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

[LordVic]

I don't think the "pro market" is doing anything but buying PCs now.

Apple could/should release a new MBP with low-middle graphics capability (yet with a whiz-bang feature like that OLED bar) so it will bump up sales and look good on a quarterly call.

I don't think more than a handful of Apple fans would know the difference between great performance and ok performance since their current machines are so outdated anyway. Anything at this point would be such a boost that they'd not question it a bit.

this is likely true across the entire Apple product lineup.

the 21" iMac's use mobile parts and are significantly slower than desktops
the 27" iMac's that use desktop parts suffer from Thermal throttling. Most noticably the underclocked i7-k model they use was purposely picked so they could limit the thermals by underclocking and thermal throttling.

the rMBP used to bea great pro device and flagship performance, but if we're seriously talking about further using the 15w ULV parts instead of the 45w parts, then again we're going to be getting a performance dowgrade for "thinner"

the MBA has all but been forgotten

and nobody should expect performance out of the rMB even if it is a pretty little computer.

the Mac Pro was already being surpassed performance wise at the time it was launched and you could easily put together a single GPU / Xeon with todays parts for a fraction of the cost that is significantly faster.

as of right now, there's not a single Apple computer product that has high end performance

Neither do you, because that would be 100% dependent of how Apple deals with things.

Anyway, dGPUs mean less battery life, bigger form factors or throttling, and higher risk of damage. Macs shouldn't have components from AMD or Nvidia.

well, thats not true at all.

There's more to the shift to a new architecture than just one company.

every single MacOS program would have to be recompiled, rewritten and redistributed. including teh OS. You would break compatibility with thousands of existing software titles.

on top of that, yo would lose complete compatibility with the 95% of the rest of the windows/linux running world.

Then you get into limitations of the ARM cpu and Ax processors in power. Sure, benchmarked, the A10 is great. and it is a truly wonderful mobile CPU for a phone /tablet. But even the fastest scaled ARM Cpu's are not even remotely close to anything but the lowest end Intel CPU's. once you move to 45w parts, or desktop parts, there's no current ARM based CPU that is going to keep up, nevermind whatever emulation it might require to run a rosetta like platform for legacy.

Such a move would alienate a lot of users, probably more so than just slow to update products. I for one, spent my life straddling between MacOS, windows and unix variants. if suddenly Apple's computer could no longer run windows, parrallels or *nix, than i would have absolutely no choice but to abandon Apple

 

[winston1236]

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.

Yea, because we all know the point of an online forum is for everyone to not post anything...

 

[MongoTheGeek]

Reminds me on waiting on IBM for new PPC chips.

Time to switch hardware again. Bring on the ARM Macs

 

[DevNull0]

We need more Mac supporters other than mbp.

Well count me in for a desktop Mac with the latest i7 k-series chip, multiple sata drive bays, at least 4 memory sockets, and a PCI-E slot for a high end graphics card. Under $1,500 with the graphics card too (since you can do it as a hackintosh for under $1,000 that's got to be enough margin even for Apple).

 

[Michael Scrip]

Well count me in for a desktop Mac with the latest i7 k-series chip, multiple sata drive bays, at least 4 memory sockets, and a PCI-E slot for a high end graphics card. Under $1,500 with the graphics card too (since you can do it as a hackintosh for under $1,000 that's got to be enough margin even for Apple).

It's too bad you can't use Windows.

You can have that exact setup.... today!

 

[maxsix]

Seems smart to just return to dedicated graphics. Seems most people would prefer it anyway.

I concur.

The concern however, is that Apple's obsession with style and making products razor thin ... brings heat dissipation into the spotlight. Already known as hot running and defended by the Devotees as normal/OK, it'll be interesting to see if high temps get higher.

 

[shokunin]

This is what greedy apple is being forced to do, dGPU's in rMBP. They love iris pro because it keeps their costs down, doesn't require additional space on their PCB to make things thinner and smaller, requires less mAH to run and keep cool, and less warranty liability. They love all these things because of profit. Not what the consumer wants, but what feeds the bottom line.

If they actually did care about user experience, then we would all have dGPUs and we wouldn't be in this mess of having a 4 year old processor in a the current rMBP or being hog-tied by Intel's roadmap.

 

[MacHiavelli]

Apple has had a build of macOS running on ARM chips for years.

