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

[ValSalva]

I've said it a million times that 'Pro' Users need disk space over almost any other factors, if apple don't offer that big disk at a mid package and discontinue the cMBP they are in for a shock. Anyone looking at specs is not gonna choose a Mac anymore. I don't want to use an external disk just to carry out work that my current laptop can do in spades, it makes no sense for a user to update.

But look at what they are doing to the Mac Pro and its internal storage. This is a transition phase from mechanical spinning HDD and solid state storage and Apple is at the cutting edge and are not looking back.

There will probably be a 1TB option for the new rMBP's but it will be expensive. The only plus to that is the 512GB SSD will be a little cheaper, maybe even mid-range.

 

[maxwelltech]

A 15" retina MBP without discrete graphics is not worth the current price tag.

 

[iPhysicist]

only because of SSD - CPU in air is crap.
Learn basics.

yeah...

You know '09 MBP was C2D and '11 Air was i5/7? I teach you basics... hehehe

 

[Star Brood]

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.

The AnandTech benchmark was pitting Iris Pro against the Retina MacBook Pro, the problem is that the Retina MacBook Pro is clocked even higher than 660M speeds (660M is just an overclocked 650M), and it uses GDDR5. The version of 650M that Intel was comparing Iris Pro against was using GDDR3 and a standard-clock 650M.

If Intel and Apple are collaborating on making the Iris Pro better in their new iteration of Retina MacBook Pro, then take that with a grain of salt. Its performance will probably land between the regular Iris Pro and a 660M with GDDR5. And I'm OK with giving a little muscle for a lot of battery life.

 

[smakdown61]

Other than the anandtech benchmarks, which were using the standard iris pro NOT optimized apple hardware or drivers, everything people claim here is just rumors.

If its really that big a deal, don't purchase until a little bit after its released so you can see full sets of benchmarks. Threatening not to buy it now without even knowing what its capable of sounds extremely childish.

Apple hasn't changed their philosophy on pricing for a long time. You NEVER will see the top specs in any of their stuff (laptops, phones, tablets, etc..). It's a balance between performance, reliability, manufacturing, profit, etc...don't expect that to change now.

 

[cube]

But look at what they are doing to the Mac Pro and its internal storage. This is a transition phase from mechanical spinning HDD and solid state storage and Apple is at the cutting edge and are not looking back.

There will probably be a 1TB option for the new rMBP's but it will be expensive. The only plus to that is the 512GB SSD will be a little cheaper, maybe even mid-range.

The Tube is the long-awaited Cube replacement. It is not an acceptable Mac Pro replacement.

1TB of storage is not enough for a laptop, and surely not affordable at Apple's prices.

I want a 7200RPM 1.5TB standalone hybrid drive NOW. I don't want to go back to a 5400RPM hard disk.

 

[hockeyfanatic]

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?


Interestingly, they did the same with the 650M. They actually overclocked it so it had the same performance as the 660M GTX. So ofcourse, they're not going to settle with just the Iris Pro.

absolutely! There's a lot of engineering benefit to not having to use dgpu.
As long as an integrated gpu meets the demands of the customer, that's the way to go. I see dgpu manufacturers expanding their business to other non mobile entertainment devices, to make up for loss.

With competition and from all sides and decrease of consumers who only need tablet devices, it's probably money well spent by Apple to gain the exclusively of the higher end Intel chips.

 

[ValSalva]

The Tube is the long-awaited Cube replacement. It is not an acceptable Mac Pro replacement.

1TB of storage is not enough for a laptop, and surely not affordable at Apple's prices.

I want a 7200RPM 1.5TB standalone hybrid drive NOW. I don't want to go back to a 5400RPM hard disk.

I couldn't agree with you more. I was very disappointed when the nMP was announced at WWDC. I'm not buying one and will keep my 2010 Hexacore MP for several more years.

But this is the direction Apple is going. I think in two to three years it will make sense but in this transition period it's very frustrating. I hate external drives, having to worry about losing them, having them become disconnected, power supplies, etc.

 

[Riemann Zeta]

There really is no way that Intel is actually going to beat or even match the GDDR5 version of the NVIDIA 650M with Haswell. As a vector coprocessor and basic desktop compositor, the Haswell iGPU may be enough, but when it comes to 3D rendering performance, image quality and 3D features (such as antialiasing), Intel is vastly outgunned. I'm glad I got the last non-retina MBP and the last Apple machine with a real GPU. And I rarely use my machine for more than a couple of hours without mains power, so there is little need to sacrifice a powerful GPU and CPU for ever more battery.

