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

[navaira]

Sorry if this is a stupid question – but what apps actually use Metal now, in September 2016, except for Metal testing apps of course?

 

[Tech198]

No integrated GPU forced on users. particularly for higher resolution displays on Pro machines

 

[dasil003]

It's not entirely clear how Apple will deal with the apparent high-end integrated graphics stagnation at Intel when it comes to future MacBook Pro updates

Stick their head in the sand and hope OS X withers away without them having to do anything so Jony can get back to figuring out how to remove the final port from the iPhone and usher in the era of the 2001-style monolith?

 

[koyoot]

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.

Who cares about what it draws in idle state. Whole point is about power consumption under load. And under load the computer consumes up to 85(with even a little excess on this boarder).

We talked about using dGPU in Macbook Pro. You wanted to have 65W GTX 1060 in Macbook Pro. You argued how awful MBP is because it lacks it. I have given you task to find out another laptop that has 85W and has discreet GPU with M480/GTX960M level of graphical performance, quad core CPU, large SSD, high resolution display, and large amount of RAM. When It is impossible for you to find, because most of the ultrabooks have that level of PSU's, you reiterate to telling me who cares about performance if you are browsing the web with one tab. So what do we talk about? GTX 1060 GPUs in MBP, and 150W PSU, or 85W PSU, and M480 while browsing the web with one tab open. Why do you even need for that GTX 1060? Why do you even need quad core CPU? Or maybe you just wanted to defend your ego? Do you remember even about what we have talked about in the first place?

And you dared to tell me that I do not know what I am talking about.

 

[LordVic]

The 90s called. They want their stats back.

check the date of that report. August 2016.

keep trying to view that world through those rose apple coloured glasses.
[doublepost=1474653893][/doublepost]

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.

whle some might do light gaming on a rMBP, and yes, Windows runs games much better, even on the same hardware, the gaming community and those who focus on games do not ever look to Apple.

Apple is infamous for poor gaming support. it was only in the last couple years that Steam even bothered having OSx versions and titles for sale. A lot of which werent even natively runnning, but through an abstraction layer (also further decreasing performance)

But yeah, I remember running World of Warcraft a few years back on a macbook air to see how it performed. In OSx the performance was deplorable. I had to run at 640x480 on medium low settings to get 20fps, Installed windows via bootcamp, and I was able to run it at native resolution, with medium high settings at 30-45fps. Not too shabby for a tiny little MacBook air.

But, as much as I appreciate OSx and often do use it. Mac's are usually really really low on any gamers list of computers they'll buy
[doublepost=1474654227][/doublepost]

Oh sure.

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

But it's a legit question isn't it?

I know there's not likely any math to back it up, but how many users would be impacted if suddenly Windows dualboot, or even windows in parallels was no longer an option at all?

Apple has seen some pretty good inroads to the PC market since the transition to x86. Some of it can be attributed to brand recognition brought by i-devices, but there has to be a good portion of people who finally decided to buy a mac because compatibility was finally there.

I know for myself, if Apple went A series CPU and I lost windows compatibility, I would never be able to buy anothr mac again. My work and the industry I'm in has absolutely zero support, use, or platforms that run on OSx, and I have every intention of picking up a new rMBP if it doesn't do the "thinner = better" mantra so I can have a decent powered laptop that allows me to work, and enjoy using a laptop with osx.

 

[Michael Scrip]

But it's a legit question isn't it?

I know there's not likely any math to back it up, but how many users would be impacted if suddenly Windows dualboot, or even windows in parallels was no longer an option at all?

Apple has seen some pretty good inroads to the PC market since the transition to x86. Some of it can be attributed to brand recognition brought by i-devices, but there has to be a good portion of people who finally decided to buy a mac because compatibility was finally there.

I know for myself, if Apple went A series CPU and I lost windows compatibility, I would never be able to buy anothr mac again. My work and the industry I'm in has absolutely zero support, use, or platforms that run on OSx, and I have every intention of picking up a new rMBP if it doesn't do the "thinner = better" mantra so I can have a decent powered laptop that allows me to work, and enjoy using a laptop with osx.

Yes... it's a legitimate question... and I actually addressed it in my comment #306

To sum it up... we know Apple can produce amazing processors. So imagine if they can design chips that aren't constrained by the body of a phone with a tiny battery.

