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

[Michael Scrip]

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

No problem.

All I was trying to do was address your earlier question:

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

There are lots of things a powerful GPU will do... in addition to gaming.

 

[aloshka]

No problem.

All I was trying to do was address your earlier question:

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

There are lots of things a powerful GPU will do... in addition to gaming.

Should have worded that differently, but yeah I see what you mean.

 

[saintstryfe]

No problem.

All I was trying to do was address your earlier question:

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

There are lots of things a powerful GPU will do... in addition to gaming.

Yeah. Plenty of things Apple does could use extra GPU horsepower - even things like processing photos in Photos or ensuring smooth playback of video in iTunes - could use it, but the fact is the current range goes from crap to sorta-okay, means its not worth it.

I'm fine with basic graphics in the Air and MBr, but I'd really love to see a down-clocked 1060 - the info I gathered showed a 1060 mobile going at 85w, so I bet if we could down it a bit, and power savings elsewhere, something would be possible. The current mobile 1060's are going over 3 times the performance of the 960m, which uses 100w. If some work, I bet Apple and nVidia could get something to match the 48w usage of the Iris Pro 6200 and still give all the benefits at a performance power improvement.

 

[TNO821]

Yet another step towards Apple putting their own chips into the Mac line, IMHO. The graphics performance of the A-series chips aren't anything to be scoffed at either. Might kill two birds with one stone.

I wonder...

There's no chance of Apple switching to the A-series processors. Way too many people need to be able to use bootcamp or virtual machines for software that only runs on Windows. Also, the A-series is WAAAYY less powerful than the Intel processors used in the Macbook Pro.

 

[Jon Cash]

[doublepost=1474610106][/doublepost]

There's no chance of Apple switching to the A-series processors. Way too many people need to be able to use bootcamp or virtual machines for software that only runs on Windows. Also, the A-series is WAAAYY less powerful than the Intel processors used in the Macbook Pro.

I wish I was as confident as you that they cared about x86 compatibility. I already have crap XCOM 2 performance and no Overwatch. And we don't know what an A-series architecture tuned for an increased power budget is capable of.

 

[Michael Scrip]

There's no chance of Apple switching to the A-series processors. Way too many people need to be able to use bootcamp or virtual machines for software that only runs on Windows. Also, the A-series is WAAAYY less powerful than the Intel processors used in the Macbook Pro.

We know Apple has an amazing team of engineers and chip designers.

So what happens when they can make chips that aren't constrained by the body of a phone with a tiny battery?

Honestly... I think the A-series chips we've seen so far in iPhones and iPads have only been an appetizer... a preview of coming attractions.

Imagine what they can do with the massive battery in a laptop with very little thermal constraints.

I'm not saying it's gonna happen next year... but I gotta imagine they are cooking something up for the future.

You're correct that some people need Windows/BootCamp. But what happens if Apple can make MacOS harness the power of multiple A-series processors in a single machine? Remember... Apple is very good at writing software that is perfectly tailored to the hardware.

And what if that hardware is so powerful that there is very little penalty for software virtualization?

It could happen.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

What made me think about buying a new mbp would be a quad core cpu in a 13" machine. With a geek bench score of 12000 up.

 

[smulji]

We know Apple has an amazing team of engineers and chip designers.

So what happens when they can make chips that aren't constrained by the body of a phone with a tiny battery?

Honestly... I think the A-series chips we've seen so far in iPhones and iPads have only been an appetizer... a preview of coming attractions.

Imagine what they can do with the massive battery in a laptop with very little thermal constraints.

I'm not saying it's gonna happen next year... but I gotta imagine they are cooking something up for the future.

You're correct that some people need Windows/BootCamp. But what happens if Apple can make MacOS harness the power of multiple A-series processors in a single machine? Remember... Apple is very good at writing software that is perfectly tailored to the hardware.

And what if that hardware is so powerful that there is very little penalty for software virtualization?

It could happen.

Right now, Apple has what, 5% to 7% of the world's desktop / laptop marketshare? And how many of those run Windows through Bootcamp / Virtualization? In the grand scheme of things, it might not be that significant of a number to really matter.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Right now, Apple has what, 5% to 7% of the world's desktop / laptop marketshare? And how many of those run Windows through Bootcamp / Virtualization? In the grand scheme of things, it might not be that significant of a number to really matter.

Oh sure.

But when the subject of A-series Macs comes up... someone always says "What about BootCamp?!?!"

 

[koyoot]

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.

You are arguing with what Apple already offers. Macbook Pro 15 inch. 47W CPU plus 35W GPU and 85W PSU.

