Intel to Supply Apple with Special High-End Haswell Processors for MacBook Pro

[locoroco]

Outside of gaming is there any use for the discrete graphics chip? Personally I'd be happy to live without the discrete graphics. I'm more interested in calculations that result in static images.

3D and graphic design

 

[Val-kyrie]

Okay this sounds like Apple is definitely looking to drop the dGPU.

Well if they could match the 650M performance that should be pretty amazing but will they be able to?

Despite Apple's best efforts, I don't believe it is possible for Intel's iGFX to match a discrete chip because:

1) latency - until memory is more unified a la AMD's upcoming unified memory architecture (HSA), there will always be a performance hit when using integrated instead of discrete graphics
2) testing shows that the Iris Pro falls down against the NV 650M discrete graphics chip in several usage scenarios, and especially when shaders are involved. Synthetic benchmarks which show the Iris Pro neck-and-neck with the 650M are not as important to me as real world application use which shows the IP in a lesser light. Despite the claims of some members on this forum, Intel's Iris Pro does not have the same performance as the 650M.
3) Intel does not write good drivers, nor do they keep their drivers updated, for their integrated graphics chips. Does anyone really think this will change when they are introducing new iGPUs every generation?

Well, this pretty much clears up the question about whether or not there will be a dGPU in the Haswell rMBP.

This is my thought, too. Apple is moving to all integrated graphics for portables. Look at the trend:

1) The move from PPC to Intel's X86 CPUs marked the end of an all-discrete graphics lineup in Apple's portables (12" and 14" at the time) and Apple consequently removed from its boast the Apple.com website that PCs used integrated gfx while Macs used discrete gfx chips.
2) Steve Jobs held up the MBA and pronounced it to be the future of the Mac--behold, it only uses integrated graphics
3) Apple has been pushing Intel to increase its graphics performance for the last two or three generations
4) Apple's obsession with thin and light
5) Integrated gfx bolster the corporate desire for planned obsolescence for Apple hardware thus driving new hardware sales and feeding Apple's need for sustained revenue
6) Recent evidence of new Apple hardware logged on websites has only revealed the presence of integrated graphics on what is believed to be a revised rMBP.
7) Using only iGPUs from Intel will simplify motherboard design and eliminate the need for graphics switching. As stated by others:

Less overhead from maintaining two GPUs, less circuitry required on the motherboard, freeing up space for more battery, more battery life and so on.

8) I think this story is an intentional leak for Apple to feel out the tech community's sentiments before Apple makes such a dramatic change--allows more time to prepare PR spin and may possibly extend the life of the cMBP if there is too much negative press about the change; however, I think an extension is very unlikely.

The 13" rMBP is an amazing machine. It's suitable for all but the most hardcore gamers and graphics professionals. For most users, it's the perfect blend of performance and portability IMO.

Correct, and that is the problem. See my next comment.

For majority of folks, the iGPU is fast enough for them. They don't need the full power of the GPU as majority of folks don't do intensive graphic works.

If the iGPU is not fast enough, then you upgrade to the faster dGPU cMBP or 15" MBPs.

13" will never get dGPUs again and eventually 15" will go iGPU only as well.

Creative workers that need super fast GPUs uses workstation GPUs, those are the ones that cost more than rMBP itself and will be available in the Mac Pro or they can just grab it from the other companies that offer workstation GPUs.

What about professional users who also need portability? This is a bad decision by Apple and this decision will drive me to hackintoshes in the future. Haswell has enough battery life increase that it can easily be paired with dGPUs and still increase the battery life overall.

 

[vincenz]

Now it all makes sense as to why the rmpb's from best buy have been discounted so deeply lately...

 

[Hastings101]

goodbye dedicated graphics

 

[Ice Dragon]

I have posted my views on different topics, though my fear I guess is that if they drop the dGPU from the 15" rMBP then perhaps the 21.5" iMac and maybe even the 27" iMac will follow which would suck.

 

[thekev]

And no way I'm spending $2000 on Ivy Bridge with potential display problems and scrolling lag. So I'm holding out, even if I do have to work with a broken display.

