Are true sales showing the rMBP with dedicated gpu has that large of a sales lead over the base unit?
You can use a forum as a gauge of sales, people who post are not typical users.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Late-2014 rMBP what will be new?
- Thread starter jimthing
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are true sales showing the rMBP with dedicated gpu has that large of a sales lead over the base unit?
You can use a forum as a gauge of sales, people who post are not typical users.
Most of people what I saw are going for higher end computer, regardless what it has inside. Maybe its not 90%, but 90% people of this forum bought higher end model.
The proportions are IMO 75% - 25%, Higher end - Lower end models.
Thats good. That shows that abundance is everywhere, and people can afford that computer
.Believe me. Im not using my MBP15 mid 2012 non-retina, even in half of his power.
But I would love to get the computer with Broadwell, 16 GB RAM, 768 GB SSD, and GTX850M/860M.
Even if the only harder thing for this computer would be WoW, Diablo 3 and Heroes of the Storm.
I suspect some people are probably going to be absolutely horrified by one or two of my guesses:
- Arrives towards the end of the year with a Broadwell chip
- Discrete GPU model gone now due to the performance bump in the iGPU
- Standard RAM bumped up to 16GB and SSD to 512GB
- FaceTime camera goes up to 1080p
- HDMI port updated to 2.0 and a new version of MiniDisplayPort capable of sending a DisplayPort 1.3 signal (Apple boasts about being capable of 8k or 4k at 60FPS)
- 13" model folded together with the Air-line into a new 12" (retina) Macbook
- Arrives towards the end of the year with a Broadwell chip
- Discrete GPU model gone now due to the performance bump in the iGPU
- Standard RAM bumped up to 16GB and SSD to 512GB
- FaceTime camera goes up to 1080p
- HDMI port updated to 2.0 and a new version of MiniDisplayPort capable of sending a DisplayPort 1.3 signal (Apple boasts about being capable of 8k or 4k at 60FPS)
- 13" model folded together with the Air-line into a new 12" (retina) Macbook
@koyoot I thought the same before the release of 15'' rMBP late 2013. Turns out, that a lot of people here a happy with their iGPU rMBP (cooler, no gfx switching, better battery life ....) . And please don't mix up a Mac geek forum with the real sale numbers. Because only Apple knows how many 15'' rMBP with 750m are sold. I'm really like mine too and I'm happy to switch via gfx status when it's needed. Or to use Bootcamp and play sometimes games with the 750m.
So it's totally understandable from a gaming / hardware perspective, to include a 860m in a future rMBP. I'm not against it, but beside better performance and slightly lower TDP, there a of lot economic and product design reasons, why Apple maybe won't include it. We're all making guesses here. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I tried to be realistic based on recent decisions Apple made. And after last year I'm not optimistic, that we will see a powerful dGPU for the base model (and in the long run the high-end model) again. Apple even raised the entry price for a laptop with a dGPU dramatically to make more profits and to see if who is willing to spend an extra 800$ for it (1799$ classic MBP 2012 with 650m to 2600$ rMBP late 2013).
So it's totally understandable from a gaming / hardware perspective, to include a 860m in a future rMBP. I'm not against it, but beside better performance and slightly lower TDP, there a of lot economic and product design reasons, why Apple maybe won't include it. We're all making guesses here. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I tried to be realistic based on recent decisions Apple made. And after last year I'm not optimistic, that we will see a powerful dGPU for the base model (and in the long run the high-end model) again. Apple even raised the entry price for a laptop with a dGPU dramatically to make more profits and to see if who is willing to spend an extra 800$ for it (1799$ classic MBP 2012 with 650m to 2600$ rMBP late 2013).
Narcaz, Economic reasons are pointless.