And not only would they be powerful... I'm envisioning a future Mac laptop with multiple A-series chips... all more powerful than what you get in an iPhone and iPad today... which combined are so powerful that software virtualization won't take a hit.

The processor in the iPhone 7 is already ridiculously fast... imagine what FOUR of them in a package could do. They would chew through any software you can throw at it.

So maybe there would be versions of Parallels and VMWare that are tailored for these super-fast ARM packages... and it works so well that you won't even notice that Windows isn't running directly on the hardware itself.

That's my idea. I dunno... just spitballing here.

You're right... some people NEED to run Windows on a Mac. I'm just imagining a way that you could have the best of both worlds.

Again... this would be in the future. I don't see Apple abandoning Intel processors anytime soon.

 

[Zarniwoop]

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.

Oh, you're right. I checked my info from Wikipedia, but those models are absent there.

 

[LordVic]

Yes... it's a legitimate question... and I actually addressed it in my comment #306

To sum it up... we know Apple can produce amazing processors. So imagine if they can design chips that aren't constrained by the body of a phone with a tiny battery.

And not only would they be powerful... I'm envisioning a future Mac laptop with multiple A-series chips... all more powerful than what you get in an iPhone and iPad today... which combined are so powerful that software virtualization won't take a hit.

The processor in the iPhone 7 is already ridiculously fast... imagine what FOUR of them in a package could do. They would chew through any software you can throw at it.

So maybe there would be versions of Parallels and VMWare that are tailored for these super-fast ARM packages... and it works so well that you won't even notice that Windows isn't running directly on the hardware itself.

That's my idea. I dunno... just spitballing here.

You're right... some people NEED to run Windows on a Mac. I'm just imagining a way that you could have the best of both worlds.

Again... this would be in the future. I don't see Apple abandoning Intel processors anytime soon.

don't worry, I know we're just speculating and stuff. I don't know what 10 years will bring, but so far, (and maybe apple can do it) but even scaled up, with lots of cores, running at the higher power thresholds, ARM based server chips don't seem to be able to match intel's high end offerings in most things, except for a few small use cases. it's just a fundamental difference with the way the architectures are designed.

Byut yeah, 20 years from now, x86 could be dead, and ARM king. Or, some new tech nobody invisions comes to light and gives us all 50000000% more power.

But all we can safely say, is right now, there's no real alternative to x86 chips in MOST computer systems. (obviously mobile that has completely different power requirements and how it handles app based programs).

but hey, i'm excited for the future no matter what tech we use

 

[DevNull0]

Who cares about what it draws in idle state. Whole point is about power consumption under load. And under load the computer consumes up to 85(with even a little excess on this boarder).

A lower capacity PSU is not a benefit. So because Apple cheaps out on a PSU and other companies actually give you something more decent (and expensive for them), you're calling that a plus of using Apple? You really don't understand what these power ratings mean.

When you're buying a house, do you think 100A (22,000W) service is better than 200A (44,000W) service?

Why do you want a computer that has less ability to draw on power when needed? And of course power consumption under near idle conditions (checking email, browsing facebook, etc) is extremely important. As is the ability to draw a lot more power when needed to drive a heavy duty CPU/GPU combo, power a screen, and charge the battery all at once.

You don't care about have a computer that's efficient most of the time, and don't care about having a computer that can get serious work done when needed. The rest of us want the exact opposite of you at both ends.

 

[koyoot]

A lower capacity PSU is not a benefit. So because Apple cheaps out on a PSU and other companies actually give you something more decent (and expensive for them), you're calling that a plus of using Apple? You really don't understand what these power ratings mean.

When you're buying a house, do you think 100A (22,000W) service is better than 200A (44,000W) service?

Why do you want a computer that has less ability to draw on power when needed? And of course power consumption under near idle conditions (checking email, browsing facebook, etc) is extremely important. As is the ability to draw a lot more power when needed to drive a heavy duty CPU/GPU combo, power a screen, and charge the battery all at once.

You don't care about have a computer that's efficient most of the time, and don't care about having a computer that can get serious work done when needed. The rest of us want the exact opposite of you at both ends.

Sorry, but I do not wish to discuss this topic with you anymore. Have fun, anyways.

 

[MacClueless]

For the vast majority of users storage performance is the biggest issue. Graphics are more than adequate for all but edge cases. That's why Apple is doing it the way they're doing it.