Actually if you wanted Ivy I would suggest the older refurbs. You can get a mid 2012 rmbp for $1600.

Well, this pretty much clears up the question about whether or not there will be a dGPU in the Haswell rMBP.

I mean, if this new "Super Iris Pro" can at least match, or outperform, the 650M, then we are looking at a serious increase in battery life.

It cannot match the 650m. Do not spread FUD.

I would also have to think that eliminating having to switch between two GPUs will also be an advantage. Then again, the 650M is old tech, so this thing will really need to be equivalent to a modern dGPU to avoid pissing everyone off. Also, what happens to the extra space now that there is no dGPU? Bigger battery? More RAM?

This is definitely interesting. I just hope to hell that this isn't only for the 15", and that both the 13" and 15" will get a version of these processors.

The 650m isn't really old tech. The 750m would be a clock adjusted version based on the same chip. Titan was built from a GK110. These mobile cards are nothing like that in general. They're the same architecture and chips as last year, as gpus don't constantly switch architectures. The iris pro 5200 will still be slower than either. If you look at Apple's past actions, they don't always wait for it to be 1:1. It's usually if something is good enough, they can eat a bad generation as most people do not upgrade annually.

Worth selling my current rmbp 2.6ghz model and upgrading?

It's not much of an upgrade. You pick up battery life. In some cases gpu performance will be a drop, although drivers might be better tuned after an entire generation of testing.

Problem is, I haven't seen any of the mobile GPU's from Nvidia or AMD supporting 4K, but Intel does. That's a big deal, and doubles down on TB2, so Apple does in fact get the pro's.

It may be a driver issue. TB2 is not what supports it. TB2 adopted displayport 1.2 support. The standard has been there since the end of 2009.

 

[Val-kyrie]

... The 650m isn't really old tech. The 750m would be a clock adjusted version based on the same chip. Titan was built from a GK110. These mobile cards are nothing like that in general. They're the same architecture and chips as last year, as gpus don't constantly switch architectures. The iris pro 5200 will still be slower than either. If you look at Apple's past actions, they don't always wait for it to be 1:1. It's usually if something is good enough, they can eat a bad generation as most people do not upgrade annually....

Yep, this was the case when Apple shifted from PPC to 32-bit Intel X86 CPUs when only a generation later 64 bit CPUs were introduced and when Apple could no longer use the NV 9400M GPU [edit: and had to step back to Intel iGPUs] and that is what this next generation will be-- just "good enough"--a step backwards but close enough that the average consumer won't notice. So much for Apple "excellence." It is not a good time to be someone who needs to upgrade hardware.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

So don't buy a Retina MBP until DDR4 for the integrated graphics is what I'm hearing, then.

 

[bretm]

Adobe has gone all in for OpenCL, including full membership to the OpenCL group. That doesn't mean much right away, probably just Premiere and AfterEffects first, then Photoshop, but OpenCL is the future. AMD, Nvidia and Intel all support OpenCL.

After Effects doesn't utilize OpenCL and Premiere is more capable with Cuda if you have it.

 

[Evil Spoonman]

Alright, lets clear this up.
- We do not know what Intel has waiting in the wings (if anything).
- You do not know how powerful it is, or otherwise.
- One rumor from a website does not a fact make, it is merely plausible.

Now, how fast could this thing be? Well, it could be very fast. All this chatter about the dGPU making it a pro machine is purely comical. The 650M is not a "pro" graphics chip either, as shipped in the rMBP it is a decent chip from last generation. Which makes it at best a midrange chip today. It isn't that fast, it isn't magical, and it certainly isn't pro hardware. In fact, lets just get out with it and say that because us Mac users have been so long deprived of decent graphics hardware, we loved it because it was at least decent.

Worth noting that usually "Pro" graphics hardware (Quadro, FirePro, etc...) is in fact slower and worse for gaming than higher end consumer stuff. So what most of you want isn't "Pro" at all, Apple just uses that moniker because it sounds good.