Apple hasn't updated the Intel chips it uses for a long time, because it isn't going to use Intel in the future. The decline of the Intel-Mac line isn't an accident: it's a plan.

All of Apple's innovation and development in recent years has been on ARM and flavours of iOS.

Steve said Apple needs to own the silicon to make really good devices. What part of that statement don't people understand?

Intel-based macOS is dead, as is the idea of having Intel chips in Macs in the future.

Apple has staked the farm on ARM-based devices. It isn't going to burn money supporting Intel when it can do a better job using ARM. There is no longer a commercial case for being tethered to Intel x86 chips. Even Intel knows this: it is already switching fabrication capacity over to........ARM.

And the "pros" shouldn't whine until they see what Apple can deliver. And if they want to whine then, they can choose to live in the past while a new generation moves on to the joys of ARM, Swift, etc.

 

[mabhatter]

This is simply it. Intels iGPUs were a great improvement but couldn't keep up. As a result, very little adoption in the PC industry. The high power iGPUs are very niche and unsurprisingly Intel has put them on the back burner.

Apple is just going to have swallow it's pride and courage and go back to dGPUs. I love the Iris Pro, but it's going to be ridiculous if Macs are going to be a generation behind all the time.

It's not about "courage" it's about the engineering. Intel FORCES companies to take the iGPU now. You can't buy a mobile chipset without it. So you're always going to be using mobile graphics... there's no way to turn it "off" in terms of battery life. Your only option is to ad an expensive and large third party GPU if you want better. You won't get Apple's simplicity of computer design then... it's simply not an option for the tiny notebooks now.

I'm definitely leaning toward a macOS ARM-based machine. Intel has backed PC makers into a corner on the graphics issue for almost 10 years now. AMD simply doesn't cut it for mobile workstations... so going to an AMD solution with better graphics isn't an option either. We haven't seen what A10x looks like yet... with extra graphics or cores it would be a monster and sip battery life.

 

[LordVic]

It's too bad you can't use Windows.

You can have that exact setup.... today!

yes, but hackintosh

i'm currently running a haswell based i5 with 290x in OSx, but i'd never recommend it for production use. so far it's been fairly reliable, but i'm terrified to update to Sierra. OSx hackintosh's with graphic cards can be a difficult thing to setup and get working right.

but it alone outperforms virtually every Apple computer in their product lineup save maybe the highest end i7 iMac. But my computer cost me < $1500 including a 34" ultrawide display

 

[DevNull0]

Reminds me on waiting on IBM for new PPC chips.

Time to switch hardware again. Bring on the ARM Macs

Except the chips are there. Every other hardware vendor has truly amazing computers based on current Intel chips. The Razer Blade series is everything the MBA/rMB should be. The MSI gaming series offer everything from MBP killers to true desktop replacements. Even the Dell XPS line is wiping the floor with the MBA/rMB.

As someone who always prefers and external graphics chip, I applaud this move from Intel, more CPU power is very welcome over a patch of silicon that will always be left dark for me.

 

[LordVic]

Reminds me on waiting on IBM for new PPC chips.

Time to switch hardware again. Bring on the ARM Macs

unlike that time, i'ts not Intel.

sure, the NEWEST CURRENT Gen product roadmap doesn't have the iris parts ready yet

but what about the last 3 generations of CPU that Apple conveniently skipped over the last 2-3 years? That every other PC manufacturer seems to have no problems getting stock with

 

[cult hero]

I'd actually be happy if this were the case. If I want to save power, odds are the GPU only needs to be good enough to drive the basics—so, standard OS effects, video decoding, etc. Nothing too exciting there. My 2009 iMac does this well enough. So a crappy integrated solution, even on a quad core isn't an issue... as long as there is a dedicated option.

What I hope this means is no more crappy 15" sans a dedicated GPU and I'm really wanting a 13" Pro with a dedicated GPU. I'm not holding my breath, but it's not like Intel hasn't forced Apple's hand before (2010 13" MBP still shipping with C2D because the i series graphics were so bad they had to stick with the nVidia chipset, whereas those same terrible graphics were good enough for the 15" MBP when running on battery).

