Intel's Mobile Processor Roadmap May Force Graphics Changes for Apple's 15-Inch MacBook Pro in 2017

[cicalinarrot]

It feels like the years prior to the PPC to x86 transition where the PPC was stagnant. If they do ever decide to move off of x86 it's times like this that makes it seem to be the right move.

Ok but... what's next? Back to PPC? I've still got some After Effects 5 CD somewhere...

 

[jasperc]

Cue the "ARM CPU Macs are in the future!" posts.

 

[DevNull0]

So what's hilarious is that you basically just described my exact situation. Recently built a gaming rig, still using my 2011 MBP. For me I have a ton of games that are lock-stepped to Windows anyhow, so a gaming Mac isn't really on my radar, and I just upgraded the HDD in my MacBook to an SSD, which makes it feel like a whole new machine again.

The processor is still going strong, and with the upgrades to RAM and storage I've made I don't have any complaints aside from the graphics. But I really only need the oomph on my PC.

Apparently at some point somebody made an external PCIe enclosure for Thunderbolt 1, which should work with those 2011 MBPs... it's probably not worth it if it ever worked, but it piqued my interest.

And I checked, the RX 480m is available in a configuration that eats 35 watts. That's probably the one he's thinking of. Which is still way more than 100 watts when added to the 90, but maybe the other poster meant if you started with the 60 watt PSU and added the RX 480m you'd come up around 90? It's all wishful thinking anyhow, since such a machine doesn't exist.

I actually upgraded mine to 16 gig of ram and a 120 gig SSD a week after I bought it. Since then I've replaced the SSD with 256 and now 512 gig. And I have a 1TB HDD in the optibay. It's a nice machine, I think it just needs an OS reinstall since I'm starting to get a lot of freezes and beachballs.

I think the OP was just making up impossible requests and trying to confuse the fact that Apples don't have dGPUs. Personally I'd pay the extra 30W for a 1060 over anything from AMD though.
[doublepost=1474586132][/doublepost]

85W requirement is for the Apple Macbook Pro PSU. And RX 480M is 35W GPU, that is able to fit in that thermal envelope.

What about the rest of the Apple Macbook Pro? 85+35 = 120 and there are plenty of laptops with a dGPU at 120W.

 

[koyoot]

What about the rest of the Apple Macbook Pro? 85+35 = 120 and there are plenty of laptops with a dGPU at 120W.

There is no need for 120W PSU, because M370X is 35W GPU also, and it fits perfectly in 85W thermal envelope that Apple desires for their pro lineup, alongside thirsty display, CPU, RAM, Batteries, SSD, motherboard, everything.

 

[DevNull0]

There is no need for 120W PSU, because M370X is 35W GPU also, and it fits perfectly in 85W thermal envelope that Apple desires for their pro lineup, alongside thirsty display, CPU, RAM, Batteries, SSD, motherboard, everything.

If the MBP needs 85 watts, you cannot throw in a 35 watt GPU and expect it to still run in 85 watts. And how is that different from saying the 60 watt GPU also fits inside 85 watts?

Also, why are you even talking about power in that way? My desktop has an 1100W PSU and normally draws under 100W and never above 500. My MBP typically draws 15W. I don't think you actually understand these PSU ratings.

 

[weup togo]

no, it's not.

I'm not talking about app programming shops, or the graphic design places, where OSx is still leader.

I'm talkign about Banks, Corporations, conglomerates. Financial institutions, and just about the very foundation that modern digital era runs on.

it runs on windows and it runs on n*x. its almost entirely x86 and PowerPC.

Apple has done a fantastic job at convincing everyone through media sponsorship, product placement and student value that Apple is prolific everywhere, but it is not.

https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

and this is only for desktops.

this doesn't include servers which are 99% x86/PowerPC, since there are no modern Apple servers or server OS.

The 90s called. They want their stats back.

 

[Gudi]

Whatever it is, I'm sure Apple and Intel are figuring it out (or figured it out). We see this as a problem now, but it was probably figured out several months ago.

