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

[LordVic]

Fury GPUs, because they are EOL'ed in Retail/consumer are having very large discounts around the world, I think I have seen on Anandtech that someone mentioned 319 USD for Asus Strix Fury, which is bargain of the century considering the performance.

Still hvaing troubles finding them around Canada for less. Retail seems to know they can hold onto the $500+ CAD price tag, because Nvidia has priced their newest GPU's really high here. as I mentioned, the 1070's are all over $600 CAD, and the 1080's are all over $900 CAD. even compared to USD pricing this is several percentage points higher than the CAD to USD conversion, meaning that Nvidia is purposely raising their prices for us above the US market.

again, this has meant that those deep discounts to AMD's last gen comparable products aren't dropping. I'd have to buy used to get savings. Nvidia really screwed the Canadian market up with their pricing being so high, giving no incentive for last gen chips to drop in price here
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007708 601107975
[doublepost=1474566413][/doublepost]

iMac 21.5" retina uses desktop chips! The only Broadwell consumer desktop chips Intel has.

sorry, I broke my train of thought in that post and responded elsehere

that was supposed to be the Mac Mini

 

[Zarniwoop]

This is what greedy apple is being forced to do, dGPU's in rMBP. They love iris pro because it keeps their costs down

Not really, regular Intel + dGPU is nearly as expensive, as Intel with iGPU GT3e. The thermal cost on the other hand...

 

[koyoot]

"… the "GT2" tier, which typically has about half the raw power of the GT3 tier, to be launched in the next-generation "Kaby Lake" processor family."

"The situation is a bit better for the 13-inch MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air, which use 28-watt and 15-watt versions of the "U-series" processors respectively. The leaked roadmap indicates that Kaby Lake versions of these chips with GT3e graphics are scheduled to launch in the first quarter of 2017 …"
—per 'MacRumors'



It would seem that Apple's likely release of new Mac Book Pros in October with Skylake chips … will be effectively obsolete on day one.

In consideration of the same released later in 2017 with Kaby Lake and twice the GPU performance.

Unless adopting their current strategy and waiting another three or four years for an upgrade. But in any event obsolete in comparison the broader market.

They will not be obsolete. Quad core Skylake CPUs for mobile are with us, according to the roadmap to... 2018 year. Kaby Lake is exactly the same architecture as Skylake is, but with 200 MHz higher core clocks. No difference in IPC, according to SiSoft Sandra latest leaked benchmarks, all difference in higher performance due to higher Turbo clocks on Kaby Lake CPUs. They cannot even get past 200 MHz higher clocked Skylake CPUs. Why would they be obsolete? Because they are named differently?

Times when architecture changes bring very large increases in performance are past. Better get used to that with every die shrink we will not see any improvements, apart from... increased efficiency.

 

[Queen6]

Apple already has a tried and tested strategy.

Apple will do nothing...

Q-6

 

[MacHiavelli]

Do you have evidence to back that up?

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.

 

[idark77]

Apple already has a tried and tested strategy.
View attachment 657212
Apple will do nothing...

Q-6

I don't know why I am completely agree with you...

 

[cylack]

Solution is to stop using ****** Intel integrated graphics chips and go with a dedicated, current gen, high-end graphics card from AMD or nVidia. People paying a premium price for a premium laptop deserve the very best graphics card. I have a 15” MBP and I don’t care about battery life since no matter where I go I know I won’t get a full day’s use out of the MBP on a single charge so I always cary the recharger with me.

 

[shadowmatt]

I ditched my desktop for a Windows PC with a 980Ti as Apple couldn't be bothered updating their desktop workstation.

Once this 17" Macbook Pro dies I don't think I will be buying another Mac laptop as they don't seem to arsed about supporting that line.

Im getting to the point where I'm thinking Apple just wants everyone to have an iPad to consume and isnt to interested in how anything gets created anymore.

Windows 10 pretty much does the job as well as OSX and Chrome is as just as good as Safari.

It's a shame really, for years Apple managed to do really well the the computer lines, and I never wanted to use a Windows PC, I hated every moment of the I had to. The same with crappy plastic PC laptops. But everyone else has caught up, passed Apple and still considers it a viable business.