About the capabilities of integrated graphics. In the past IGP chips have been awful, we can all agree on that. However, today is not then, and what we have today is pretty decent. Iris Pro comes in roughly at the performance level of a midrange mobile GPU from AMD or Nvidia. With Broadwell, Intel may ship something that is faster than a midrange GPU. With Skymont, only the very highest end dGPUs may be competitive. Then look at AMD, they're embedding Radeon cores into their APUs. Memory bandwidth is definitely a question, but look at the PS4. They just put a ton of GDDR5 right next to the SoC. Nothing is stopping you from adding GDDR5 on the PC to support an IGP. Also consider: if you stuck a ton of Radeon GCN cores on an AMD APU and it was as fast as an 8870M, it would still be integrated. Does that mean it would suck?

Basically all you chaps trying to say that IGPs are bad and will always be bad have literally no idea what you're talking about. In fact, IGPs are probably the way of the future as we continue to pursue more integrated systems.

...and there it is. The death of the Pro in MacBook Pro. So Apple can continue their irrational obsession with stripping functionality to make thinner and thinner.

R.I.P.

Funny. See above.

Not likely. The current 13 inch rBMP doesn't get the same i7 as the 15 inch rMBP (dual core vs. quad core).

Personally I would never buy the 13 inch rMBP in its current form. It doesn't have a Pro processor or Pro graphics capabilities.

----------



And this is exactly why I tell people to not buy the 13 inch rMBP. It's sad that integrated Intel graphics are considered Pro.

Pro? What?

It'a mistake to drop the dGPU. Iris Pro, special version or not, will never be as good... And Intel will never catch up with Nvidia. They have really nice Logan cards coming next. People who want real graphics performance, including decent gaming, will be left behind if they buy MacBook Pro's.

You don't know that. What if it has 80EUs with 2GB GDDR5 sitting next to it? The power budget is probably there in the 15". That would be dramatically faster than the 650M. Also what's this about Nvidia's Logan? That is an (INTEGRATED) SoC meant for mobile, it will be part of Tegra 5.

No, the Iris Pro is far behind the GT 650. For example, go read Anandtech. I remember you from the forums, where this was already presented to you. I guess you are the ignorant one, buddy.

You are right. Iris Pro as it stands is slower than a stock GT 650M by about 15%, and slower than the somewhat boosted rMBP implementation by probably 20%. That is significant. However, we don't know what Intel might be giving Apple. It could make up the difference and more. Or it could not.

**** that. I could justify paying more for quality in the details, but a >$2000 computer without dedicated graphics is just obscene.

You're killin' me buddy.

This is bad news actually. For the 15" flagship retina, we need a real GPU, and this looks like we're not going to get one.

It means that someone at Apple is so concerned with battery life that they are willing to completely sacrifice graphics performance. Yes, Iris is better than the old HD was, but that's like saying a Honda Accord is better than a VW beetle. Neither are a Ferrari.

What is a "real GPU"?

Will be interesting to see how Apple will spin this, if they present these new MacBook Pros at an event. They'll likely handpick a few artificial benchmarks where their Iris Pro barely matches a GT 650 DDR3 version. Then claim that integrated graphics is as good as dedicated. It's going to be a blatant lie, since there's so much more to the picture. I can already see Phil Schiller doing it, with his smile...

Maybe they won't have to?

I wish. It's almost sad for me to say this but I'm just looking for a typical incremental update here. I don't curerntly own a MBP, but I'd like to see haswell and typical bump in dGPU. Integrated, 'almost similar level of performance or not' is just a shot to the gut. No matter how smartly others try to persuade you, an iGPU is never going to be the same as a dGPU. Plain and simple. Iris won't ever beat 660M in real life performance. Unless somehow, "as much GPU power as possible" means it's well over 40% faster than the chip should be capable of.

Edit: Yes I'm a gamer. No, I don't game religiously. I would be satisfied with a current gen laptop dGPU

If you're a gamer, you shouldn't be satisfied with a 650M either. I play a few games, and I find it pretty much rock bottom as far as performance I'm willing to accept. If you're satisfied with the 650M, your standards are quite low.