Several months ago this happened:

Intel Fires A Massive 12,000 Workers, 11% Of Its Entire Workforce, As It Misses Q1 Sales, Guides Lower

Apr 19, 2016 · Intel figured it out. Whatever it was?

 

[wheelhot]

With all this talk about Apple moving away from Intel to their own chips is interesting as on one end, it makes sense why Apple would make such a move cause back in PPC days, people can't really make a direct comparisons to PCs cause it's a different architecture and bla bla. So going to a different architecture will bring this back and make it harder for people to do spec and price comparisons HOWEVER as far as we know it, Apple A series chip is around i3 performance or so? It's unlikely it'll be able to match or even beat Intel i5 or i7 chips at the moment and lets face it, Apple moving to x86 boosted Mac sales mainly due to the ability to install Windows, hence Apple managed to extend their market to programmers and students who play games (they're better machines for this but some students prefer OSX over Windows for everything else except gaming). So if Apple is unable to replicate this (ability to install Windows) and transitions to A series chip, then expect Mac sales to plummet

 

[CarlJ]

It's a forum, people express their opinions. Complaints and praise are both valid opinions to hold and express. Sometimes it's ok to just say what you think to vent a little, without expecting Tim Cook to be reading and have an epiphany.

Yes, it's a forum, but the excessive bile spilled over on to EVERY unrelated article's comments by those unhappy with the state of Mac updates has been pretty egregious. Their behavior has been exceptionally bad, and I'm not inclined to cut them much slack at this point. The incessant whining has made this forum barely worth visiting at times lately.

 

[wheelhot]

I disagree, just look at the MS SB, which offers a dGPU in the 13" form factor, I think it something that people want. A MBP needs to have very good graphic performance and if their isn't an iGPU that can do it, then the next logical solution is to include a dGPU

Well if Apple wants to get into the AR or VR crowd, they definitely need to go back to dGPU

 

[CarlJ]

I think Apple would help the Pro aspect of the MacBook Pros by putting heavier emphasis on discrete graphics. A number of scientists I know would love to see Apple put Nvidia GPUs in the MBPs, because this would make it possible to use a lot of Cuda-based, GPU-enabled scientific software (using the GPUs more for computation that graphics, though it'd also benefit a lot of gamers, I'm sure).

 

[DevNull0]

I think Apple would help the Pro aspect of the MacBook Pros by putting heavier emphasis on discrete graphics. A number of scientists I know would love to see Apple put Nvidia GPUs in the MBPs, because this would make it possible to use a lot of Cuda-based, GPU-enabled scientific software (using the GPUs more for computation that graphics, though it'd also benefit a lot of gamers, I'm sure).

I agree, but to Timmy "Pro" is just marketing-speak for "more expensive, higher margin"

 

[JackGriffith]

Here comes a thread filled with complaints over the lack of a new MBP and other new Macs. Because if we've learned one thing over the years, it's that complaining on MacRumors is how we get Apple to change things.

Who is complaining? I just simply bought two brand new 15 inch 2016 Macbook pros. Like i said before. Stop whining and buy the sh%t now while it still available. Same with the phone.. If you like your headphone jack, Buy the 6s plus. What is so difficult? . Here's to yesterday

 

[jgrove44]

Who is complaining? I just simply bought two brand new 15 inch 2016 Macbook pros. Like i said before. Stop whining and buy the sh%t now while it still available. Same with the phone.. If you like your headphone jack, Buy the 6s plus. What is so difficult? . Here's to yesterday

And how do those 15 in macbook pros compare in performance to another laptop of similar price?? or even half the price??
new iPhones have amazing performance for a phone. Why cant Macbook pro have amazing performance too?

 

[JackGriffith]

And how do those 15 in macbook pros compare in performance to another laptop of similar price?? or even half the price??
new iPhones have amazing performance for a phone. Why cant Macbook pro have amazing performance too?

