HASWELL dGPU: WHICH dGPU?

[GSPice]

760M is the most likely or a 750M. A 765M is just too hot. No way.
A 750M IMO is too slow, as it is just an overclocked 650M. Why bother with that over Iris Pro.
A 760M is possible and fast enough to be worth it.

The pro graphics Apple will never use. Look at those TDPs. Most importantly the pro graphics are really expensive because of the drivers and those don't exist for OSX so it is kind of pointless to just pay for a brand while you end up dealing with Apple's graphics drivers anyway.
AMD 8800M is just not quite as efficient as Kepler in gaming. It is better in GPGPU though.

So the only likely possibilities are 750M and 760M as far as dGPUs go.
I still would put my money on Iris Pro.

I'd agree that whatever was used, it'd have to be sufficiently more powerful than Iris Pro. If for instance the low end 13-inchers used Iris Pro, a high end 15 would hopefully have something a lot better.

Hopefully the range of graphics options is better than HD 4600 to Iris Pro 5200.

 

[Kirihuna]

I'd agree that whatever was used, it'd have to be sufficiently more powerful than Iris Pro. If for instance the low end 13-inchers used Iris Pro, a high end 15 would hopefully have something a lot better.

Hopefully the range of graphics options is better than HD 4600 to Iris Pro 5200.

13" won't get Iris Pro. 13" MBPs have generally never been quad core. Iris Pro is quad-core only. They best they'll get is 5100 or maybe 5100 + dGPU.

 

[GSPice]

13" won't get Iris Pro. 13" MBPs have generally never been quad core. Iris Pro is quad-core only. They best they'll get is 5100 or maybe 5100 + dGPU.

Ah yes I forgot about that.

 

[Mr MM]

760M is the most likely or a 750M. A 765M is just too hot. No way.
A 750M IMO is too slow, as it is just an overclocked 650M. Why bother with that over Iris Pro.
A 760M is possible and fast enough to be worth it.

The pro graphics Apple will never use. Look at those TDPs. Most importantly the pro graphics are really expensive because of the drivers and those don't exist for OSX so it is kind of pointless to just pay for a brand while you end up dealing with Apple's graphics drivers anyway.
AMD 8800M is just not quite as efficient as Kepler in gaming. It is better in GPGPU though.

So the only likely possibilities are 750M and 760M as far as dGPUs go.
I still would put my money on Iris Pro.

the 8870m has the same performance in gaming that the 765m, actually its just a 7870m with lower clocks

the 760m is just a 765m with lower clocks, or if you want the reverse, the 770m uses the same core however with a larger bandwidth

anyway my main concern is the usual one, that the psu won't provide enough juice

 

[dylin]

As it stands now, nVdia has a better mobile dGPU line up than AMD.

is it due to performance, or power consumption?

I never understood how they determined which GPU to go for.

Unless it's because one was able to sell for cheaper

 

[Kirihuna]

is it due to performance, or power consumption?

I never understood how they determined which GPU to go for.

Unless it's because one was able to sell for cheaper

Nvidia lately has been going for both performance and power consumption.

Nvidia has CUDA and AMD has OpenCL, however I don't think AMD's new mobile line is full OpenCL like their 9xxx cards. AMD's mobile chips is the same as Nvidias: rebranded last year models iirc.

 

[dusk007]

the 8870m has the same performance in gaming that the 765m, actually its just a 7870m with lower clocks

That is very far from the truth. The 8870M is usually even quite a bit below a 760M. In synthetics not as far as gaming.
Compare the benchmarks.
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Welche-Spiele-laufen-auf-Notebook-Grafikkarten-fluessig.13827.0.html
AMD just tries by making the GPUs more appealing by rebranding them with the 8800 class. Even they though they should be called 8600 or 8700. The TDP class is also lower at about 760M level.

the 760m is just a 765m with lower clocks, or if you want the reverse, the 770m uses the same core however with a larger bandwidth

anyway my main concern is the usual one, that the psu won't provide enough juice

Yes the 760M already has the chip which is practically double the 650/750M chip but it runs much lower clocks. 75% the clock rate along with the lower voltage necessary means it has about 30% lower TDP most likely.
There are no reliable TDP values posted anywhere. The only official ones nvidia released for the workstation gpus and they are insanely high. The 760M is probably ~45W. The 765M is ~65W+. 650M is in stock config probably around 30-35W.
I infer those from the kind of designs the gpus come in and their thickness and cooling.
A 760M is probably clocked low enough to be possible. A 765M is not and Apple would rather buy a cheaper 760M and run it at slightly higher clocks than go directly for a 765M.

 

[GSPice]

A 760M is probably clocked low enough to be possible. A 765M is not and Apple would rather buy a cheaper 760M and run it at slightly higher clocks than go directly for a 765M.

Does Apple have a pattern of favoring overclocked or underclocked GPU components?