This year Apple installed a 50 dollar more expensive CPU AND Discreet GPU that cost another 50, or so, dollars. Economy is irrelevant here. iGPU in Broadwell will not be that much better, than it is in Haswell, and Maxwell will wipe out that GPU in ANY way of performance case. OpenCL, OpenGL, Gaming, Mining Bitcoins. The only way in which iGPU will be better is the Battery and heat. But from what we know - Maxwell will draw less power than Kepler, and will give less heat.
Secondly - in high stress scenarios - iGPU and dGPU are drawing similar amounts of power, which was proven year ago, or so, on a german site, that was testing Iris Pro and GT650M.
GTX850M will wipe down every single GPU, that is at 30W of power draw, and knowing Apple - they will gonna OC those GPUs.
The question is - what will Intel show. Because there is a possibility that there will be 35 and 28W Quad Core Processors rather than 47/37W ones. Don't cite me on this. I just heard that its a possibility.
This year Apple installed a 50 dollar more expensive CPU AND Discreet GPU that cost another 50, or so, dollars. Economy is irrelevant here. iGPU in Broadwell will not be that much better, than it is in Haswell, and Maxwell will wipe out that GPU in ANY way of performance case. OpenCL, OpenGL, Gaming, Mining Bitcoins. The only way in which iGPU will be better is the Battery and heat. But from what we know - Maxwell will draw less power than Kepler, and will give less heat.
Secondly - in high stress scenarios - iGPU and dGPU are drawing similar amounts of power, which was proven year ago, or so, on a german site, that was testing Iris Pro and GT650M.
GTX850M will wipe down every single GPU, that is at 30W of power draw, and knowing Apple - they will gonna OC those GPUs.
The question is - what will Intel show. Because there is a possibility that there will be 35 and 28W Quad Core Processors rather than 47/37W ones. Don't cite me on this
. I just heard that its a possibility.I still can't figure out why some people are obsessed with iGPU's. With switching, you get the battery benefits on the integrated GPU and under load you can go to something more powerful. Why are you "hoping" that something is going to be TAKEN away from you?
In case people didn't notice, the Mac Pro isn't using integrated graphics. Apple did the opposite, and unthinkable: They went to TWO Gpu's. Motion and FCP need some graphics power. Now ask yourself: Mac Book PRO- does it need a discreet GPU?
I think Apple has already answered this question by the decisions to ADD GPU's to the Mac Pro.
OK, so I'll play the radical devil's advocate each time we speak about removing the dGPU: I'm saying Apple is moving towards two 860m's in SLI. Because if I wanted 44 hours of battery life, I'd buy a Macbook Air.
In case people didn't notice, the Mac Pro isn't using integrated graphics. Apple did the opposite, and unthinkable: They went to TWO Gpu's. Motion and FCP need some graphics power. Now ask yourself: Mac Book PRO- does it need a discreet GPU?
I think Apple has already answered this question by the decisions to ADD GPU's to the Mac Pro.
OK, so I'll play the radical devil's advocate each time we speak about removing the dGPU: I'm saying Apple is moving towards two 860m's in SLI. Because if I wanted 44 hours of battery life, I'd buy a Macbook Air.
Last edited:
Most of people what I saw are going for higher end computer, regardless what it has inside. Maybe its not 90%, but 90% people of this forum bought higher end model.
The proportions are IMO 75% - 25%, Higher end - Lower end models.
Thats good. That shows that abundance is everywhere, and people can afford that computer
You didn't answer Nealh's question regarding sales data. To create overall sales ratios in your head based on the testimonials of a few folks here and your gut instincts is beyond absurd. You would get laughed out of an entry level stats class with your current premise.
Bring back some actual figures to back up your assertion. I share your same curiosity, along with I'm sure many here and especially those at Apple, regarding whether customers prefer the dGPU still (and whether they are willing to pay a substantial premium to keep it).
I have a feeling the ratios are much more even than you surmised. If I had to guess I would even say 50/50 or so. But until some actual relevant data is released it's anyones guess.