Reading this article leads me believe that this is your last chance to buy the Macbook pro we all know and love before they go away. Uncertainty and fear is your best advertisement. Get em while their hot

 

[ssgbryan]

I remember when they moved from
Power PC to Intel and it was quite seamless, and in fact they completed ahead of schedule! I think Apple has everything in place to do another move and i bet it would be even smoother.

I remember Budapest very, very differently than you.
I remember it taking almost 6 years before my software could actually fully take advantage of my 1st Generation Mac Prol
[doublepost=1474595283][/doublepost]

Sure, 90% is already in the public domain: Steve saying Apple needs to own the silicon; Apple not updating Intel chips that other vendors have already adopted; all the innovation and development being based on ARM; all the software being focusd on ARM (iWork, Photos, etc); ARM devices being the golden geese for Apple; Apple running a build of macOS on ARM; Apple ramping up ARM designs to come close to Intel speed; Intel switching fabrication capacity over to ARM; Tim saying ARM devices are the only computers most people will ever need; the shift to Swift and the Swift Playground on iOS; the deprecation of support pages for the current MacPro; etc; etc; etc.

It isn't a question of if. Just when.

All the effort for ARM, and all the neglect of Intel-based products, isn't an accident.

Why should Apple continue to spend a fortune on Intel when the world is moving into another era built around ARM? Apple has put up a ton of signposts.

Because folks won't buy computers that don't have any software (Kinda like how it was back in the PPC days)?

 

[Abazigal]

I think Apple would help the Pro aspect of the MacBook Pros by putting heavier emphasis on discrete graphics. A number of scientists I know would love to see Apple put Nvidia GPUs in the MBPs, because this would make it possible to use a lot of Cuda-based, GPU-enabled scientific software (using the GPUs more for computation that graphics, though it'd also benefit a lot of gamers, I'm sure).

My understanding is that Apple doesn't hate discrete graphics per se. They simply don't like the drawbacks that come with discrete graphics cards, namely faster battery drain, more fan noise and higher heat output. That's why the iMac has a laptop graphics card - because it only has one fan and a constrained surface area which obviates the use of desktop graphics cards.

 

[Peepo]

I remember Budapest very, very differently than you.
I remember it taking almost 6 years before my software could actually fully take advantage of my 1st Generation Mac Prol

Curious what software took that long.

 

[malatmals]

Why don't they use an external video card option like Razer? via.

 

[melendezest]

If they put in their own chip, that will make all software for the mac unusable. Everything is intel optimized / compiled natively to run. While I'm sure they could change most of the OS, third party apps would have to all be recompiled and resubmitted. The Mac App Store doesn't package executables like iOS does (iOS apps can actually be recompiled without the source by apple). And don't forget all virtualization dies, Parralels, Fusion, even Boot Camp unless windows is rewritten to work on custom chips.

So, no... no custom chips until you start seeing Apple vastly change the way you submit apps to the App Store and start earning customers that no software outside the App Store will run. Possible, yeah, but the benefits don't really even come close to outweighing the cost.

One word solves all those issues:

COURAGE

/s

 

[aloshka]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't OpenGL and even Metal the culprits? I mean, take *most* games, they will always run faster in DirectX than they will ever run on a Mac, even with the same graphics card. I don't remember the site, but someone did benchmarks with metal vs direct x and the results were staggering. I mean we are talking like 60% slower. And honestly, in most games (that I play anyway), I'd say that sounds about right. Take even HoTS, in boot camp I can get framerates of about 60fps on my rMBP. On the mac side, (same settings) I get about 10-15fps. WoW now supports Metal, the discrepancy is a little better, but not by much. Same settings, Windows 90fps, Mac 45fps.

So I think an amazing crazy awesome video card won't do much... or what else would you need a powerful gfx card for?

 

[Michael Scrip]

So I think an amazing crazy awesome video card won't do much... or what else would you need a powerful gfx card for?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't OpenGL and even Metal the culprits? I mean, take *most* games, they will always run faster in DirectX than they will ever run on a Mac, even with the same graphics card. I don't remember the site, but someone did benchmarks with metal vs direct x and the results were staggering. I mean we are talking like 60% slower. And honestly, in most games (that I play anyway), I'd say that sounds about right. Take even HoTS, in boot camp I can get framerates of about 60fps on my rMBP. On the mac side, (same settings) I get about 10-15fps. WoW now supports Metal, the discrepancy is a little better, but not by much. Same settings, Windows 90fps, Mac 45fps.

