This would be funny if it wasn't so annoying. Guess I'm waiting for Skylake now as I'm not buying a 2012 rebranded GPU and a 2013 CPU for 2015 money.
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.
Intel Announces New Quad-Core Broadwell Processors Appropriate for 15-Inch MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Some wrong information here. The processors you mention are not as fast as the 84W parts in iMacs (88W in the Retina), but you are right that they are close. Very close considering TDP difference. And they could appear in Retina iMacs, which would as you state be great for heat, because yes, the RiMacs get hot. The H processors and R processors are also quite likely in iMacs. Actually, I see the R models more likely, even in the high end than the C processors, because they are the same, except not unlocked, and run at boost +100Mhz. Apple could of course also do custom overclocks out of the box, since they'd have a lot of thermal headroom to work with, essentially making super powerful chips, and with the iMacs in the high end probably coming with dedicated GPUs, they could do GPU switching, with extra high boost clocks for CPU when the GPU is switched to the dedicated, also freeing up the eDRAM to focus on CPU tasks.
I just made myself drool over the potential retina iMacs of the future... I wonder if I can sell my current maxed out retina for a good price to get a new upgraded one that generates less heat...
And Apple actually has greater and greater focus on GPU performance. They overclocked the 750m in the last high end MacBook Pro, and deliver quite powerful GPU options for iMacs. Whilst potentially being dangerous TDP wise, the R9 in the latest rMBP is also quite powerful, despite the architecture age. And let's not forget that the MacPro actually uses dual FirePro cards, which FCPX has been optimised greatly for. Spending as much time as it takes to optimise the pipeline for two GPUs isn't something they'll abandon now, and the design of the Mac Pro means that future updates with the same design will practically have to use two GPUs. The design also means that sourcing GPUs will be a little extra difficult though, due to the custom GPU design (card design, not die. Die is standard W series dies with custom memory, but card dimensions are different). Anyhow, I was saying that they'll have continued focus on GPUs, even if lower end products will phase out dGPUs, because the market segment they are aimed at needs dGPUs less and less. Besides, my 2014 rMBP's Iris Pro 5200 is actually really good, and runs at speeds similar to the last gen GT 650m.
What about the 13"? Why they keep calling it MacBook PRO but keep using only dual core processors?
TDP? come on! Apple can do better! If it's PRO it should have all the PRO features.
Just because I prefer the 13" it means I can't have all the power I need?
Are you saying TDP doesn't matter? That they might as well put a 130W processor in there? You do know they need to dissipate the heat generated by the components to not overheat/throttle, right? So yes, TDP. And no, Apple cannot defy the laws of physics. That said, what power is it you need that the dual core CPUs in the 13" can't deliver? The higher end models are extremely powerful, even though they are dual core parts. Most software only utilises a single thread, and single threaded power is incredible. Of course pro software can use multiple threads, but with hyper threading and the decently high clocks of the high end, I don't see what there is to complain about. For a thirteen inch laptop, holy cow perf is great! You need to go bigger to get more power. Laws of physics. But for the size, you can get amazing perf from the 13" rMBP. I suggest you look at benchmarks.
That's blatantly wrong. Haswell is the latest chip available, save for Broadwell, which isn't out yet (as article states), and the 13" is already on the released Broadwell chips. The GPUs are linked to the CPUs and are as old, with the exception of the high end 15" which has the latest mobile offering from AMD, which granted is a rebrand, and is a GCN 1.1 part, but it has optimisations specific to the 3xx series, making it more modern than the original GCN 1.1 GPUs, and more capable as well. With the data you posted it would seem that you're talking about the Mac Pro, which granted uses Ivy Bridge Xeon's, but let me remind you that that's only one processor generation behind, because Xeon's are updated slower than i-series CPUs. The GPUs are also not all from the same generation, so depending on what cards you pick, you get a different offering, but they were all the newest FirePro GPUs available at the time. FirePro = Pro cards, which again goes against your argument. Apple using the latest pro parts, Xeon and FirePro, at the time of product launch does''t seem like they've left the pro segment to me. But maybe I just don't see it? Also, there aren't a full line of replacement GPUs available yet. There's the W9100, but nothing to replace D500 and D300. AMD might Announce new FirePro cards soon, with their HBM high end Radeon around the corner, and when that happens, there's a chance Apple will also come out with a new MP, but until then, I doubt it. Let me say that in a different way to clarify a point. The CPU to update is there, but not the GPUs, which is more and more essential for professional work... I.e. they won't update the pro product, until they have pro parts.
That doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If there's demand for a chip on an older process Intel will continue production. Apple are still selling a laptop with a 3+ year old "Ivy Bridge" 3rd Gen Core i-series CPU in the form of the non-retina MacBook Pro.
Intel also carried on making the 486 for 18 (count 'em) years.
You said I was blantantly wrong, and then agreed with me. Haswell is a chip that has been around for 2 years, hence "2 years old". The GPU chip has been around for 3 years, whether or not they've slightly optimized it via software, hence "3 years old".
It is what it is. I've actually purchased a new 15" because I can't wait for Skylake. But I'm under no pretensions that Apple is using the "latest and greatest" or "highest-end" chips.
As with FCP7, Aperture and Shake, they've done the math and realized the leading edge performance-wise is not where they need to be. And judging by their market cap (and my purchase!), they're exactly right.
Last edited:
The MBP is already too thin. It should be thick enough for an ethernet jack, and, thick enough to improve the airflow for a higher-power GPU. The new Macbook and the Air already fulfill the super-lightweight category. The MBP is for portable power.
hopefully they do release it but it just depends on what apple chooses. if intel had released skylake than we may expect a new form factor in october but this may mean more delays
I think you have a good point. My guess earlier was the new Skylake MBPs wouldn't come around until 2Q16. But, now that they've clearly made the decision to skip Broadwell entirely on the 15" model, that makes me think they have Skylake plans for the Fall. Obviously Apple knew about the Intel announcement well in advance - they have an extremely close relationship with Intel. Yet, they still decided to skip the new processor. To me, that points to Skylake coming much sooner than we think. And Fall would be perfect for the Christmas buying season. Yep, that's now where my money lies.
I think Apple and Intel are both in on this plan to bump their revenue up in 4Q.
No way am I buying a new MBP 15" now. I'd just be mad in the Fall when they release the new and improved version.
What did you think was gonna happen?
They might update them in October if I was unlucky. Or else wait for Skylake.
They won't be offering upgrades. BTDT with the iPad 3.
I do but I assumed if I bought a Mac on day 1 of release I could be confident of it being latest and greatest for 6 months. If there's an update coming in October, that's 4 months away! Oh well, I'm still very satisfied with my laptop.
This is wrong and just upside down. Apple's 750M is clocked at 925Mhz with Turbo disabled. Default clock is 967Mhz and the Turbo adds 15% on top of that. Which means the default clock in action is around 1100Mhz. That is the complete opposite of overclocked but 20% underclocked.
There really is no greater focus on GPU performance. A 15W CPU + 840M/940M perform much better than the 28W chip in the 13" MBP if bother to compare notebooks that come in both options.
The latest AMD M370X is quite clearly not top of the line but just cheaper. Maxwell is the most efficient architecture at 28nm and Apple does not see the need for best efficiency.
Apple once found GPUs too bad but even an HD 4400 Intel is faster than the 320M form once upon a time. These days Apple seems to consider GPUs good enough and not focus on it anymore than necessary.
Please advise of the unit price of a M370X when purchased in quantities of a 1000. I'm unable to find it published.
Maxwell is more efficient in what tests comparted to the M370X?
I could not agree more. People just assume every CPU is the same. ARM is is great for low power devices but I can't imagine trying to do real work on an ARM CPU. Ack! Can you image trying to run multiple filters in Photoshop on ARM or multithreaded compiling!?! LOL!
Which is why they don't offer dGPUs in all the rMBPs -- you can already buy a 15" without one. But for the pros who actually need it -- like can't work without it -- they will absolutely continue to offer dGPUs in their rMBPs. Telling pros they can either work from a station or not work at all would kill their pro line of software and hardware in one fell swoop.
People who make these arguments keep forgetting Apple already offers the thin = sexy line of Macs with crippled performance for people who don't need all that power. What's the point of having a distinction between your consumer line and your pro line if they're both the same thing? Unless they're planning on killing the MacBook Pro altogether (hint: they're not), you will continue to see pro hardware options like a discreet GPU in the Pro line.
Not sure where you gathered your data about only hobbyists using FCP X. You sound like all those disgruntled FCP 7 editors who refused to learn a new tool 3-4 years ago even though it's better than the old tool in every way -- maybe not initially, but after several years of aggressive updating there's absolutely no question. Fortunately in that time a lot of those editors saw the light. If you think FCP X is just for hobbyists then you clearly don't know FCP X.
Because nobody can buy the CPU yet. Not even Apple, and they wanted to update Macbook Pro to AMD era now. They did it without any announcement campaign. We might hear the reason at WWDC very soon. Because next OS X could make Nvidia obsolete in Prosumer markets.. thanks to openCL 2.0 and 2.1.