Nah, I believe it's closer to 50/50. Evidence: On ebay and craigslist at any given time there are a roughly equal number of base model (ME293LL/A) 15" rMBP's for sale vs the GT750 model (ME294LL/A).
And on the Apple refurbished site, the base model and GT750 model are the only two 15" configurations that are always available, with the base model being especially likely to be available. Ditto in regard to the 13" rMBP - base model is the most reliably available.
This forum is not at all representative of typical users.
Which year? Broadwell chips will not be available in sufficient quantities to ship Broadwell MBPs before the 2014 peak holiday shopping season.
Possible. The discrete GPU might hang on the high-end model with Broadwell but Skylake MBPs will almost certainly be free of any discrete GPUs.
There is no chance that Apple will raise the entry price point so much. To go from 4GB to 16GB minimum and from 128GB to 512GB minimum from one model to the next makes no sense at all. 8GB is likely to be the new minimum with Broadwell. 256GB might be a new minimum for flash.
Very possible.
Very possible.
Possible, but I doubt it. It's more likely that we'll see the MBP line go to 14" and 16". They are currently 13.3" and 15.4" so with thinner bezels, they might be the same overall size as the current models.
This won't happen until DDR4 (i.e. Skylake). Making 16GB standard means that there will be no RAM expansion option at all - Apple will never do it
Amazing logic. Because the tank has a diesel engine and uses tracks, the sportscar is sure to be the same. The sole reason that Mac Pro has a dual GPUs because its a professional-level content creation workstation. MacBook Pro is something VERY different.
OK, so I'll play the radical devil's advocate each time we speak about removing the dGPU: I'm saying Apple is moving towards two 860m's in SLI. Because if I wanted 44 hours of battery life, I'd buy a Macbook Air.
That would be agains all Apple's design traditions. I guess this was supposed to be a joke anyway, so I'll leave it at what I have already said
This won't happen until DDR4 (i.e. Skylake). Making 16GB standard means that there will be no RAM expansion option at all - Apple will never do it
Amazing logic. Because the tank has a diesel engine and uses tracks, the sportscar is sure to be the same. The sole reason that Mac Pro has a dual GPUs because its a professional-level content creation workstation. MacBook Pro is something VERY different.
That would be agains all Apple's design traditions. I guess this was supposed to be a joke anyway, so I'll leave it at what I have already said
In your analogy, the Macbook Air is the sports car. The Macbook Pro is (wait for it....) a PRO machine. Like the Mac Pro is a PRO machine, and the iMac is a consumer machine.
Macbook Pro's are, this very moment, advertised as workstation class portable editing stations for major feature films.
In the desktop space, this need is filled by the Mac Pro, which has TWO dGPU's. I am trying to figure out what that advantage of a MBP is if you take the discreet GPU away and put a retina in the MBA..which they are clearly going to do. The MBP is for PRO users, and IMO battery comes second to power in a Pro machine.
BTW, the Truck vs Car analogy is used when comparing PC's to tablets, not Pro notebooks to Pro towers.
Oh please, everyone knows that the 'pro' is only a trendy moniker and doesn't have anything to do with reality. The iMac is much more professional-grade than the same MacBook Pro.
By whom? And of course its capable of editing major feature films. Its certainly not a 'real' workstation. The laptop itself is clearly designed to be jack of all trades - high performance with high mobility, without having any features that would push it into a particular niche. The dual GPU of Mac Pro is already what indicates that its niche is content creation. I'm still so getting one for our file server, even though I'd prefer it to come without any GPU at all
That is your opinion. Maybe this is even a correct opinion, I have no idea. However, the fact is that Apple never offered a 'proper' workstation (and they had numerous chances to do so), instead prioritising battery life and mobility. I am not saying that you are wrong - I am simply saying that so far, Apple design principles for their laptop line are very different from what you envision.
Sorry for not following the rules
I know some of these points have already been brought up, but I want to chime in.
