GTX 765m / no dedicated GPU?

Dazant

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 8, 2009
43
0
Can someone with extensive knowledge is GPU explain what would keep apple to put the 765m in the rMBP ? Also I'm scared of apple not even bothering to use a dedicated GPU because of iris/GT3e wich would make the laptop pretty useless to me any chance of that happening in the 15 inch model ?
 

B...

macrumors 68000
Mar 7, 2013
1,949
2
Probably no chance of them only using integrated. But do not expect a great GPU; it will only be a 750/60M, any more and heat becomes a serious issue.
 

Dazant

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 8, 2009
43
0
Probably no chance of them only using integrated. But do not expect a great GPU; it will only be a 750/60M, any more and heat becomes a serious issue.
How come the razer 14" can have it though ?
 

thundersteele

macrumors 68030
Oct 19, 2011
2,984
7
Switzerland
Lets have a quick look at the Razer website: http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-systems/razer-blade

"Compact 150W Power Adapter"

The MBP power brick provides 85W, and the whole system is designed to dissipate that amount of heat. The Razer 14'' has almost twice the power consumption. I don't know how they manage the heat on the laptop, but in any case, you can not just put the 765M in a MBP without doing a massive redesign (internally!).
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,548
17
1) It most likely won't have a GTX 765m because of heat and battery life.

The 14" Razer has a 70wh battery and stated 6 hour battery life, the 15" rMBP has a 95wh battery and stated 7 hour battery life.

2) The 15" rMBP will most likely not drop the dedicated GPU in favor of Iris Pro because Iris Pro is as expensive as adding a GT 750m, has less performance, and wouldn't really let them claim higher battery life because they already give battery life based on using the integrated graphics.

The only reason to use Iris Pro over dedicated graphics would be if you're trying to get good graphics performance in a low power / thermal budget. If Apple uses Iris Pro anywhere it will be in the 13" rMBP.
 

Lunfai

macrumors 65816
Nov 21, 2010
1,378
274
Sheffield
Also, Haswell is focused around better battery life. There is no doubt that the Razer Blade takes full advantage of this, we'll just have to wait for the MBP to see the differences and how Apple has integrated Haswell.
 

dusk007

macrumors 68040
Dec 5, 2009
3,386
61
Can someone with extensive knowledge is GPU explain what would keep apple to put the 765m in the rMBP ? Also I'm scared of apple not even bothering to use a dedicated GPU because of iris/GT3e wich would make the laptop pretty useless to me any chance of that happening in the 15 inch model ?
How would iris pro make the laptop useless? It is not that far away from a current 650M. Is that one also almost useless in your opinion?
Also Intel's GPU beats Kepler in GPGPU stuff and OpenCL. Because Kepler unlike Fermi (or AMD's GCN) was severely handicapped in that department.
Also one wouldn't have to deal with Apple's GPU switching which switches an unnecessary GPU on way to often and keeps it on even if the App that might use it is currently only in the background doing nothing. The real life battery improvement in OSX compared to the current 15" would be big.
For all OSX needs the Iris Pro is probably a better GPU than the 650M because with the right driver it is more geared to those uses rather than DirectX gaming as the Nvidia Kepler is all focused on. Kepler is great for gaming but in order to make a very efficient GPU Nvidia cut away almost all the stuff that wasn't needed for gaming.

In any case I doubt it is going to happen. OEM's say a non Iris Pro CPU + 750M is cheaper and well it is faster too. Iris Pro while surprisingly close in games and all practical metrics is still slower than a 650M @ 900Mhz and as this thread shows Intel's reputation needs some more time. Apple might not do it just because of the bad press they would get.

In truth though all that a swtich would really hurt is those people that want to game in bootcamp. It is more a marketing thing then an Apple thing. If Apple does as it used to under Jobs and care about OSX first and objective value, they will probably do as Anand expects and deprecate the dedicated GPU.


The reason why not 765M is simply. Because Apple doesn't go for maximum performance. They never did. They don't want to redesign anything about the rMBP just switch the logic board. A 765M can work in small design because the 700M turbo 2.0 starts out at a rather low clock speed and does what the thermals allow. So you can more easily fit them into smaller designs.
If anything they would more likely use a 760M. I wouldn't rule that out but who knows.
750M + HD 4600 Quad is the most likely.
760M + Quad is less likely.
an HD 5200 Quad would make a lot of sense as an option but from what I read the price might be a problem for that. I should check what a 4702HQ or the lower end HQ models cost. A 4950HQ is definitely to expensive but that is how it always is the XM Quads were for idiots with too much money.

The thing Nvidia has going foritself is that those GPUs don't cost much and most designs are geared toward it anyway. I assume most OEMs didn't really expect Intel to do as good as it did. I suspect that HD 5200 only notebooks are more likely to turn up 6 months from now. It is also a brand thing. Except for some Anandtech readers most people don't see Intel GPUs as favourable and on the package one can claim equal battery life with a nvidia GPU as that one will be off due to Optimus for all the battery life tests.
A Razer 14" does not get 6h with the Nvidia GPU active.
 