 

[Mr MM]

That is very far from the truth. The 8870M is usually even quite a bit below a 760M. In synthetics not as far as gaming.
Compare the benchmarks.
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Welche-Spiele-laufen-auf-Notebook-Grafikkarten-fluessig.13827.0.html

in gaming its quite the same performance, i.e. above 670m and lower than the 675m

aside that notebook check is far from a reliable source

AMD just tries by making the GPUs more appealing by rebranding them with the 8800 class. Even they though they should be called 8600 or 8700. The TDP class is also lower at about 760M level.

yeah I didn't like that at all, basically amd rebranded almost all of their line up, well nvidia did the same

the only kind of new gpu is the 760/765m which is basically a gimped 670mx

amd launched the 8700m and lower using new cores

Yes the 760M already has the chip which is practically double the 650/750M chip but it runs much lower clocks. 75% the clock rate along with the lower voltage necessary means it has about 30% lower TDP most likely.
There are no reliable TDP values posted anywhere. The only official ones nvidia released for the workstation gpus and they are insanely high. The 760M is probably ~45W. The 765M is ~65W+. 650M is in stock config probably around 30-35W.
I infer those from the kind of designs the gpus come in and their thickness and cooling.
A 760M is probably clocked low enough to be possible. A 765M is not and Apple would rather buy a cheaper 760M and run it at slightly higher clocks than go directly for a 765M.

yeah, for mobile gpus its hard to see reliable tdp numbers. the problem here remains that any notebook that uses a quad + 765m needs at least 130w, the usual to be put in there is 150w

msi with their ludicrous policy of if the power is not enough it will use the battery along ships with a 120w psu

aside that the performance of the 750m in sli is quite the same as the 765m, sli wins by a little bit. and it loses because the main problem with the 760m/765m is the bandwidth and bus width is too narrow

 

[jav6454]

is it due to performance, or power consumption?

I never understood how they determined which GPU to go for.

Unless it's because one was able to sell for cheaper

Both. Apple goes with the maker that provides a great power to performance ratio. Back in 2008/2009 AMD/ATI offered this with their HD5000 and HD6000 series GPU. Right now, the HD7000 series are a throwback (in a sense) in terms of power consumption of the HD4000's powererformance.

nVidia hasn't improved much on their heavy power usage, but they have mitigated it from when the GTX400 series were released. At least now, I don't require a nuclear power plant next to my house.

 

[dusk007]

in gaming its quite the same performance, i.e. above 670m and lower than the 675m

aside that notebook check is far from a reliable source

In what way are they not reliable? The simply run the game in specific settings on actual notebooks. They post every last one of their results and offer a comparison to lots and lots of others.
What is a reliable source? Some forum members that claim any fps while not even posting the settings or the specific scenes they bench?
I don't see how you can do benchmarks any more standardized than notebookcheck. Sure you could do them in best case scenarios with a test rig with a powerful CPU that won't show in any notebook and perfect cooling which no notebook has and 800W power supply which no notebook has.

 

[Mr MM]

In what way are they not reliable? The simply run the game in specific settings on actual notebooks. They post every last one of their results and offer a comparison to lots and lots of others.
What is a reliable source? Some forum members that claim any fps while not even posting the settings or the specific scenes they bench?
I don't see how you can do benchmarks any more standardized than notebookcheck. Sure you could do them in best case scenarios with a test rig with a powerful CPU that won't show in any notebook and perfect cooling which no notebook has and 800W power supply which no notebook has.

they aren't reliable.

1) drivers aren't standardised

2) they always favour nvidia for a very long time it has been that way and I don't like the mess that was enduro

3) the settings if you noticed are, 720p, 720p, and then 1080p all settings applied

4) There is no standardisation of mobile gpus, surely you have some over clocked cards in desktop, they are abysmally small in terms of clocks difference. In notebooks you have several different configurations of one core in the same brand family, example despair is the 555m

and you sure as hell can find notebooks that can stress 100% gpu and cpu at the same time and won't throttle because of thermal headroom and power supplied

 

[serenesam]

Call me crazy but I think NVIDIA looks better for both Macs and PCs.

 

[Mr MM]

Call me crazy but I think NVIDIA looks better for both Macs and PCs.

you crazy

satisfied?

 

[jav6454]

Call me crazy but I think NVIDIA looks better for both Macs and PCs.

And you would be. Looks really matter not when choosing a new GPU provider.

 

[Ice Dragon]

The 765M would be good as it's in the Razer Blade and Razer Blade Pro, anything else would be way too hot for even the 17" MBP. You could however see the top of the line card (780M) in the iMac and I hope it's with 4 GB of memory.

 

[Vanilla35]

If they put 750M with 2GB ram I will be happy to keep the machine for 4 years. If not, I'm looking forward to living a discrete-limited-laptop-lifestyle.