You could do office work on a computer in the 90s just fine, but that didn't stop progress. This is such a stagnant view, did you also think 10GB HDs were going to be big enough for the average user for ever? We have a long way to go to stop perceiving improvements and as we get closer to "perfect" it gets harder and harder. Are films are still at 24FPS for God's sake. Just because right now you can't see needing more power doesn't mean we won't need more.
It's not like we're going to stick with the same content forever. Social media has only been "big" for a few years now for example.
I hope not, it not like removing the button changes anything for people to use tap to click.
See above. Not a forward view at all. You could say this in the 90s and the same amount of smart people would laugh.
This is a Mac forum of course a lot of people will buy the high model. Also it being in a lot of signatures means nothing, it's normal to want to show off your top end model.
Guess what? Pixar's server farm has 1000s of CPUs, it's a sign that Apple is going to release a rMBP with 4 CPUs! This is ridiculous! The Mac Pro is a workstation computer, it's GPU count doesn't affect the rMBPs GPU count. Also Apple loves battery life why would they kill it with a SLI setup!? It's uncommon and doesn't really even work by Windows computer standards.
Craigslist is also not a good indicator on sales. The non-tech oriented person is much less likely to use Craigslist and there are a lot of people who want a Mac and chose a 15 inch and that's the end of their knowledge. Those people are not likely on these forums or on Craigslist
The truck vs car analogy has been around looong before tablets. It's totally fair to use with the rMBP and MP. How about F1 vs BMW? They're both high-end, but clearly the F1 car is more powerful.
Have you watched Apple's keynotes? Have you seen how much emphasis they put on battery life? Haven't you seen how they're trying to phaseout dGPUs to improve battery life?
You could do office work on a computer in the 90s just fine, but that didn't stop progress. This is such a stagnant view, did you also think 10GB HDs were going to be big enough for the average user for ever? We have a long way to go to stop perceiving improvements and as we get closer to "perfect" it gets harder and harder. Are films are still at 24FPS for God's sake. Just because right now you can't see needing more power doesn't mean we won't need more.
It's not like we're going to stick with the same content forever. Social media has only been "big" for a few years now for example.
I hope not, it not like removing the button changes anything for people to use tap to click.
See above. Not a forward view at all. You could say this in the 90s and the same amount of smart people would laugh.
Most of people what I saw are going for higher end computer, regardless what it has inside. Maybe its not 90%, but 90% people of this forum bought higher end model.
The proportions are IMO 75% - 25%, Higher end - Lower end models.
Thats good. That shows that abundance is everywhere, and people can afford that computer
This is a Mac forum of course a lot of people will buy the high model. Also it being in a lot of signatures means nothing, it's normal to want to show off your top end model.
In case people didn't notice, the Mac Pro isn't using integrated graphics. Apple did the opposite, and unthinkable: They went to TWO Gpu's. Motion and FCP need some graphics power. Now ask yourself: Mac Book PRO- does it need a discreet GPU?
I think Apple has already answered this question by the decisions to ADD GPU's to the Mac Pro.
OK, so I'll play the radical devil's advocate each time we speak about removing the dGPU: I'm saying Apple is moving towards two 860m's in SLI. Because if I wanted 44 hours of battery life, I'd buy a Macbook Air.
Guess what? Pixar's server farm has 1000s of CPUs, it's a sign that Apple is going to release a rMBP with 4 CPUs! This is ridiculous! The Mac Pro is a workstation computer, it's GPU count doesn't affect the rMBPs GPU count. Also Apple loves battery life why would they kill it with a SLI setup!? It's uncommon and doesn't really even work by Windows computer standards.
Craigslist is also not a good indicator on sales. The non-tech oriented person is much less likely to use Craigslist and there are a lot of people who want a Mac and chose a 15 inch and that's the end of their knowledge. Those people are not likely on these forums or on Craigslist
The truck vs car analogy has been around looong before tablets. It's totally fair to use with the rMBP and MP. How about F1 vs BMW? They're both high-end, but clearly the F1 car is more powerful.