 

[MJLyco]

At the end of the day, the pro laptop should be a pro laptop. There are many companies that give their employees rMBPs because they need the power and/or flexibility. I know so many developers that run Visual Studio on Macs. The rMBP should have a processor that can run windows so pro users can use bootcamp or VM. If that processor can't handle video editing, it should have a dedicated GPU. They also shouldn't kill a bunch of the ports or magsafe.

ARM chips are getting butter but they're just not there yet.

Yes, I know that there are people sitting at Starbucks only typing in word documents and sharing PDFs on rMBPs. They don't need the horsepower or features of a pro laptop and should be using an a MBA, MB, or iPad Pro. They buy the rMBP to be cool and to say they have the best laptop. Don't lower the standard because of buyer foolishness.

 

[LordVic]

For the vast majority of users storage performance is the biggest issue. Graphics are more than adequate for all but edge cases. That's why Apple is doing it the way they're doing it.

I can't tell if this is humour or not based on your name.

While storage speed is probably the #1 performance boost you can get going from HDD to SDD, do not ever underestimate the procfessional use of D-GPU for CUDA/OpenCL GPU assisted processing in any field that does large number calculations, or media production

even the simplist of DGPU will have a monstrous benefit in these aspects. Even programs like Zipping a file today can benefit from OpenCL GPU based acceleration to shave of time, and it's the very reason why there are 2 GPU's in the Mac Pro

And at the end of the day, the whole porpoise of a "PRO" machine is the get work done faster.

 

[Michael Scrip]

While storage speed is probably the #1 performance boost you can get going from HDD to SDD, do not ever underestimate the procfessional use of D-GPU for CUDA/OpenCL GPU assisted processing in any field that does large number calculations, or media production

even the simplist of DGPU will have a monstrous benefit in these aspects. Even programs like Zipping a file today can benefit from OpenCL GPU based acceleration to shave of time, and it's the very reason why there are 2 GPU's in the Mac Pro

And at the end of the day, the whole porpoise of a "PRO" machine is the get work done faster.

Exactly. In my Windows machine I had an ancient video card that wasn't supported by Adobe.

But I added a lowly NVidia GTX 750ti for around $150 at the time... and I was amazed at how much faster I could do stuff in Adobe Premiere.

Playback is smoother... some effects are accelerated and render in real-time... even some exports are faster.

While not all software will benefit from a good GPU... I would imagine most "pro" apps will.

Put it this way... I would never go back to NOT having one.

 

[ThaRuler]

Will they also make a Decaf version of this new coffeelake chip?

 

[macintoshi]

don't worry, I know we're just speculating and stuff. I don't know what 10 years will bring, but so far, (and maybe apple can do it) but even scaled up, with lots of cores, running at the higher power thresholds, ARM based server chips don't seem to be able to match intel's high end offerings in most things, except for a few small use cases. it's just a fundamental difference with the way the architectures are designed.

Byut yeah, 20 years from now, x86 could be dead, and ARM king. Or, some new tech nobody invisions comes to light and gives us all 50000000% more power.

But all we can safely say, is right now, there's no real alternative to x86 chips in MOST computer systems. (obviously mobile that has completely different power requirements and how it handles app based programs).

but hey, i'm excited for the future no matter what tech we use

Sure, in 10 years or 20, also Intel can become more stronger and more better, nobody knows...

 

[liberte1776]

I have a hunch MBP's with ARM CPUs are coming soon, reminds me of when the AIM PowerPC camp could not keep pace for Apple and cared more about embedded...

 

[MacsRgr8]

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.

The successful switch from PPC to Intel was because of two things:
1. Steve
2. Jobs

You need a true leader that actually can steer such a huge and challenged change.

Do you actually remember those days??
So many Mac-enthusiasts were so sick of moving away from the loved PPC to the hated Intel.
I distinctly remember a person posting this line many times on MR and others followed:
"I threw up in my mouth a little™".

The switch from PPC to Intel had so many mountains to climb:
1. Die hard Mac fans who adored PPC (love being different to the hated Win-tel world) were raging.
2. All current apps were PPC binaries and had to transition to x86 (leading developers had to make the changes).
3. Create a temporary "on the fly PPC to x86 translator" i.e. Rosetta

You cannot do such a move without stepping on many, many toes and force others to comply.
You need a L E A D E R for that.

Maybe moving from Intel to Ax Apple CPU is easier than PPC to Intel... But, I'm not sure the current CEO is capable of leading such a project.