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.
GTX 765m / no dedicated GPU?
- Thread starter Dazant
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
CJM
macrumors 68000
With your last point, it could be the case that Apple is waiting for dual-core editions of the Iris Pro chips, as all the SKUs mentioned in the Anandtech article refer to quad-core silicon.
I hope his prediction isn't true as well, however I can fully see Apple choosing better battery life over performance in games. To be honest, I think I am okay with this; after all, I have a PC for gaming.
SpitUK
macrumors 6502a
Think people are missing the point. The Iris 5200 Pro will enable OSX to have 650m equivalent power all the time. The main thing people were moaning about is the slight stuttering with the retina resolution. I would love near the speed of the 650m in OSX but with integrated graphics battery life. Epic win.
The rMBP is not a gaming machine and never will be, it is a computer to run businesses on and be creative on the move. Switching between 2 chipsets is messy and not Apple like but they had no choice in the past.
I want a computer that has great speed in OSX/retina all the time and epic battery life as well. I think that is what Apple has always strived towards and with Haswell/Iris Pro that is what they are going to get.
It doesn't make sense for Apple to go down the discrete graphics route this time round imo.
I think we will see:
15" with same chassis and screen.
2.4GHz/2.6GHz Haswell with Iris 5200 Pro.
Same memory choices.
Same SSD size choices with improved SSD speed.
Greatly enhanced battery life with claims of the first all work day battery life, 8+ hours.
If we get that I will be over the moon as it will be an awesome OSX based computer.
The rMBP is not a gaming machine and never will be, it is a computer to run businesses on and be creative on the move. Switching between 2 chipsets is messy and not Apple like but they had no choice in the past.
I want a computer that has great speed in OSX/retina all the time and epic battery life as well. I think that is what Apple has always strived towards and with Haswell/Iris Pro that is what they are going to get.
It doesn't make sense for Apple to go down the discrete graphics route this time round imo.
I think we will see:
15" with same chassis and screen.
2.4GHz/2.6GHz Haswell with Iris 5200 Pro.
Same memory choices.
Same SSD size choices with improved SSD speed.
Greatly enhanced battery life with claims of the first all work day battery life, 8+ hours.
If we get that I will be over the moon as it will be an awesome OSX based computer.
I think apple will certainly add an Iris Pro version of the to the 15 rMBP lineup.
The only reason to want a now 750m is for gaming as the Iris Pro is already much better then the 650m/750m on GPU compute. (if you don't need cus
I can see them doing 2 versions of the 15 inch rmbp this year and drop the Classic 15 inch. Cheaper one with Iris Pro and a more expensive one with 750/760m. And then next year go intel only, because the next generation Iris pro (at 14nm) will be faster than the 750m. I highly doubt we will see a 765m because of this reason and of-course thermal reasons.
----------
100% agreed 🙂
It will also come at a lower price!
The only reason to want a now 750m is for gaming as the Iris Pro is already much better then the 650m/750m on GPU compute. (if you don't need cus
I can see them doing 2 versions of the 15 inch rmbp this year and drop the Classic 15 inch. Cheaper one with Iris Pro and a more expensive one with 750/760m. And then next year go intel only, because the next generation Iris pro (at 14nm) will be faster than the 750m. I highly doubt we will see a 765m because of this reason and of-course thermal reasons.
----------
100% agreed 🙂
It will also come at a lower price!
SpitUK
macrumors 6502a
Not so sure on the cheaper price as the Haswell/Iris Pro chip is more expensive than a regular Haswell/750m combo.
The haswell with iris pro only comes at 2.3 or 2.4ghz, so your prediction definitely will not come true.
Further the 2.4ghz model is stupidly expensive at $658 for just the CPU.
In fact, a haswell+nvidia 750m costs less than the similarly clocked haswell with iris pro.