 

[LordVic]

It's not about "courage" it's about the engineering. Intel FORCES companies to take the iGPU now. You can't buy a mobile chipset without it. So you're always going to be using mobile graphics... there's no way to turn it "off" in terms of battery life. Your only option is to ad an expensive and large third party GPU if you want better. You won't get Apple's simplicity of computer design then... it's simply not an option for the tiny notebooks now.

I'm definitely leaning toward a macOS ARM-based machine. Intel has backed PC makers into a corner on the graphics issue for almost 10 years now. AMD simply doesn't cut it for mobile workstations... so going to an AMD solution with better graphics isn't an option either. We haven't seen what A10x looks like yet... with extra graphics or cores it would be a monster and sip battery life.

Intel GPUs can be disabled at the BIOS level. Apple doesn't provide access to this level of control through their EUFI framework

you also can have dedicated GPU's and be "Simple". take a look at Razer's product offerings right now that are offering nearly identical design (but in black!) hardware, that uses current CPU and GPU's in nearly identical form factors that "just work" and don't require users to constantly play with their hardware.

Apple doesn't have a leg up in design, or implementations in the PC world anymore. They did a good job in the past of convincing the world that premium quality notebooks are worth it. But now that so many other companies are making premium quality notebooks, with newer parts, faster parts, and coming in cheaper for a lot of the standard components, Apple needs to do something to convince the world that their computers are in fact, still worht it. The last few quarters have seen Apple's computer sales drop faster than the industry average. thats pretty telling. Especially when some companies like Dell, grew their business.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

AMD simply doesn't cut it for mobile workstations... so going to an AMD solution with better graphics isn't an option either.

Yet. Zen is looking extremely promising, being able to compete with Broadwell-E. Raven Ridge (4C/8T APU) is coming Q2 2017, which may be a very attractive option for Apple.

 

[bodonnell202]

Wow, seems a bit premature to worry about this considering the MBP is still using 4th and 5th gen Intel core chips and hasn't event been updated with Skylake (6th gen) yet. The Skylake Intel Iris graphics will be a big upgrade over what is currently available on both MBP models.

 

[koyoot]

That is far from being always the case. And also, in order to be within thermal design, the current one would've to be more "brick"-like, in order to support the same line of processors and so on and to be as durable as current machines.

I agree with you that Macs should have a lot more GPU power, but Nvidia and AMD aren't the solution. Intel isn't, as well. It's up to Apple to keep milking this cow or actually do something about this.

80W A-series SoC here we go.

I do not see the problem of fitting 45W CPU and 30W GPU in 85W thermal envelope.

But if you want highest possible simplicity and performance in lowest possible thermal envelope then we will have AMD Zen APUs next year. Quad Core CPU with Intel Broadwell IPC, 2 GB of HBM2 as EDRAM and L4 cache for GPU and CPU, iGPU with possibly 20 or 24 CU design(1280-1536 GCN cores) locked in 45W thermal envelope.

 

[LordVic]

Yet. Zen is looking extremely promising, being able to compete with Broadwell-E. Raven Ridge (4C/8T APU) is coming Q2 2017, which may be a very attractive option for Apple.

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.

 

[DevNull0]

It's too bad you can't use Windows.

You can have that exact setup.... today!

Actually I built it last year. i7-4790k, GTX 970, 16 gig of ram, 512 gig SSD + 2x4TB spinning HDD. Total cost...on par with a higher end Mac Mini. It is running windows 7/10 in a dual boot, but with the "improvements" in Sierra, the writing's on the wall there too, so Windows is not as bitter a pill as it would have been a few years ago.

I would still have been very happy to pay $5-700 more to get an Apple blessed version of the same machine (but with this year's CPU/GPU) that would play well with MacOS. And if they launched it this year, I would almost certainly still buy it.

Right now though, I'm more interested in a new laptop to replace my aging MBP. But you know that story .

 

[TrueBlou]

Intel graphics are the best solution on the market: Enough GPU power for most use cases, awesome battery life and thermal management. No hardware failures.

The base 15" is a better machine than the higher end 15".

They have their place and for what they do they are good at it. But I'm not a fan of integrated graphics on their own in general.

Yeah they can be useful for battery life and so on and I'm happy to have them there, so long as there's a separate discreet chipset for better performance as well.