If Apple drops Dedicated Graphics (with its own dedicated RAM) they should also drop the word 'Pro' from the name and call it Macbook Casual Consumer

Yes, because the components in the current Retina MacBook Pro (which I am typing on right now, by the way) are so totally "Pro" components. Right? Oh no, that's right. None of them are. It contains no Xeons, no ECC RAM, and no Quadro GPU. My bad.

 

[TMay]

Actually if you wanted Ivy I would suggest the older refurbs. You can get a mid 2012 rmbp for $1600.



It cannot match the 650m. Do not spread FUD.




The 650m isn't really old tech. The 750m would be a clock adjusted version based on the same chip. Titan was built from a GK110. These mobile cards are nothing like that in general. They're the same architecture and chips as last year, as gpus don't constantly switch architectures. The iris pro 5200 will still be slower than either. If you look at Apple's past actions, they don't always wait for it to be 1:1. It's usually if something is good enough, they can eat a bad generation as most people do not upgrade annually.



It's not much of an upgrade. You pick up battery life. In some cases gpu performance will be a drop, although drivers might be better tuned after an entire generation of testing.



It may be a driver issue. TB2 is not what supports it. TB2 adopted displayport 1.2 support. The standard has been there since the end of 2009.

Understood. I meant that Apple would want to tie Displayport 1.2 to TB2 (for marketing reasons to advance TB2).

 

[Mackan]

You don't know that. What if it has 80EUs with 2GB GDDR5 sitting next to it? The power budget is probably there in the 15". That would be dramatically faster than the 650M. Also what's this about Nvidia's Logan? That is an (INTEGRATED) SoC meant for mobile, it will be part of Tegra 5. You were saying?

You are right about the Logan. I made a mistake there, I read an article which left out all such details.

About the 'enhanced' Iris Pro for Apple. I do hope we get surprised, but it's likely just a standard Iris Pro with some boosted clocks to further increase performance 10% or something.

 

[Evil Spoonman]

You are right about the Logan. I made a mistake there, I read an article which left out all such details.

About the 'enhanced' Iris Pro for Apple. I do hope we get surprised, but it's likely just a standard Iris Pro with some boosted clocks to further increase performance 10% or something.

I agree with you. I don't think we're going to see some super special chip with a ton of extra EUs. However, Apple has been pushing GPU performance pretty hard recently. Maybe we'll see something cool? Maybe it won't even be an Intel solution after all.

Edit: Also let me go edit out some of the nastier parts of my post. Worked up a bit about the absurd commentary from people.

 

[yinz]

No, this is all part of the plan to push high end graphics users to the new Mac Pro.

Read this... and thought this:

I wonder if the form factor will begin to change to a wedged shape with the discrete card removed....

 

[Menneisyys2]

And then apple will supply us with macbook pros

I wish there were a 4k 17". Won't likely to happen, i know... Have to stick with my earlier 17".

 

[YahonMaizosz]

The Iris Pro 5200 should be compared with current offerings from Nvidia and AMD in order to see how it fares now in 2013.. Not last year's product (650m and HD 4000).. Otherwise this is pointless .

 

[thekev]

Understood. I meant that Apple would want to tie Displayport 1.2 to TB2 (for marketing reasons to advance TB2).

Ah that makes more sense.

Yep, this was the case when Apple shifted from PPC to 32-bit Intel X86 CPUs when only a generation later 64 bit CPUs were introduced and when Apple could no longer use the NV 9400M GPU [edit: and had to step back to Intel iGPUs] and that is what this next generation will be-- just "good enough"--a step backwards but close enough that the average consumer won't notice. So much for Apple "excellence." It is not a good time to be someone who needs to upgrade hardware.

I find it a little ridiculous that the mentality is applied to their most expensive hardware, but it is what it is. I'm not sure what percentage of people buy the 15" for its size (as the 13" is small) as opposed to its specs or a combination of the two. In the case of intel Apple those used in the mac pro 1,1 were x86-x64 cpus. They just didn't have a 64 bit efi for that generation of machines. Comparable hardware can run Windows 7 64 bit.

Adobe has gone all in for OpenCL, including full membership to the OpenCL group. That doesn't mean much right away, probably just Premiere and AfterEffects first, then Photoshop, but OpenCL is the future. AMD, Nvidia and Intel all support OpenCL.