Perhaps if Intel slapped in around 48 of its graphics execution units (Ivy Bridge HD4000 had 16, Haswell HD5200 has 40) and clocked the iGPU at around 1500-1600MHz, it could beat current mid-level NVIDIA GPUs, but that would entail a completely custom solution just for Apple.

 

[Val-kyrie]

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.

In the case of first-generation portables, as well as the Mac Mini (and iMac?), Apple used 32 bit X86 CPUs. As I have illustrated, Apple has on several recent occasions taken a step back in performance whether out of necessity or to push a new direction for hardware that Apple has chosen.

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.

Yes. People who haven't used both will not notice or appreciate the performance difference.

Moreover, when Apple makes the upcoming Intel iGPUs incompatible with their OS in three years, people will begin to understand what Apple has sacrificed. Example: My 2008 BlackBook is stuck with either 10.6 or at the latest 10.7. It is incapable of running anything later than 10.7; however my father's 2007 MBP is able to run 10.8 and even the upcoming 10.9. The difference is the graphics chip--my MB has an iGPU and my father's MBP has a dGPU. People championing iGPUs should consider their need for hardware longevity before getting so excited.

Apple what are you doing? PRO without a dedicated GPU? No way i would pay over 2000$ for it.

I wouldnt' pay over $1500 for a MBP with an iGPU. If this rumor comes to fruition, demand for refurbs/used 2012 portables is going to skyrocket, as will their value. There is no real performance difference between Ivy Bridge and Haswell, only gain in battery life. Those who prefer or need dGPU performance will flock to whatever stock remains of the current crop of portables, and I predict that not only a few will find themselves in this predicament. As others have pointed out, Apple's version of the Iris Pro will have to achieve parity with the latest NV and ATI cards, not last year's NV 650M (which the current IP can't even match) or Apple's souped-up 660M equivalent (which uses faster GDDR5 instead of the stock GDDR3 found in the 650M). Time to start looking at the current models before this new line gets released.

Any possibility of 15" retina MBA in the next two years?

Yeah, it is coming in the next generation rMBP.


[Edit: Added Post Below]

I couldn't agree with you more. I was very disappointed when the nMP was announced at WWDC. I'm not buying one and will keep my 2010 Hexacore MP for several more years.

But this is the direction Apple is going. I think in two to three years it will make sense but in this transition period it's very frustrating. I hate external drives, having to worry about losing them, having them become disconnected, power supplies, etc.

Great point. Correlatively, once it is possible to use external GPUs, I think using iGPUs only in Apple's portables will make perfect sense; however, as has been demonstrated by other members in this thread, even TB 2.0 will not have enough bandwidth to make using external GPUs plausible without significantly reducing the performance of the external graphics card. While I can envision a day when this is possible, this is way too premature to attempt this now. Perhaps it will be possible when Intel introduces PCI-e 4.0 with Skylake in 2015.

 

[aiom]

This is a transition phase from mechanical spinning HDD and solid state storage and Apple is at the cutting edge and are not looking back.

Then they should also remove spinning cooling fans. If they removed a whole DVD-drive then they should have enough room to set up a passive cooling grid in place. Much power could be saved if one has not to drive a motor. This would have been more reasonable than to integrate a second battery just to power an exaggerated retina resolution...

 

[scottsjack]

Of course graphics performance all depends on the user. I've been using a late 2008 15 inch MBP 2.4 C2D for four years. The poor beast is pathetically outgunned by everything now. It Geekbenches about 3700 on OSX and about 4300 running Windows 8. Cinebench on OSX gets around a whopping 6 or 12.7 depending on which GPU has been selected.

Here's the deal. For my use the GeForce 9400m works just fine. I usually run it that way so I can maximize battery life. Sure, I can see the difference dragging a 100% image around on PS CS6. I think I can see a difference, maybe, watching HD TV via EyeTV.

The point is that a cMBP with even an i5 Haswell and HD5000 would be a tremendous boost in performance and battery life. Integrated Intel graphics would work just fine for me. An i7 with Iris Pro would be spectacular.

 

[KPOM]

A 15" retina MBP without discrete graphics is not worth the current price tag.

The current dGPU in the rMBP isn't a barnburner. If the customized IGP can perform as well or outperform it, why not? MacBook Pros have never had the fastest GPUs. Lots of people buy them because they like the larger screens. Heck, in 2009 they sold a model with an IGP.