 

[livingaimlessly]

Crazy thought.. Is the Apple A11 chip powerful as a graphics processor? If so, add it to the books as a graphics processor

It depends on what your graphics needs are. I'm happy for someone else who is more knowledgable to weigh in, but as I understand it, the A processors like the A9 and A9X in the iphone 6s and iPad Pro use a PowerVR hexcore/dodecacore chip respectively. And those can perform ~150/350 Single Precision (FP32) GFLOPS. Compare that to a desktop Nvidia GTX 1080 which can do 8000+ Single Precision GFLOPS. The intel IRIS GT3e line is around 800. While GFLOPs alone are not everything in terms of gfx performance (memory bandwidth, bus bandwidth, CPU-GPU bottlenecking, programming + instruction sets, algorithms, etc all matter a lot too), but it gives you a general sense of computing power where iGPUs are compared to high end dGPUs.

To compare to consoles A PS3 / Xbox 360 are around 200 SP GFLOPS and the next Gen PS4 and Xbox One are around 1500 GFLOPs.

So don't expect too much too graphics performance soon out of shading, pixel fill, vertex calc etc for the apple chips (as they are). Still seems to make sense to go with a discrete GPU if Apple is serious about supporting things like VR in years to come, even if they ditch intel for their general CPU instructions.

Refs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_HD_and_Iris_Graphics#Kaby_Lake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_mobile_application_processors#Apple_A10_Fusion

 

[Zarniwoop]

IMO Apple's best choice would be betting on two setups of 15 inch MBP. One with GT4e GPU, and one with GT2 + dGPU setup.

That would be logical, but Apple isn't.

Past four years, they've had GT3e + dGPU on their laptops.

 

[wizard]

Actually the PPC to Intel was the worst kept secret. I remember how there were so many rumors of Apple running two versions of OS X, PPC and Intel.

Likewise rumors of Mac OS running on A series processors has been around for a long time. Frankly I'd be shocked to find out that Apple DOESN'T have Mac OS running on a number of different processors.

If Apple ditches Intel over this, I see no positives coming from this, they'll not sell more laptops (which is their goal), but less.

The lack of Intel compatibility wasn't a problem for iPhone and certainly hasn't been a problem for iPad.

I for one would stop buying Macs, as I need and want an intel based computer

When I first switched back to Macs (from running Linux), in 2008, I really thought that Intel compatibility was an important feature. Today it means nothing to me as I haven't ran Windows on the machine and any open source software I might be interested in is already running on ARM anyways. Considering how Windows just gets worst with each release I really don't see much happening there to get me to want to install a VM for Windows.

Now I fully understand that some out there need Windows, it is certainly required at work. The funny thing here being the need to run old version of Windows on a VM to get old software to work on new machinery. I digress but the point here is that the number of people that absolutely need Windiws support is extremely tiny these days and could be handled by one or two Pro models. Mainstream users have no need for Intel compatibility any more.

 

[springsup]

Apple is quite anti-GPU these days. If an Intel CPU doesn't have adequate integrated graphics, it will be skipped, because Apple won't reverse the path taken against discrete GPUs.

I'd really wish that some major Apple customer would request a multimillion dollar shipment of Macs equipped with cutting-edge NVIDIA GPUs, but that kind of customers already moved to Linux. The main Mac user wears a watchie and chats with a phonie... that's the sad reality.

Or they want decent battery life in portable devices.

Dedicated GPUs are an option, but the reality is that most users of even the Pro machines don't need to be using it most of the time.

 

[Jbach67]

This entire article's premise is based on the assumption Apple will release another MacBook Pro.

Given Apple's recent track record, I'm calling this a very poor assumption.

Stay tuned!!

 

[springsup]

Coffee lake??? Are they leaving it up to 4yr olds to name these chips?

Next year: Chocolate Fountain

 

[DevNull0]

For each two opinions that you might share with someone else, there will be another two from people wo do not want dGPUs in their Macs. Keep in mind this.

IMO Apple's best choice would be betting on two setups of 15 inch MBP. One with GT4e GPU, and one with GT2 + dGPU setup.

And yet every other hardware vendor has a huge range of options from $300 toys to rMB style ultra books to graphics powerhouses. Why is Apple alone not capable of targeting more than one market niche?

Apple's best choice would be an rMB like computer for the casual user, replace the MBA with a good solid business class computer, and the MBP as a powerhouse desktop replacement.