Have you watched Apple's keynotes? Have you seen how much emphasis they put on battery life? Haven't you seen how they're trying to phaseout dGPUs to improve battery life?
Please don't misunderstand me! I am surely not advocating the '640k is enough for anyone' view. Rather, I am speculating whether one can describe a certain level of processing power which would be enough to deliver 'perfect' content quality within the current UI paradigm (man-machine interface via composited 2D/3D images). And I believe that such limit exists. E.g. an uncompressed full dynamic range image with resolution high enough so that a human eye would not be able to see any spacial artefacts on a 15" display will need somewhere around 500MB (assuming 8k resolution with floating point color components) - using shared exponent number specification even under 200MB. Surely we are not there yet, but I also don't think that its that far away.
The office programs in the 90ties didn't have complex layout, high-quality font rendering and complex animation; the spelling correction etc. was also quite primitive. So while it was 'enough', there were still ways to improve it. Also, current office programs are far from being 'there' - I am yet to see realtime LaTeX-qiality text typesetting in a generic text editor. Things like these will take several years more. But what can one improve beyond that? After all, there are only so many things you can do with text processing.
Last remark - social media is still the same 'old' type of content - its layered interactive imagery. Not that different from an office document in terms of presentation/interaction.
My favorite part of this debate is the slogan on the front page of the MacBook Pro product page on Apples website: MacBook Pro, More power behind every pixel.
Clearly they are phasing out discreet GPUs. What was I thinking. And battery life...clearly important. It's right their in the slogan. Ummm. Wait...
Clearly they are phasing out discreet GPUs. What was I thinking. And battery life...clearly important. It's right their in the slogan. Ummm. Wait...
That was my point, social media as a whole is still very young. You could easily morph into a different type of content which requires substantially more power. I understand what you're saying about getting to a "perfect" picture, but I feel that by the time that happens odds are that new types of content will be around.
And we are getting closer to the current semiconductor manufacturing processes not being able to get any smaller, throwing a wrench into the speed in which we're advancing.
So you are saying that a faster CPU, faster GPU, larger screen, more storage and the ability to run at full load for extended periods of time without burning my fingers make the iMac less professional than the MBP?
....(snip)
I am personally hoping for an 850m bump because I am in the market for a new machine and ready to buy next week. I'd love to get a Maxwell unit due to the 50% faster GPU. Diablo 3 running natively at 50-60fps sounds pretty sweet to me
Cheers everyone.
Are you using an rMBP now? I've got a 2012 2.7GHZ/16GB RAM with the ancient Intel 4000/650m and have had a BLAST with Diablo---I believe @ 1920 with most settings on 'high'. Are you talking about playing at the 'true' native aspect ratio @ 2800 pixels? Man....I don't know if I could ever grab my potion quick enough on that small of a UI
I'm not so sure Apple's refurb, eBay or Craigslist are any better statistic derivatives either. Apple has returns...they refurb, they resell. eBay, perhaps mainly 're-sellers'...and I'd bet a couple bucks those that went out, took a look at a $2k machine...and asked what the extra $600 gets them....they find out an extra 8GB of RAM, 256GB of SSD (PCIe), and...oh, another and dedicated GPU. Maybe it made sense to 'em. Otherwise, why not the 13"? Save a bit of money that way...while sacrificing real estate....that said, the 15" without the 17" IS Apple's 'Pro' laptop...love it, hate it, or indifferent it's irrelevant. It's a Pro laptop with Pro specs, the fastest storage on the portable market...the fastest 4th gen mobile processors, the highest capacity PCIe SSD storage available and the ONLY machine with Thunderbolt 2x2.
ONLY Apple has a clue which is selling better...but again, I'd bet it's more like a 70/30, even 80/20 split. 70 or 80% choosing 512GB of storage, 16GB of RAM and the 750m.