Also, unlike the haswell with iris pro, intel offers haswell quad core chips at 2.4/2.7/2.8ghz
If I have my maths correct, a haswell 2.7ghz combined with an nvidia 750m is cheaper than the haswell 2.4ghz with iris pro. Crazy pricing from intel.
Well nvidia won't be on the 750m by next year. A true next gen nvidia chip with die shrink to 20nm is planned for next year's model.
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-roadmap-confirms-20nm-maxwell-gpus-2014-kepler-refresh-arrives-1h-2013/
dusk007
macrumors 68040
The CPU will likely be also faster without a dedicated GPU.
Assuming they drop the 750M and go Iris Pro they got lots of cooling headroom. If they like Anandtech suggested up the TDP on the Intel GPU and go for a 55W setting the CPU Turbo has way more room to run at higher clocks whenever the GPU isn't doing to much.
So effectively the CPU would end up being faster regardless what the base clock actually is at. If you run handbrake and the clocks stay constantly at 3.2 Ghz rather than 2.6 or something it will finish sooner.
Assuming they drop the 750M and go Iris Pro they got lots of cooling headroom. If they like Anandtech suggested up the TDP on the Intel GPU and go for a 55W setting the CPU Turbo has way more room to run at higher clocks whenever the GPU isn't doing to much.
So effectively the CPU would end up being faster regardless what the base clock actually is at. If you run handbrake and the clocks stay constantly at 3.2 Ghz rather than 2.6 or something it will finish sooner.
I have doubts about that. If you are running handbrake it would not engage the discrete gpu anyway. Also having the iris pro there would also use more power for the entire package even if it was not engaged as the edram is always active compared to just having the hd4600.
Also from several tests done already on haswell, the normal mobile (4800mq and 4900mq) haswell chips constantly turbo boost to 3.2-3.4ghz anyway running Cinebench which traditionally is even more taxing on the CPU than handbrake.
dusk007
macrumors 68040
Yes edram is always active but I am talking here about the comparison of an Iris Pro CPU running at 55W vs an HD 4600 one running at 47W. Edram apparently even active needs barely 4W and it does give a bit of a speed boost to lowering the latency for quite many memory accesses which would otherwise go into main. Intel says some 95% hitrate in the first 32MB alone. No idea what use case but I assume almost always it will pay for its power consumption.
There is a few Watts room to waste on clock speeds. The GPU can be almost entirely and also partially power gated. I doubt it needs any more power than a GT2 when not really in use.
Sure if HD 4600 Haswell already stay at that high a Turbo given the slightly lower max Quad Turbo there isn't much room. I suppose while one can change the TDP the OEMs won't be allowed to add Turbo bins or else the 4950 vs 4850 difference would be ridiculous and the higher price kind of a waste. But maybe it is just the marketing. The spec sheet cannot say 4950 if it isn't.
Just checked on some info about this adjustable TDP and only found something on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)
I didn't find any source for that but those cracks who edit wikipedia in the tech sections are quite often right because otherwise they leave it blank.
And a 3.3Ghz base clock is something.
And if the the max short term Turbo power ceiling actually can go to 69W the GPU alone probably cannot do that. There ought to be more Turbo bins above the 3.3Ghz.
Given that we only would see and tinkering with a TDP if they remove the dedicated GPU while sticking to the rest of the design of the notebook, that would be a bit more speed for all day tasks and everyone who isn't a gamer. For GPGPU stuff Kepler sucks too. It is really only for gaming a great GPU.
There is a few Watts room to waste on clock speeds. The GPU can be almost entirely and also partially power gated. I doubt it needs any more power than a GT2 when not really in use.
Sure if HD 4600 Haswell already stay at that high a Turbo given the slightly lower max Quad Turbo there isn't much room. I suppose while one can change the TDP the OEMs won't be allowed to add Turbo bins or else the 4950 vs 4850 difference would be ridiculous and the higher price kind of a waste. But maybe it is just the marketing. The spec sheet cannot say 4950 if it isn't.