 

[SimonTheSoundMa]

Are they though?

Intel releases new chips all the time... and dozens of PC manufacturers release new computers with new Intel chips all the time...

It sounds like the problem is with Apple... not Intel.

It has been odd. Apple still shipping 4th generation i7's when there is a 6th generation i7 (Skylake GT4e with 128MB EDORAM like the Crystalwell Apple currently has) on the market.

I can tell how old Apple's laptops are. Ordered six 15 inch models direct from Apple this week and two came with OS X 10.11.1 and four with Yosemite. Apple holds some very old stock! May 2015 when the current gen was released.

 

[koyoot]

And yet every other hardware vendor has a huge range of options from $300 toys to rMB style ultra books to graphics powerhouses. Why is Apple alone not capable of targeting more than one market niche?

Apple's best choice would be an rMB like computer for the casual user, replace the MBA with a good solid business class computer, and the MBP as a powerhouse desktop replacement.

They are targeting the only one nieche: Apple ecosystem. On the other hand: I will give you pretty steep task. Show me laptop from other company that has high resolution screen, fast, and large amount of RAM, fast SSD, Quad core CPU, and GPU with performance of GTX 960M/RX 480M, all locked in 85-90W power supply.

As far as I know, some ultrabooks have that power supply, but not such configuration.

 

[duervo]

I ditched my desktop for a Windows PC with a 980Ti as Apple couldn't be bothered updating their desktop workstation.

Once this 17" Macbook Pro dies I don't think I will be buying another Mac laptop as they don't seem to arsed about supporting that line.

Im getting to the point where I'm thinking Apple just wants everyone to have an iPad to consume and isnt to interested in how anything gets created anymore.

Windows 10 pretty much does the job as well as OSX and Chrome is as just as good as Safari.

It's a shame really, for years Apple managed to do really well the the computer lines, and I never wanted to use a Windows PC, I hated every moment of the I had to. The same with crappy plastic PC laptops. But everyone else has caught up, passed Apple and still considers it a viable business.

Chrome is all over the place lately, in the corporate environment anyway. One version, it works great, then they release another version ... crap. Then things are great again with the next release. Really silly. As a general web browser for social media and video consumption, it's fine. It starts to fail when it comes to supporting corporate web apps. Something they do always breaks something, and then they fix what they broke with their next update. Then they break another thing. It's a never ending cycle with Chrome. Like they're running in circles chasing their own tail.

Firefox, on the other hand, seems to be much better in that regard. (IE is just crap, and don't get me started on Edge.) Between Firefox and Chrome, Firefox gets my vote for the one to use ... for now, anyway.

I'm not very loyal to any brand, so the day when Firefox starts giving me grief, I'll just jump back to Chrome. If that one sucks at that time too, I dunno what I'll do.

 

[wizard]

Funny how jammed up they were about not hitting 3GHz. Apple was buying into the MHz myth they had so long told people to ignore. Fast forward to 2016 and the MacBook lineup caps out at 1.3GHz, MBA is 2.2GHz and even the MBP is under 3GHz.

PPC back just before the transition was a terrible processor performance wise when integer performance was considered. This is why Apple and Steve back in the day stressed floating point performance even though it wasn't a factor for most users. Unfortunately for Apple computer performance back then was fpdriven by integer performance at Intel was way ahead at the time. This is what drive Apple to Intel, IBM and Motorola failed to deliver decent PPC performance.

All that said, the MBP lineup is starting to see updates less frequently than the PowerBooks were back in those days, which is what really drove the CPU switch. Its beginning to feel a lot like 2005 again.

I'm expecting major updates not so much because Intel isn't there with hardware, but rather because I expecting Apple to debut co produced processors that have resulted from a team up with either Intel or AMD. That is a processor that has a little Apple IP in it to tailor the chip to the needs of Mac OS. Combined with other features expect a big step forward.
[doublepost=1474568290][/doublepost]

I'm seriously considering cutting my losses and getting the current model. My MacBook Pro mid 2010 is ages like 'fine wine' but processor and graphics card in it just don't cut it anymore.

Wait! Seriously I understand the slowness problem but you really want to get in to a new generation of hardware.

 

[simonmet]

I ditched my desktop for a Windows PC with a 980Ti as Apple couldn't be bothered updating their desktop workstation.