ElderBrE

macrumors regular
Apr 14, 2004
242
12
Anandtech has a good review out and they believe the new rMPB may simply use a GT3e with no dGPU.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested

Personally, I think we will see a 15" with a 750M, maybe over clocked, and that Apple will wait for Broadwell to get rid of the dGPU on the 15".

But some reports are saying we won't see the updated retinas until september, which makes me wonder what they could be waiting for.
 

Mackan

macrumors 65816
Sep 16, 2007
1,373
48
Anandtech has a good review out and they believe the new rMPB may simply use a GT3e with no dGPU.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested

Personally, I think we will see a 15" with a 750M, maybe over clocked, and that Apple will wait for Broadwell to get rid of the dGPU on the 15".

But some reports are saying we won't see the updated retinas until september, which makes me wonder what they could be waiting for.
Hm. Could be that Apple will only offer the 750M in the high end 15'' MBP, while the low end would get the GT3e... Likely means you have to pay more than today to get the dedicated graphics.


In any case I doubt it is going to happen. OEM's say a non Iris Pro CPU + 750M is cheaper and well it is faster too. Iris Pro while surprisingly close in games and all practical metrics is still slower than a 650M @ 900Mhz and as this thread shows Intel's reputation needs some more time. Apple might not do it just because of the bad press they would get.
It's surprising that the CPU + 750M would be cheaper, than an Iris Pro CPU alone.
 
Last edited:

thunng8

macrumors 6502a
Feb 8, 2006
821
206
Hm. Could be that Apple will only offer the 750M in the high end 15'' MBP, while the low end would get the GT3e... Likely means you have to pay more than today to get the dedicated graphics.
Given that the i7-4950HQ is more expensive than a i7-4800MQ+750M, I don't see how they could put gt3e on the low model while the bill of materials is higher



It's surprising that the CPU + 750M would be cheaper, than an Iris Pro CPU alone.
To make Iris Pro more appealing, Intel has to lower its prices. There are a large number of laptops launching with haswell+Nvidia chips, while not a word on any Iris Pro only laptops.
 

dusk007

macrumors 68040
Dec 5, 2009
3,386
61
It's surprising that the CPU + 750M would be cheaper, than an Iris Pro CPU alone.
True. That is what I read though but I think it is wrong. The top part the 4950hq according to anand is at almost 700$ so that is probably more expensive than a 750M. The more reasonably price 4700 cpus will probably be cheaper. The Intel website doesn't list any prices for the BGA chips though.
The main reason why 750M will show up in significant numbers is I think marketing more then anything. Nvidia is a known brand. Nobody wants Intel GPUs even if they might be good enough compared to people who probably were proud of their 630M or even 620M before.

I think Intel knows what they have. It is a 47W chip that is on par with stuff that needs an extra 20-30W chip and logicboard space. For thin and light notebooks it is good thing and they will charge extra for Crystalwell. Maybe they cut the prices a few months in when they realize their Iris brand is still not there yet. Or maybe prices aren't all that bad and I just read stupid rumors of people who compared the 4950 and forgot that there are cheaper 5200 to go around. There are no hard facts when it comes to those prices. Seeing notebooks pop up will tell.
 

thunng8

macrumors 6502a
Feb 8, 2006
821
206
True. That is what I read though but I think it is wrong. The top part the 4950hq according to anand is at almost 700$ so that is probably more expensive than a 750M. The more reasonably price 4700 cpus will probably be cheaper. The Intel website doesn't list any prices for the BGA chips though.
The 4700 parts, (4700hq and 4702hq) do not contain iris pro. They are hd4600.

There is the 4750hq which is not shipping until at least 3 more months. No word on pricing on that model, but the CPU is weak at only 2ghz.
 

dusk007

macrumors 68040
Dec 5, 2009
3,386
61
The 4700 parts, (4700hq and 4702hq) do not contain iris pro. They are hd4600.
Yeah. I figured that out after I wrote that post. What a BS naming. Intel is worse than Nvidia/AMD were. HQ is supposed to be the Iris parts (according to Intel) except when they are not (to confuse everybody around).
The 4850 seems to be cheap enough if some of the thrown around prices are actually true.
 

pgiguere1

macrumors 68020
May 28, 2009
2,157
1,081
Montreal, Canada
How come the razer 14" can have it though ?
- It has a 35W TDP CPU instead of a 45W one like the rMBP.
- It has a 70 Wh battery instead of 95 Wh like the rMBP.
- It has larger bezels making the computer almost as big as the 15" rMBP despite having a 14" display.
- It doesn't have a high-res display so more power can be left for the GPU.

Also, if the previous Razer Blade is any indication, it will be loud and hot.

