No it is not.Next Iris Gpu must be compared to 650m successor,
Not really. From a marketing perspective, the only thing that matters is the increase (or decrease) over the current generation. Benchmarks versus other products not in Apple laptops are cute and all, but the majority of buyers won't be making that comparison. It's also the case that Apple has often chosen to gimp their laptop graphics cards, rather than putting in the highest-end (and also most power and battery intensive) options. I see no reason why the next model would be any exception to this pattern.
Look guys, I want a dGPU too because I actually use the computer pretty intensively. However, there is so much crap going around that it's making me grumpy. I don't usually argue on the internet, but apparently I'm making an exception for this...
I thought your entire set of arguments were very well thought-out and coherent on this. That's a rare exception among MacRumors posters, so thank you. Gaming is the clear exception for Iris Pro, but for the "pro" segment (and here I'm using it to mean activities that are income-generating), it certainly looks like it will be up to snuff for the vast majority of tasks.
----------
Stated another way, each has its advantages and disadvantages, but you greatly overstate the future demand for the current MBP. Most buyers aren't going to notice the difference anyway, but will be happier with more hours under battery power.
+1 to this. I agree completely on all fronts. The alarmists that tend to comment a lot here are a small fraction of the overall market, and even many of them will, I suspect, end up buying Haswells because they are "new", battery life, or any other number of justifications.
----------
On a second note, for Intel's IP to satisfy me (and some others), it would have to achieve a level of performance of current dGPUs like NV'S 7XXM line, not last year's dGPUs [edit: NV's 650M], which is what people have been using to compare the performance of [edit: Intel's Iris Pro]. The problem with gloating over Intel's IP is that in order to achieve a true picture of IP's performance, IP's performance needs to be compared to the latest dGPUs.
Lastly, if the choice is between older hardware and newer hardware with iGPUs which perform more poorly than last year's hardware, it is an easy decision to purchase last year's hardware.
I hope this clarifies my position because I don't see any contradiction in these thoughts.
It clarifies your position somewhat, but I still contend you're using a false dichotomy. When people choose to buy a computer, their choice set is only the ones that they have available--not theoretical "gee wouldn't it be nice if..." configurations. So the choice set includes:
1) The previous rMBP
2) The current rMBP, which will offer compute performance generally equal to or greater than the previous rMBP, and a significant regression among gamers
3) A PC laptop, which obviously can be found with a best-in-class dGPU
For starters, the comparison most buyers make is not usually between the Mac and the PC. And when it is, the driving factors are often not power or specs. (And, even if those WERE the drivers, any dGPU that Apple could put in would still lose out to a PC that's designed to give up battery life for sheer horsepower.) That isn't to say that some buyers might not be swayed, but we really are not talking about a large number here at all.
That leaves us with the old Mac vs new Mac people. Sure, some gamers will prefer the previous model. But the preponderance of the most hardcore of gamers aren't on Macs to begin with--let alone Mac laptops. The "pro" audience (again defined by me as use cases designed to be income-generating) will easily choose the new configuration, for reasons already stated.
As such, I see no way you're going to get a groundswell of demand for the old model. Some people will bitch and moan, but that always happens. The impact on demand tends to be overstated.