Just checked on some info about this adjustable TDP and only found something on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)
I didn't find any source for that but those cracks who edit wikipedia in the tech sections are quite often right because otherwise they leave it blank.
And a 3.3Ghz base clock is something.
And if the the max short term Turbo power ceiling actually can go to 69W the GPU alone probably cannot do that. There ought to be more Turbo bins above the 3.3Ghz.
Given that we only would see and tinkering with a TDP if they remove the dedicated GPU while sticking to the rest of the design of the notebook, that would be a bit more speed for all day tasks and everyone who isn't a gamer. For GPGPU stuff Kepler sucks too. It is really only for gaming a great GPU.
I dont understand why apple brands it as a Pro then if they're not willing to put PRO components in it. It should be branded as PRE for pretty.
The hell with power consumption....thats what the onboard graphics are there for. If serious work is done then more than likely its hooked up to a power source anyways.
Not everyone who needs high power mobility is a gamer. I handle massive amounts of polys on screen working with data from my 3d scanner. Mobility is a must because I get some jobs on the go. My 2011 Macbook pro has already reached its limits for many of jobs I've done, so unless they come up with a real solution instaed of trying to appease soccer moms and their sensitive laps, I might look into Asus....hell they already commited to a GTX780M!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The hell with power consumption....thats what the onboard graphics are there for. If serious work is done then more than likely its hooked up to a power source anyways.
Not everyone who needs high power mobility is a gamer. I handle massive amounts of polys on screen working with data from my 3d scanner. Mobility is a must because I get some jobs on the go. My 2011 Macbook pro has already reached its limits for many of jobs I've done, so unless they come up with a real solution instaed of trying to appease soccer moms and their sensitive laps, I might look into Asus....hell they already commited to a GTX780M!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
w00t951
macrumors 68000
Most likely scenario: No dedicated, GT3e (Iris 5200) Haswell integrated.
Why? Because the current CPU has a 45W TDP. Haswell's equivalent is 47W.
Iris 5200 is almost on par with the GT650M.
The GTX750 is just the GTX660M rebranded, but Apple's version of the GT650M was overclocked to match the GTX660M.
All GTX series cards have 75W TDP's, which are significantly higher (~30W more) than any GPU that's been in the MacBook Pro up to this point.
So, it makes most sense to stick a GT3e Iris 5200 in there, since other alternatives from NVIDIA are either too hot, require too much power, or don't represent a large enough performance increase.
Why? Because the current CPU has a 45W TDP. Haswell's equivalent is 47W.
Iris 5200 is almost on par with the GT650M.
The GTX750 is just the GTX660M rebranded, but Apple's version of the GT650M was overclocked to match the GTX660M.
All GTX series cards have 75W TDP's, which are significantly higher (~30W more) than any GPU that's been in the MacBook Pro up to this point.
So, it makes most sense to stick a GT3e Iris 5200 in there, since other alternatives from NVIDIA are either too hot, require too much power, or don't represent a large enough performance increase.
The 55 watt Haswell, not the 47 watt is the one that's almost as fast as the GT650M. Also as above posters have said, iris pro is ridiculously overpriced it will cost Apple more to pay Intel for the Iris pro alone than Haswell + GT750M. Since when does Apple like to pay more for component costs? Furthermore, the iris pro Haswell is much slower than the Haswell with GT3 as the Iris Pro Haswell is crippled at 2.4 ghz. Since Haswell is only about 8-10% faster on average for the same clock speed as Ivy Bridge, you'll actually end up with same cpu performance as the current rMBP.
Wuiffi
macrumors 6502a
You do forget one thing: the eDRAM is not an GPU only part but more like a giant L4 cache. Anand Shimpi shows this with benchmarks for QuickSync performance: "At a much lower TDP/clock speed, the i7-4950HQ is able to pretty much equal the performance of the i7-4770K. Running Haswell's new better quality transcode mode, the 4950HQ is actually 30% faster than the fastest desktop Haswell. "
I do hope Apple puts a dedicated graphic chip like the GT 750m or 760m in its rMBP, but we have to give Intel credit for making hell of a chip (although the price just isn't right!)