It's all a matter of priorities. You can't get a high-end GPU in a small form factor without sacrifices. Razer made those sacrifices because it's sold mainly as a gaming laptop.

I would personally not be interested in having a weaker CPU, no Retina display and 35% less battery life, more heat and more noise just to get a slightly better GPU since I didn't buy my Mac as a gaming laptop.
 
Last edited:

luffytubby

macrumors 6502a
Jan 22, 2008
684
0
Apple never has prioritized GPU performance. Never. They never will. GPU has to be decent-good, but not more. They care more about making a beautiful thin computer than a gaming rig.


Razer 14 looks impressive but I am worried about their battery life claims. Sometimes it's not even half of what they advertise. I also fear for the build quality. Razer peripherals have a reputation for breaking down fast.
 

N19h7m4r3

macrumors 65816
Dec 15, 2012
1,191
8
Apple never has prioritized GPU performance. Never. They never will. GPU has to be decent-good, but not more. They care more about making a beautiful thin computer than a gaming rig.
I really wish they would though, even just keeping OpenGL up to date. It would really help them in several markets, graphics and gaming. The latest machines from them do well, but can do better.

Even so I'd rather the rMBP compared to the Razer simply because of the screen, battery life, the legal option to run both OS X and Windows.
 

Mr MM

macrumors 65816
Jun 29, 2011
1,116
1
they probably either heavily downclocked it, very loud fan, and/or case gets really hot.
not really necessary, not at all. gk 106 is a cool chip, and with the significant heatpipes in there you can clearly see its going to perform at stock, you can say that it wont engage the full nvidia cripple boost
Lets have a quick look at the Razer website: http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-systems/razer-blade

"Compact 150W Power Adapter"

The MBP power brick provides 85W, and the whole system is designed to dissipate that amount of heat. The Razer 14'' has almost twice the power consumption. I don't know how they manage the heat on the laptop, but in any case, you can not just put the 765M in a MBP without doing a massive redesign (internally!).
bigger heatpipes and probably higher cfm fans
- It has a 35W TDP CPU instead of a 45W one like the rMBP.
- It has a 70 Wh battery instead of 95 Wh like the rMBP.
- It has larger bezels making the computer almost as big as the 15" rMBP despite having a 14" display.
- It doesn't have a high-res display so more power can be left for the GPU.

Also, if the previous Razer Blade is any indication, it will be loud and hot.

It's all a matter of priorities. You can't get a high-end GPU in a small form factor without sacrifices. Razer made those sacrifices because it's sold mainly as a gaming laptop.

I would personally not be interested in having a weaker CPU, no Retina display and 35% less battery life, more heat and more noise just to get a slightly better GPU since I didn't buy my Mac as a gaming laptop.
I agree with most accounts though you should use the 2nd gen 17 for comparison, we know fermi gets really hot, and it does

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6351/the-new-razer-blade-thoroughly-reviewed/3

kepler on the other hand with some design changes made this much cooler.

I agree on the priorities, its simple, they are designed for gaming, and thats were they focus their deliverance, not that you cant use for other stuff, but the gaming is the design push

Im personally more worried about what haswell consumes under load, and for the entire machine when you are stressing only the cpu its around 80-90w. THATS a LOT. granted its a gaming notebook, with a optimus based gpu in there, at idle with all things maxed (i.e. KB lighted, max brightness and sound not engaged) it consumes already 26w (which given the power sucking retina, this should be about right tending to a little less). and thats only the CPU, I dont want to see what the power throttling we are going to experience if apple doesnt redesign the magsafe
 

Dazant

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 8, 2009
43
0
So the 765m is out... than how does the gt 750m compare to the 650m ?
 

Wuiffi

macrumors 6502a
Oct 6, 2011
686
78
So the 765m is out... than how does the gt 750m compare to the 650m ?
It's faster ;)
Nvidia claims that it delivers about 2 times the gaming performance of the 650m (but don't forget, the rMBPs 650m is overclocked)

Anand Shimpi thinks Apple is going to use Iris Pro in the new rMBP and compared it to the current rMBP (oc 650m), the desktop GT 640, as well as some other integrated chips (HD 4600, HD 4000, AMD HD 7660D, AMD HD 7660G)

Anandtech! IRIS Pro
 

Dazant

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 8, 2009
43
0
It's faster ;)
Nvidia claims that it delivers about 2 times the gaming performance of the 650m (but don't forget, the rMBPs 650m is overclocked)

Anand Shimpi thinks Apple is going to use Iris Pro in the new rMBP and compared it to the current rMBP (oc 650m), the desktop GT 640, as well as some other integrated chips (HD 4600, HD 4000, AMD HD 7660D, AMD HD 7660G)

Anandtech! IRIS Pro
This iris pro only thing scares me alot i cant be the only one who dosent want to spend 2200+ on a machine that has worst graphics than the generation before that dosent make sense