What you miss is where these features originate. If Adobe didn't write the low level code, it's unlikely that you'll see it appear on intel or AMD hardware.

 

[buttonpresser]

my money is on apple using the extra oomph of the integrated GPU to handle most of the workload and reserving the dedicated GPU for more intensive jobs. it fits more nicely with apple's latest ~*battery life*~ binge.

I doubt that the goons over in cupertino would be shortsighted enough to shoot themselves in the silicon foot just to shave off 2mm of thickness. it makes much more sense to split the graphics workload between two "GPUs" in order to extend battery life.

isn't that one of the main selling points of Mavericks anyway?

edit: at least, that's what I'm telling myself. i've been waiting for this !@#$!@# laptop for too long to not get a dedicated gpu with my 85 million dollar slab of aluminum

 

[Menneisyys2]

...and there it is. The death of the Pro in MacBook Pro. So Apple can continue their irrational obsession with stripping functionality to make thinner and thinner.

R.I.P.

Agreed. Same happened to the 17" MBP - my fav. line of MBP'S.

 

[benjones]

What most of you anti-dGPU n00bs fail to realise is that a machine with Iris Pro is likely to have a shorter battery life compared to a machine with 4600+750M when doing usual 'on battery' tasks like web browsing etc. You generally don't do massive number crunching when on battery.

Dropping the dGPU this generation is a mistake. Plain and simple.

 

[Sigspd]

Waiting

I am looking forward to the upgrade. I have been wanting a slightly bigger screen at same weight as my 13". I am looking forward to the 15" retina. I believe it will weigh about the same as my 13".

I am looking weighting impatiently

 

[TEAMSWITCHER]

I've been thinking about this all evening.

This topic has weighed heavily on my thoughts all evening. I reread Anandtech's review on the Intel Iris Pro 5200 Graphics just to make sure I didn't miss something. I'm trying to find some glimmer of hope for the next incarnation of my favorite laptop.

I can already see all the iHaters filling comment threads with trash talk about Apple's "Professional" laptops. Could Apple really be this naive? Would they really try to sell a $2100 "professional" laptop with Intel graphics?

I have to believe that somewhere, somehow, this issue has already been mitigated. Maybe, Apple went back to Intel and got an Iris Pro 6000 chip with additional shaders - something that no-one (outside of Intel and Apple) has laid eyes on yet?

Are there big price drops in store? Could Apple drop the price of the MacBook Air another Benjamin Franklin to make room for MacBook Pro's under two grand?

Will the battery-life be amazing? Will there be a new liquid-metal unibody chassis that looks stunning? Multiple PCI-E Solid State Drives in a RAID configuration?

I'm not sure if anything will make up for the use of Intel graphics. And I highly doubt that Tim Cook can generate a Reality Distortion Field large enough to cloak the problem.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Dedicated GPU vs. Integrated GPU.

For my uses, the biggest difference is Dedicated RAM vs. Shared RAM.

It's not the computational power, it's that if I get 8GB of RAM for the CPU, I don't want the GPU siphoning some of that away in applications that are both CPU and GPU intensively and that use all the RAM they can get, like 3D CAD software.

I like the compartmentalized way of a Dedicated GPU with it's Dedicated RAM; one doesn't intrude the other.

 

[falconeight]

I would be seriously upset if I owned a 2013 MBA. Unless I rode a train 12 hours a day and had the muscles of a 1 year old its old news compared to the upcoming rMBP.

 

[Toltepeceno]

No, this is all part of the plan to push high end graphics users to the new Mac Pro.

This is good for integrated graphics and would suit me, but high end graphics users? Nope.

----------

However, no gamers are going to get any Macs for gaming including cMBPs, that's just a sad fact. You can get the PC laptops 1/4th of the cost with more powerful GPUs.

The sager np8290 17" starts at 1399. and without upgrading comes with an NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 770M 3,072MB PCI-Express GDDR5 DX11, you can upgrade to GTX 780M 4,096MB. THAT's gamer equipment.

I'm not saying the macbook pro's would not be fine for people like me, but I'm not a gamer.