 

[thekev]

In the case of first-generation portables, as well as the Mac Mini (and iMac?), Apple used 32 bit X86 CPUs. As I have illustrated, Apple has on several recent occasions taken a step back in performance whether out of necessity or to push a new direction for hardware that Apple has chosen.

First of all I never argued with that. Second the first generation portables were only slower due to Rosetta. Other than that they were still faster. Portables were stuck on G4 chips at the time of the transition, as was the Mini. That wasn't a difficult target to beat. The old ones came out ahead due to emulation, but again I never argued whether they took a slight step back or were willing to do so. I did say that it's ridiculous to apply that to their most expensive machines. Typically features that they are phasing out stay longer on higher end models. The whole argument is dumb though. If it's a performance dip, it's fully possible to wait until they're even. There's no real pressing need, especially as the 15" probably represents a small portion of their sales due to its price.

 

[mcarling]

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.

I disagree. Integration drives all the advances in integrated circuits. Integrating the CPU, GPU, and chipset all onto a single die will yield performance benefits that discreet chips will not be able to match -- once it becomes possible to put enough transistors on a single die.

Remember north bridge / south bridge chipsets? The north bridge part is already integrated with the CPU on the same die. Same with the GPU in most cases, soon to be all cases. Integration of the south bridge will probably come with either Slylake or Skymont (2015 or 2016). By that time, there will no longer be any such thing as a discreet GPU -- at least not for laptops.

 

[KPOM]

Yes. People who haven't used both will not notice or appreciate the performance difference.

Moreover, when Apple makes the upcoming Intel iGPUs incompatible with their OS in three years, people will begin to understand what Apple has sacrificed. Example: My 2008 BlackBook is stuck with either 10.6 or at the latest 10.7. It is incapable of running anything later than 10.7; however my father's 2007 MBP is able to run 10.8 and even the upcoming 10.9. The difference is the graphics chip--my MB has an iGPU and my father's MBP has a dGPU. People championing iGPUs should consider their need for hardware longevity before getting so excited.


[Edit: Added Post Below]
.

It has nothing to do with the IGP. A late 2008 MacBook Air has an IGP and can run 10.8 and the 10.9 preview. It has to do with the EFI. Plus, as Apple relies more heavily on Intel IGPs it will be more difficult to simply drop support for the IGP without also abandoning the CPU.

Anyway, recall that Apple barely used the original Westmere Core chips in its notebooks. They kept the Core 2 Duo in the Air and 13"Pro because the IGP was so bad. They were able to outsource the IGP in the Core 2 to NVidia. However as soon as Sandy Bridge came out they adopted the Core chips wholeheartedly. Apple's design philosophy is heavily in favor of IGPs to save space and power. They don't optimize their notebooks for gaming or graphics performance. They just expect a minimum level that creates an acceptable working environment. The 2010 MBP used a discrete GPU primarily because the Westmere/Nehalem chips were really bad. But with Haswell they are getting much better.

 

[Val-kyrie]

First of all I never argued with that. Second the first generation portables were only slower due to Rosetta. Other than that they were still faster. Portables were stuck on G4 chips at the time of the transition, as was the Mini. That wasn't a difficult target to beat. The old ones came out ahead due to emulation, but again I never argued whether they took a slight step back or were willing to do so. I did say that it's ridiculous to apply that to their most expensive machines. Typically features that they are phasing out stay longer on higher end models. The whole argument is dumb though. If it's a performance dip, it's fully possible to wait until they're even. There's no real pressing need, especially as the 15" probably represents a small portion of their sales due to its price.

I was thinking of the PPC-Intel transition less in terms of the increase in performance due to the architecture change and more in terms of the fact that it seemed (in light of Apple's later OS requirements and support) that Apple would have preferred to wait to transition to Intel until the Core 2s were available, rather than transition to the first generation Core CPUs. I should have been clearer.

I do understand (sort-of) your last point. My problem with the performance dip is not that those who understand technology can't wait for feature/performance parity, it is the fact that people get caught in the transition (sometimes despite the desire to wait), and the cost (especially in longevity) for those who purchase transitional hardware (often unknowingly) is too high, IMO. I might not feel as strongly if Apple better supported transitional hardware, but I have been caught in the transition (due to need to purchase new hardware) in the past and found their long-term support for transitional hardware lacking.

