GPU performance that would blow the Nvidia GPUs out of the water, in the same power profile.
On battery? turn off a CPU and you've got a machine that will be almost as fast as the current model at 3d in HALF the power consumption.
I realise it probably wont happen because i don't think haswell supports multiple sockets?
But it's what i WANT.
OK, but you are still comparing brand new tech to year plus old tech. A better comparison point would be the 750M. And I think that Apple will use the 750/60M in their new lineup. But we'll see in less than two days.
What I would like to see is:
ditch the nvidia discrete GPU
add a second Haswell CPU
intel/apple run the equivalent of SLI or crossfire with 2x Haswells.
8 cores, 16 threads plus GPU performance that would blow the Nvidia GPUs out of the water, in the same power profile.
On battery? turn off a CPU and you've got a machine that will be almost as fast as the current model at 3d in HALF the power consumption.
I realise it probably wont happen because i don't think haswell supports multiple sockets?
But it's what i WANT.
nice idea, though a 17" with SLI is still my dream.
Less heat, increased battery performance, high performance integrated graphics trumps dgpu with marginally better performance.
Apple is about the whole package.
I think everyone here will be empathetic with those who want to push the envelope with dgpu.
Less heat, increased battery performance, high performance integrated graphics trumps dgpu with marginally better performance.
Apple is about the whole package.
I think everyone here will be empathetic with those who want to push the envelope with dgpu.
But how will Apple justify it as an improvement?
They can't make the 15" cheaper because Iris Pro costs just as much.
They can't really claim improved GPU performance, Iris Pro would be break even at best.
They can't claim increased battery life because they already provide battery life numbers based on using the integrated graphics.
Maybe they could make the 15" a bit thinner and lighter? That's the only thing I can really think of.
No idea. Just guessing Apple, and all manufacturers, would desire integrated
performance high enough where they wouldn't need dgpu. From what I've seen they're not there yet for high end performance.
Low end performance is getting better.
to say that IGP is better than DGPU is a joke, Nvidia has been in the race much longer than Intel who claims that their "HD" graphics card is as good as DGPU.
I'd say it would take more than a couple years before they could actually make something as good as Nvidia and when that time comes they probably would have lost their only advantage which is power consumption.
IGP is weak for a reason, and their lack of performance coupled with low power consumption serves better purpose than trying to replace the DGPU in the mid end market
I'd say it would take more than a couple years before they could actually make something as good as Nvidia and when that time comes they probably would have lost their only advantage which is power consumption.
IGP is weak for a reason, and their lack of performance coupled with low power consumption serves better purpose than trying to replace the DGPU in the mid end market
actually, you got it backwards, its amd and nvidia job to keep the igpu on the low end, and they are not doing it right. still the 640m is around the same power
There is simply no way apple will use the iris pro in the 15".
Both the version with the iris pro and without have the same tdp. Did you ever wonder why? It's because the CPU is also downclocked to make room for the iris pro. Not only is the iris pro slower than the 750m, but the CPU would also be slower than the ivy bridge chip that it is replacing...
----------
It is already about the thickness of a USB port. Can't get much thinner than that without a tapered design.
Both the version with the iris pro and without have the same tdp. Did you ever wonder why? It's because the CPU is also downclocked to make room for the iris pro. Not only is the iris pro slower than the 750m, but the CPU would also be slower than the ivy bridge chip that it is replacing...
----------
It is already about the thickness of a USB port. Can't get much thinner than that without a tapered design.
I did a fairly detailed analysis before here on gaming performance of 650M vs Iris Pro 5200:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/17348384/
Results:
650M 20% faster at low res (1366x768)
650M 42% faster at higher res/higher quality (1600x900)
Conclusion:
Iris Pro would suffice if you game at low res, but if you want to game at higher res or quality then the 650M would be much better.
It would be a ballsy move by Apple for sure. Iris Pro is almost there but not quite. Doesn't mean they won't do it, though (but I think it's unlikely).
Not sure why everyone thinks a difference of 42% constitutes almost
It would be quite interesting if there was a comparison of the Iris Pro with the previous gen AMD 6770M graphics in the 2011 15" Macbook Pro.
My guess - they would be about the same.