Once this 17" Macbook Pro dies I don't think I will be buying another Mac laptop as they don't seem to arsed about supporting that line.

Im getting to the point where I'm thinking Apple just wants everyone to have an iPad to consume and isnt to interested in how anything gets created anymore.

Windows 10 pretty much does the job as well as OSX and Chrome is as just as good as Safari.

It's a shame really, for years Apple managed to do really well the the computer lines, and I never wanted to use a Windows PC, I hated every moment of the I had to. The same with crappy plastic PC laptops. But everyone else has caught up, passed Apple and still considers it a viable business.

I was looking for the equivalent of an rMBP that has a fast quad-core i7 and a major step up in graphics (like a 970m, 1060 or 1070) but is still stylish and slim and I couldn't find it.

Do you have any suggestions? The majority of PC vendors seem to assume that if I want fast graphics I also want big and bulky optical disc and magnetic storage drives but this is absolutely not the case. They are two technologies that Apple rightly abandoned in the rMBP over 4 years ago.

The majority of the new attractive breed of PC laptops have integrated graphics that aren't even Iris Pro, so they'll perform like dogs at anything graphically intensive.

I accept there's a market and a reason to choose a gaming-class laptop but I've not seen anything from another manufacturer that would make me switch, even if I did (and do) want some killer graphics in a laptop.

Desktop is a completely different story however because size, portability and to some extent looks are less of an issue. I think going PC for desktops now is the only way but as much as we bitch and moan about Apple's ageing rMBP the truth is (unfortunately) that there's nothing else that's even attempting to do what it is so far as I can tell.

If I'm wrong I'd love to see.

 

[duervo]

I was looking for the equivalent of an rMBP that has a fast quad-core i7 and a major step up in graphics like (970m/1060/1070) but is still stylish and slim and I couldn't find it.

Razor Blade lineup is what you'd be looking for, given those wants. For a 1060/1070/1080 GPU, stay tuned. They'll eventually release something with one of those in it.

 

[LordVic]

Likewise rumors of Mac OS running on A series processors has been around for a long time. Frankly I'd be shocked to find out that Apple DOESN'T have Mac OS running on a number of different processors.

The lack of Intel compatibility wasn't a problem for iPhone and certainly hasn't been a problem for iPad.


When I first switched back to Macs (from running Linux), in 2008, I really thought that Intel compatibility was an important feature. Today it means nothing to me as I haven't ran Windows on the machine and any open source software I might be interested in is already running on ARM anyways. Considering how Windows just gets worst with each release I really don't see much happening there to get me to want to install a VM for Windows.

Now I fully understand that some out there need Windows, it is certainly required at work. The funny thing here being the need to run old version of Windows on a VM to get old software to work on new machinery. I digress but the point here is that the number of people that absolutely need Windiws support is extremely tiny these days and could be handled by one or two Pro models. Mainstream users have no need for Intel compatibility any more.

the problem for me is that while I personally like using Apple computers, for my job, I cannot use OSx. end of story. No questions about it. Our application, and our DB back end supports unix or windows. Thats it. They have ZERO interest in OSx and have outright said "OSx support will never come"

We're talking about Enterprise level database systems and programming languages used in dozens of financial institutions around the world.

so, if Apple did go ARM, I would never be able to use their computers again for work.

This goes for the front end, and about 99% of enterprise/corporate computing. OSx has made good inroads in consumer usage, but thats it. They have ZERO enterprise / corporate presence outside of the occasional ipad, or idevices using OWA.

One thing that many consumers don't realize is that the vast majority of the world is built on x86 and PowerPC. As mentioned before as well, is that OSx usage is roughtly only 5% of the worlds desktop users.

if you can live 100% within the MacOS universe, yes, you'll likely be OK. but for the rest of us? the 95% of us? moving from Intel would be suicidal

 

[diddl14]

Time to move macOS to the A-series CPU/GPU's...

 

[poorcody]

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

One reason I suspect this is the case: according to this article (Jan 2015), Apple buys Intel processors for between $180-$300 per machine. Their own A-processor costs them around $25.

 

[weup togo]

OSx has made good inroads in consumer usage, but thats it. They have ZERO enterprise / corporate presence outside of the occasional ipad, or idevices using OWA.

This is complete and utter nonsense.