I would be interested to know Apple's sales by model. Many have mentioned (speculated?) that the cMBP 15" comprises most of Apple's portable sales (60-80%). It would be interesting to know if it were true, even though I don't think it would prevent Apple from eliminating the cMBP from the next revision. From experience, the people I know who have purchased Macs have chosen the 15" MBP because of the dGPU and the larger screen.


[Edit: Added Quote]

It has nothing to do with the IGP. A late 2008 MacBook Air has an IGP and can run 10.8 and the 10.9 preview. It has to do with the EFI. Plus, as Apple relies more heavily on Intel IGPs it will be more difficult to simply drop support for the IGP without also abandoning the CPU.

Anyway, recall that Apple barely used the original Westmere Core chips in its notebooks. They kept the Core 2 Duo in the Air and 13"Pro because the IGP was so bad. They were able to outsource the IGP in the Core 2 to NVidia. However as soon as Sandy Bridge came out they adopted the Core chips wholeheartedly. Apple's design philosophy is heavily in favor of IGPs to save space and power. They don't optimize their notebooks for gaming or graphics performance. They just expect a minimum level that creates an acceptable working environment. The 2010 MBP used a discrete GPU primarily because the Westmere/Nehalem chips were really bad. But with Haswell they are getting much better.

Thanks for the response. I am aware that Apple doesn't optimize their notebooks for graphics performance--something I wish would change--but despite the improvements in Haswell's iGPU, I still think this transition is a tad too early and people will get left behind in two OS iterations. On the other hand, I think Skylake or Skymont will provide the proper features to bring Apple's vision into full force. I look forward to that. For me, I have to decide how I want to get from IVB/Haswell to Skylake/Skymont because I need to purchase new hardware in the next 12 months but it has to last at least 3 years and probably closer to 4 or 5 years, especially if I have to pay full price.

 

[koppie644]

Then they should also remove spinning cooling fans. If they removed a whole DVD-drive then they should have enough room to set up a passive cooling grid in place. Much power could be saved if one has not to drive a motor. This would have been more reasonable than to integrate a second battery just to power an exaggerated retina resolution...

When people calculate the power consumption of a computer, has anyone counted the power of the fans? No. Because that power is negligible

The DVD space was saved to make it thinner

 

[Ifti]

Finally, some info on the new models!
My card is waiting for the max spec 15"

 

[bbapps]

Don't think nothing "special" is being supplied to Apple, thinking the article is just talking about the 4950HQ. Been looking around for any laptop announcement using Iris Pro graphics; only thing I can find is the "Clevo W740SU" and System76 Galago UltraPro" both using the 4750HQ.

I can see Intel ensuring Apple that they will have priority supply of the upper-end Iris Pro chips. But, some special enhanced Haswell Iris Pro, don't think so.

 

[DeepIn2U]

apple don't drop Dedicated GPU (Nvidia/ATI) .. that would be huge mistake.. Remember rMBP 13" sales.. not good right .. reason no GPU

not sure about that ... the rMBP 13" is the sweet spot for me in terms of physical size, power, portability, resolution and performance. I'm not into editing photos or video so I doubt I'll need the prowess of a dGPU but I do appreciate the video capabilities handled by it's own memory space!!

I'm on a late 2010 MBP now (non Hi-Res LCD) and I wonder if I should spend the extra $$ for the high-end rMBP 15"??

 

[GSPice]

If they phase out non-retina this latest edition will be the last MacBook I buy.

Good for you

 

[Jimmy James]

I'm confused:

Is this for MBP or Retina MBP? Would make no sense to need all this GPU power for the low-res standard screens.

Heaven forbid we should have great graphics performance in an Apple laptop.

 

[koppie644]

The external GPU sounds very interesting, but this guy claims that it's impossible to get anything high-end connected by Thunderbolt 1 or 2: http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/378/2912
I don't know what the real situation is. I've seen conflicting analysis on this. I hope that it will work just because I want to see a tiny little 11" MacBook Air running desktop-level graphics processing with this just for the heck of it.

Don't expect a thunderbolt-based HD7970 or even GTX Titan. But for a desktop-level card like HD7770, it should be fine

 

[GSPice]

.

& Please don't ask for source .. I read it & don't bookmark every thing .. i have other things to do in life..

+ i am a Graphic designer /animator /programmer / tech .. so if you spend 1500+ $ and didn't get powerful PC .. then whats the point .. i am not stupid to buy what ever apple release

Interesting