How it will be different from 45W Skylake CPU plus 35W AMD RX M480 GPU, and 85W PSU?

 

[barefeats]

Simplest answer. Two versions:

One with ONLY GT4E iGPU, and second with GT2 + AMD/Nvidia dGPU.

And support Thunderbolt 3 GPU expander like the Razer Core.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

I've been eargerly anticipating Zen. AMD keeps promising Intel level performance out of it. Got a link to any early bench marks? haven't stumbled on any yet. And whats the price point that we can expect? Will they be similarly priced to intel (if equal in performance) or will they be keeping wihth the "bang for the buck" route and being cheaper.

I'm also hesitant. Last time i remember the hype train over AMD CPU's was bulldozer and it turned out to be a fairly big dud

the one thing I like about going AMD for APU or GPU is their OpenCL implementation and GPU compute which seems to be wider supported and more Open than CUDA.

There are no solid benchmarks yet, the only frame of reference we have is the Zen showcase a couple of weeks back where it slightly outperformed a i7-6900k. And that was just an engineering sample.

I wouldn't worry about another Bulldozer since Jim Keller designed the architecture for Zen. It's specifically designed for high throughout and multitasking, so it's going to be an interesting alternative to Kaby Lake.

As for pricing, they will definitely be cheaper than their Intel counterpart but it's anyone's guess by how much. I expect Summit Ridge to be priced similarly to a i7-6700k, but who knows what will happen.

 

[S.B.G]

So what exactly is this Coffee Lake family coming in early 2018?

Coffee Lake? This sounds interesting. I wonder how fresh the beans are and if Intel roasts them in a dark roast for excellent crema in espresso production. If this ever comes to the MacBook Pro I'm all in!

If this comes from Intel in early 2018, do we think Apple might make an announcement next month and release with this chip next year, or do like they did with the iPad 3 and 4? Release a new iPad now and a few months later release another new one with some spec bumps?

 

[Zarniwoop]

Metal got an update with macOS Sierra and it's way capable than the baby-Metal in El Crapitan. Some Metal test gave around 3% better results for my Nvidia 750M in an old Metal test, and apps need to be re-written to benefit of current Metal v1.2. Metal V.1.1 was like a crippled version of DX9, but V1.2 is more like DX11 with some DX12 goodies.

Next year with macOS 10.13 I suppose we'll get the Full Metal and maybe openCL 2.x bolted in to it.

Can't wait to see apps for Metal 1.2.

 

[DevNull0]

You are arguing with what Apple already offers. Macbook Pro 15 inch. 47W CPU plus 35W GPU and 85W PSU.

How it will be different from 45W Skylake CPU plus 35W AMD RX M480 GPU, and 85W PSU?

Are you talking about machines Apple hasn't offered since 2012?

Do you understand the difference between power rating on a PSU and power consumption of a computer? A 100W light bulb will draw a constant 100W in operation. A computer with an 85W PSU will not draw a constant 85W in operation. When you throw around the word thermal envelope in this context, I really don't think you understand what these ratings mean.

And do you understand that Apple has a long history of underclocking to reduce power consumption. I know I don't want my hardware underclocked (I overclock my k-series i7 which makes it draw more power than the nominal maximum rating). Or do you think Apple can magically run 82W of CPU/GPU plus a screen, memory, chipset, wireless, fans, charging the battery and everything else in that box off of 3W? Underclocking is an asinine way to compensate for poor engineering, but at Apple, it's a technique.

 

[iModFrenzy]

Oh, and for those saying to use the A10 or A11 chip for graphics...how would Bootcamp/Windows run on an A-series chip?

It wouldn't.

 

[koyoot]

Are you talking about machines Apple hasn't offered since 2012?

Do you understand the difference between power rating on a PSU and power consumption of a computer? A 100W light bulb will draw a constant 100W in operation. A computer with an 85W PSU will not draw a constant 85W in operation. When you throw around the word thermal envelope in this context, I really don't think you understand what these ratings mean.

And do you understand that Apple has a long history of underclocking to reduce power consumption. I know I don't want my hardware underclocked (I overclock my k-series i7 which makes it draw more power than the nominal maximum rating). Or do you think Apple can magically run 82W of CPU/GPU plus a screen, memory, chipset, wireless, fans, charging the battery and everything else in that box off of 3W? Underclocking is an asinine way to compensate for poor engineering, but at Apple, it's a technique.

Every Macbook Pro since Sandy Bridge tops the PSU to maximum, and sometimes overdraws it a little(MBP with highest CPU config and GT750M was able to draw from the wall 88-89W of power).