Games?

People don't buy a $2,500 Macbook Pro with discrete GPU to play games.

And a powerful GPU does more than play games anyway.

Don't forget about professional apps that can take advantage of GPU processing.

CUDA? OpenCL? That's why people want a powerful GPU in a "pro" laptop.

 

[aloshka]

Games?

People don't buy a $2,500 Macbook Pro with discrete GPU to play games.

And a powerful GPU does more than play games anyway.

Don't forget about professional apps that can take advantage of GPU processing.

CUDA? OpenCL? That's why people want a powerful GPU in a "pro" laptop.

You're telling me that absolutely every single person that buys a macbook pro is a "pro" that takes advantage of CUDA, OpenCL, etc and do not play games? So the thousands you see in colleges, starbucks, work, all are apparently "pros" and games are not important to them. And even though there is an entire macOS category in the app store for games (one of the biggest categories), people just ignore that and only use pro apps? I think app purchases speak for themselves and games are absolutely high on the priority list of what people buy for their computers. "Pro" apps isn't it.

The word "pro" means nothing and doesn't really mean the people that buy them are pros in anyway shape or form. They are consumers, and people who buy macbook pros are still consumers. Not sure why you think only "pros" can afford 2.5k machines, but 2.5k is not very expensive for an apple computer, even for a consumer. Just like a 900 phone isn't that expensive anymore either.

So I'm going to go with.. yes, people buy $2,500 macbook pro with discrete GPU to play games. They also buy expensive iMacs to do the same. I've even found some folks that used mac pros to play some games. And people buy macs for more than just graphics, and web design.

 

[Michael Scrip]

You're telling me that absolutely every single person that buys a macbook pro is a "pro" that takes advantage of CUDA, OpenCL, etc and do not play games? So the thousands you see in colleges, starbucks, work, all are apparently "pros" and games are not important to them. And even though there is an entire macOS category in the app store for games (one of the biggest categories), people just ignore that and only use pro apps? I think app purchases speak for themselves and games are absolutely high on the priority list of what people buy for their computers. "Pro" apps isn't it.

The word "pro" means nothing and doesn't really mean the people that buy them are pros in anyway shape or form. They are consumers, and people who buy macbook pros are still consumers. Not sure why you think only "pros" can afford 2.5k machines, but 2.5k is not very expensive for an apple computer, even for a consumer. Just like a 900 phone isn't that expensive anymore either.

So I'm going to go with.. yes, people buy $2,500 macbook pro with discrete GPU to play games. They also buy expensive iMacs to do the same. I've even found some folks that used mac pros to play some games. And people buy macs for more than just graphics, and web design.

I dunno man... almost 300 comments in this thread... but not much talk about gaming.

That must mean something.

Look... I didn't mean to start a war here... it was just that your comment about gaming really stood out. That's all.

If the #1 reason for updated GPUs in Mac laptops is gaming... I will happily retract my earlier statement.

But I'm not seeing it.

 

[aloshka]

I dunno man... almost 300 comments in this thread... but not much talk about gaming.

That must mean something.

Look... I didn't mean to start a war here... it was just that your comment about gaming really stood out. That's all.

If the #1 reason for updated GPUs in Mac laptops is gaming... I will happily retract my earlier statement.

But I'm not seeing it.

Not a war, sorry if I sounded harsh, but definitely not fighting. Just responding. Maybe you are right, although there are definitely some comments here about gaming, as I was reading made me think about posting.

But I just looked this up https://www.appannie.com/apps/mac/top/united-states/. Don't know how accurate this is, but maybe you are right. Gaming clearly isn't top grossing and not even top free downloads. Looks like mostly productivity stuff.

So I'll meet you half way. Not priority, but definitely a lot of people play games on their mac