I've had MacBooks in the past which only had integrated graphics, but I didn't keep them for long at all, I missed the performance of a proper dedicated graphics chipset. And I'll now never buy one that has integrated as the only option. Hell I can manage with my iPad Pro 12" just about as well as I did with one of those laptops.

 

[maflynn]

Intel graphics are the best solution on the market: Enough GPU power for most use cases, awesome battery life and thermal management. No hardware failures.

Yeah, they've come a long way over the years, I'm rocking with an iGPU on my laptop (non-apple) and I'm happy with the performance.

 

[koyoot]

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

AMD has demoed Zen performance in Blender, application which they always were struggling with. And it edged out i7-6900K locked to 3.0 GHz. And at that settings the AMD edged out Broadwell by 2%, while consuming still slightly less power.

The scores will vary depending on workload, but AMD came extremely close to Broadwell. Only things that could let down the design of the CPU are L3 caches, and core clocks. But the clocks should be even higher than AMD Bulldozer CPUs, because it has more pipeline stages, compared to AMD BD design. So the only thing that can really let down the CPU is the cache.

If AMD will be within 10% of Broadwell, while delivering very fast GPUs they have very clear winner vs. both Intel and Nvidia.

 

[weup togo]

Why not just use AMD dGPU instead, of this crazy thought?

Three reasons: power, reliability, and price. AMD and NV discrete GPUs use as much power as the CPU itself, and more under significant load. This murders battery life, it makes for an unpleasant user experience due to heat and noise, and most importantly to Jony, the thermal constraints significantly limit their options on radical industrial design.

As for reliability, AMD and NV's graphics stacks have always been garbage written by the C-teams at their respective companies. They're one of the primary sources of crashes, panics, and product delays, and always have been.

And buying third party GPUs significantly drives up the bill of materials cost for the configs that use them. Apple can have its own graphics silicon fabricated for far less than the premium it would pay either vendor.

Apple's own GPUs from iOS hardware could easily beat either of these companies on performance, power, as well as price. And it's just a matter of time before they do. I think we'll see ARM Macs by 2018, and possibly Apple GPUs earlier than that.

 

[LordVic]

AMD has demoed Zen performance in Blender, application which they always were struggling with. And it edged out i7-6900K locked to 3.0 GHz. And at that settings the AMD edged out Broadwell by 2%, while consuming still slightly less power.

The scores will vary depending on workload, but AMD came extremely close to Broadwell. Only things that could let down the design of the CPU are L3 caches, and core clocks. But the clocks should be even higher than AMD Bulldozer CPUs, because it has more pipeline stages, compared to AMD BD design. So the only thing that can really let down the CPU is the cache.

If AMD will be within 10% of Broadwell, while delivering very fast GPUs they have very clear winner vs. both Intel and Nvidia.

I'd be absolutely willing to go give AMD CPU's another shot. I had some really good history during the Athlon XP, x2 and 64 days when Intel was still trying to cram Netburst down our throats. would be nice if they can return to legit high end competition, I'm just afraid of getting my hype train up.

I had my hype train up for Polaris, and while they're good GPU's. there's no flagship product yet that really showcases how far Polaris can be pushed. the 480 is a good card, but it's on par with the 290x/380x in performance, which, while using less power and being cheaper, isn't really showcasing forward performance gains for single card solutions
I'm still of the opinion that AMD is waiting for ZEN to release their "490x". or at least for the "new card hoopla" to die down so they can come out of left field when unexpected with a flagship product

 

[smulji]

Apple has had a build of macOS running on ARM chips for years.

Apple hasn't updated the Intel chips it uses for a long time, because it isn't going to use Intel in the future. The decline of the Intel-Mac line isn't an accident: it's a plan.

All of Apple's innovation and development in recent years has been on ARM and flavours of iOS.

Steve said Apple needs to own the silicon to make really good devices. What part of that statement don't people understand?

Intel-based macOS is dead, as is the idea of having Intel chips in Macs in the future.

Apple has staked the farm on ARM-based devices. It isn't going to burn money supporting Intel when it can do a better job using ARM. There is no longer a commercial case for being tethered to Intel x86 chips. Even Intel knows this: it is already switching fabrication capacity over to........ARM.

And the "pros" shouldn't whine until they see what Apple can deliver. And if they want to whine then, they can choose to live in the past while a new generation moves on to the joys of ARM, Swift, etc.

Do you have evidence to back that up?