OpenCL 2.0 is supported by Intel and AMD only. Nvidia is not interested..
Last edited:
Sigh... when you are poor you pay with your life's time. I can only buy one computer every 5 years or so, I have already been waiting a year
This is completely illogical. There are now already two overlapping product lines, the new Macbook, and the Air, that are thin and sexy. It makes no sense for the Macbook Pro to be thin at the expense of Pro. Oh BTW, I like the Macbook/Macbook Air true laptop form factor for what it is, especially with the new Core-M processors that can operate fanless at an average of like 5W. It is just completely illogical to make the Pro in that form factor-- there are already two product lines.
I guess this is one of those, "If I ran Apple, I would .... " issues. Well, if I ran Apple, I would call the marketing folks together and ban their use of the word "thin". Twiggy was naturally thin, but, most people would be anorexic at the same BMI. It doesn't make sense for every person to be that thin, and, it doesn't make sense for every product, either. Ban thin -- it is used up anyway, like magical.
Absolutely. You can do a lot with an integrated GPU, but, let's face it, an HD 4400 is like 5% of a higher-end desktop GPU like an R9 290X or GTX 980. Some discrete GPUs are much closer to a desktop GPU.
There is no unit price. OEMs negotiate the price. It follows though from watching the market and performance that Nvidia was most likely not willing to give much of a discount, while AMD surely was ready to make an attractive offer. I am guessing they pay half what they'd paid for the nvidia chip. Nvidia sells enough as it is they are quite comfortable and their name has the better reputation and their Maxwell chips get the better reviews. Apple is known to be a tough negotiatior and in Nvidia they probably faced someone who was not willing to back down, because they knew they got a product worth a lot. AMD gets hardly any design wins, they are rather desperate to sell something and power balance in negotiations was clearly in Apple's favour.
Just about every game out there. 3dmark fire strike, cinebench r15 opengl, also in compute it is on most tasks faster.
An 850M beats a M370X in all tasks and a 950/960M is even faster.
AMD reduced power consumption enough to beat Kepler now but there are no significant architecture changes that put it into the same ballpark as what nvidia did with Maxwell.
It could also be that Apple thought AMD was a better fit. At this point, we are talking 35-40W GPUs. The much faster Nvidia GPUs that often get compared are 50-70-100-120W. Not comparable at all.
Gamers are obsessed with Nvidia, so, I would like to see an Nvidia option and an AMD option. For a lot of non-game benchmarks, AMD has generally been competitive to better. (At least, until the Titan X ($1000) came along on the desktop.)**
What I would like to see is a redesigned, bigger (sometimes bigger is better) MBP chassis with a serious cooling system upgrade (pull much more heat out and be quieter, too-- but, that would take more room and bigger diameter fans) that could handle an AMD M6100 or an Nvidia GTX 980M. (Someone posted in another thread that a competitor in the windows space has done this for 2.5 Kg. I have no experience with it myself.) I think a lot of professionals would take the M6100, and, gamers would go for the 980M obviously.
**(This is a total aside, but, Nvidia needs to get over its dumb idea that people should pay extra for 64-bit FP. In the engineering/scientific world, 32-bit (only) FP went out with tricorn hats. 32-bits is often still used when there is a specific performance (esp. memory) requirement, but, typical numerical analysis defaults to 64-bits.)
With all due respect, you're not understanding the Apple Brand. There are two rules of Apple products...
Rule #1: You can never be too thin, or too sexy
Rule #2: See Rule #1.
Apple knows they're a brand you "aspire" to. It's designed to be a symbol of hipness, coolness, "thinking different". Every single Apple product MUST be an Object of Lust, right down to their routers and the remote for their set-top box. The computer must be something you want to just HOLD, something you want to just LOOK at. And even if the specs aren't quite amazing, or it seems kind of expensive, it is still The Thing That You Want.
Thin and sexy sells computers. "Discreet GPU performance on 3D texture shaders" does not.
It's the most logical thing in the world.
Maybe Apple should start marketing the MP and the MBP as "accessories" for iDevice software developers? Have them build a back room in each Apple store where you have give the secret sign to get in? I think it would be dumb to give up a multi-billion dollar business just because it is relatively small compared to the iDevice business.
What about the 13"? Why they keep calling it MacBook PRO but keep using only dual core processors?
TDP? come on! Apple can do better! If it's PRO it should have all the PRO features.
Just because I prefer the 13" it means I can't have all the power I need?
I use a 13" for professional work. It doesn't have to have four cores to be a professional machine. Honestly, the name is really irrelevant to the tasks it is able to perform.