Apple computers are designed to max out the PSU all the time. Mac Pro for example. It has 450W PSU, and 130W CPU, and dual 130W GPUs. There is very little room for the computer, because under load topped out Mac Pro draws 438W from the wall, according to Anandtech review.

Maybe you should read few Macbook Pro reviews? Notebookcheck.net always do wall plug power tests on every laptop. And according to their tests, every Macbook Pro generation since Sandy Bridge tops out the PSU at the wall.

 

[GeneralChang]

I remember Budapest very, very differently than you.

Ha!

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Just check out the pricing of those Mobile Xeons with decent iGPU....

http://ark.intel.com/products/93354/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E3-1575M-v5-8M-Cache-3_00-GHz

Imagine that after Apple margins...

The --75M is outrageous, but, the --15M and --45M are more in line with previous generations of high-end processors. It is true, though, that there is no low-end version. But, the 15" MBP is not a low-end system anyway.

P.S. These chips are all 45W -- the same as the other high-end mobile processors.
[doublepost=1474641596][/doublepost]

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

I'm sure people do some gaming -- The Sims 2 and Call of Duty 4 make the list, but, look at the top two: Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro. Not to mention Affinity Pro and Designer, Pixelmator, Final Draft, Motion, Mainstage, Compressor, dJay Pro, OmniFocus, OmniGraffle, Photoshop Elements, etc. A lot of traditional creative content producer Apple apps, many of which benefit from a high performance GPU.

 

[GeneralChang]

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

There actually are a few thunderbolt options for this that use thunderbolt 2. Once thunderbolt 3 is released there will be even more, and frankly I'm really pretty excited about the possibilities there.

 

[GeneralChang]

I wish I was as confident as you that they cared about x86 compatibility. I already have crap XCOM 2 performance and no Overwatch. And we don't know what an A-series architecture tuned for an increased power budget is capable of.

Just wanted to point out that Blizzard not porting Overwatch to the Mac probably has more to do with OS driver and API support woes than graphics hardware woes. Overwatch is optimized to run on some really, really crap PC hardware. Almost all Macs made in the past four years can run it as long as they're also running Windows.

 

[1=1?]

I'm so sad right now.

Here I go on my quarterly depressing search for hackintosh laptops.

 

[koyoot]

Just wanted to point out that Blizzard not porting Overwatch to the Mac probably has more to do with OS driver and API support woes than graphics hardware woes. Overwatch is optimized to run on some really, really crap PC hardware. Almost all Macs made in the past four years can run it as long as they're also running Windows.

Thats correct. It amazes me, that Overwatch can run smoothly on Integrated Intel HD540 and 550 graphics chips on Windows, just because it had DX11 advantage over macOS.

We will see if Blizzard will port Overwatch to macOS with Metal. They could right now very easily.

 

[DevNull0]

Every Macbook Pro since Sandy Bridge tops the PSU to maximum, and sometimes overdraws it a little(MBP with highest CPU config and GT750M was able to draw from the wall 88-89W of power).

Apple computers are designed to max out the PSU all the time. Mac Pro for example. It has 450W PSU, and 130W CPU, and dual 130W GPUs. There is very little room for the computer, because under load topped out Mac Pro draws 438W from the wall, according to Anandtech review.

Maybe you should read few Macbook Pro reviews? Notebookcheck.net always do wall plug power tests on every laptop. And according to their tests, every Macbook Pro generation since Sandy Bridge tops out the PSU at the wall.

I'm sorry, but you honestly do no know what you're talking about. Plug your computer into a power meter.

Better yet, you read reviews that say the MBP typically draws 12-15 watts.

It makes zero sense to think a computer with a single browser tab open is going to draw the same power it will when rendering video at 100% cpu/gpu load. I'm surprised that's not obvious to you.

 

[GeneralChang]

Thats correct. It amazes me, that Overwatch can run smoothly on Integrated Intel HD540 and 550 graphics chips on Windows, just because it had DX11 advantage over macOS.

We will see if Blizzard will port Overwatch to macOS with Metal. They could right now very easily.

Could is different than will, I think. They could port it to Metal, I'm sure it would work well, probably better on equivalent hardware than under DX11. However, I imagine it's a matter of available dev time versus the amount of money they think they could make on the platform.

It probably will get ported eventually, but likely not until the development of new features and bug fixes slows down. Right now I'm sure it's more profitable to keep improving the versions of the game that are already out. I'm guessing at least a year before they even start that work.