It is too bad that quicksync API is not exposed in Mac OS X. It would be quite handy if it can be used in Handbrake.
For people worried about quality of the encode - software encoding is superior.
Not quite sure where you get almost on par with GT650m from. Anandtech's tests at low resolution 1366x768 and / medium 1600x900 shows in games the 650M is % faster than Iris Pro:
Metro Last Light: 12.3%/30.7%
Biobock Infinite: 37%/47%
Sleeping dogs:8%/47%
Tomb Raider: 22.5%/40%
Battlefield 3: 27%/60%
Crysis 3: 37/42%
Crysis Warhead: -11%/7%
Grid 2: 26/62%
Average: 20/42%
I wouldn't call that "almost on par" by any stretch of the imagination. The 55W Iris Pro is generally 5-10% faster than the 47W version, so the gap doesn't narrow that much.
So if you game a low res (1366x768), the difference isn't as much, but I imagine most people will play at higher res/higher quality (1600x900), the 650M pulls a large margin.
Also, 750M will be clocked slightly faster than the 650M as well. Nvidia has specified up to 967Mhz clock speed+boost 2.0 for the 750M while the 650M in the MPBr is clocked at ~900Mhz with less aggressive boost.
To sum up: If Apple go with integrated Iris Pro only for the Haswell MBPr, then gamers with be disappointed with the loss of speed.
Last edited:
w00t951
macrumors 68000
I've got more, if you want. The reason games aren't performing so well is because of lack of driver/game optimization. Kepler has already been optimized to hell, but Iris 5200 Pro just hit the markets.
Either way, the GT750M doesn't present nearly as high of a performance improvement as a dedicated card is supposed to produce over integrated. The GTX760M consumes too much power. Unless Apple is reverting to AMD cards (I don't know much about those, but I could check) they're stuck with a sub-optimal graphics solution.
2X improvements only happen in the mobile SoC sphere, not in the desktop/laptop sphere. Since the GT750M is just the GTX660M, which was met by the GT650M in performance (Apple overclocked it), not much new is happening.
Higher end 47W TDP Haswell chips have the Iris Pro 5200.
Apple would be using these higher end chips anyway, Iris Pro or not, since they're the evolved variants of the current 3820QM and 3720QM Ivy Bridge processors in the current MacBook Pros.
NotebookCheck said:
Attachments
Last edited:
The main changes with Iris Pro compared to HD4000 is:
-It increases the EU count by 2.5x
-and alleviates the memory bandwidth constraints by adding EDRAM.
The underlying architecture is not much different, so I have my doubts on any huge amount of optimization can be done.
I wouldn't trust the synthetic benchmarks to prove anything. HD4000 did relatively well in synthetics as well.
Agreed, I highly doubt Intel will be able to pull out an extra 45% performance from a driver rewrite.
w00t951
macrumors 68000
3DMark is basically rendering the same stuff that a video game would be as well. it's just not loading the CPU, so any discrepancies that arise could be partially attributed to CPU throttling.
Not quite sure I'm following you on this.
Iris Pro will be only available in 2 47W mobile CPUs
i7-4850HQ - 2.3Ghz Quad with Iris Pro - $478
i7-4950HQ - 2.4Ghz Quad with Iris Pro - $658
There are 3 other 47W HD4600 Mobile quad cores available:
i7-4700MQ - 2.4Ghz Quad - Not disclosed, but likely around $280
i7-4800MQ - 2.7Ghz Quad - $378
i7-4900MQ - 2.8Ghz Quad - $568
Just check out the prices. It would be cheaper to buy a i7-4700MQ or i7-4800MQ+ Nvidia 750M than the i7-4950HQ. Even then you'll be getting lower CPU performance (marginal) and much lower GPU performance in the Iris Pro variants vs Haswell HD4600+Nivida 750M combinations.