This won't happen until DDR4 (i.e. Skylake). Making 16GB standard means that there will be no RAM expansion option at all - Apple will never do it
Amazing logic. Because the tank has a diesel engine and uses tracks, the sportscar is sure to be the same. The sole reason that Mac Pro has a dual GPUs because its a professional-level content creation workstation. MacBook Pro is something VERY different. /QUOTE]
OH...Please....VERY different? Man, if I could introduce you to about a half dozen people today that would whole-heartedly disagree with you....especially considering their same approach to storage...pressing Intel on the computer power of the iGPU, Thunderbolt....the ability to drive 3 4k Monitors while editing another 4k timeline....Not Pro? WTH are you talking about? Sure, it's not the 'Desktop' pro...but it sure as hell is the portable pro. I've worked in video and audio production for 20 years....and what some folks have done with 2008 MBPs would BLOW your mind...much less the 4th gen core 'i' procs with fast RAM and 'Blow your Doors Off' storage speed....with the most 'pro' I/O selection on ANY portable on today's market. Not sure what you're trying to achieve here....but you're either A)Ignorant to the rMBP or B)Ignorant.
Oh please, everyone knows that the 'pro' is only a trendy moniker and doesn't have anything to do with reality. The iMac is much more professional-grade than the same MacBook Pro.
By whom? And of course its capable of editing major feature films. Its certainly not a 'real' workstation. The laptop itself is clearly designed to be jack of all trades - high performance with high mobility, without having any features that would push it into a particular niche. The dual GPU of Mac Pro is already what indicates that its niche is content creation. I'm still so getting one for our file server, even though I'd prefer it to come without any GPU at all
AND there ya go again....I'm not sure what it is you can't do on the rMBP today that you're looking to do. Please share....we're, I'm sure there's more than I...curious as to why Apple has released a 'Pro' 'monikored', ultra high resolution, extremely FAST machine, BUT...."everyone knows that the 'pro' is only a trendy moniker and doesn't have anything to do with reality. The iMac is much more professional-grade than the same MacBook Pro."
That's RIDICULOUS!!!! How the hell am I gonna carry my 27" iMac to my meeting? How am I going to take it into the field to transfer my footage...throw my audio in, keep on top of my projects, folder, files and bring it home to my real "Pro" machine?
You do know the latest rMBPs in some cases blow the doors off the 'last' Mac Pro, right? Did no one use those for 'real work'?
I'm not sure what world you're living in....but your remarks about this absolute bad ass laptop are over the top. I've got three. Two 2012s and a 2013 and can say with certainty buying computers for three decades these are the three BEST machines I've ever owned...laptop, desktop, tablet, phone...doesn't matter. I still smile turning it on everyday....even though it means I've got work to do
Pixar's server farms aren't Mac Pros. The MacBook Pro is the Pro line of laptops. The Mac Pro, the desktop. No one compared a workstation desktop, certainly the latest incarnation....to today's rMBP, but what a PERFECT comparison! They're so much more 'like' than different. PCIe storage, compact, light, incredible design, powerful and utilizing the newest, latest, up to date hardware available unlike in year's past. Don't forget....Apple dropped the first HiDPI display. They're the first out of the gate with 1Gb/sec read/write times on PCIe storage....they're 'over clocking' their dGPUs...not just dropping them in. They're working hand in hand with Intel on not just iGPUs but Thunderbolt, efficiency and TDP.
I'll bet my paycheck in November to yours we'll continue to see dGPUs in future rMBPs, especially the CTO versions.
J
Can you please write up at least something more than two devoid of every meaning words? thundersteele's post hits is right on the spot.
----------
No reason to get so emotional
As far as I am concerned, the rMBP is the best general-purpose laptop currently on the market. I love mine and I certainly wouldn't choose anything else over it. I was simply explaining to GPU-hungy Mike here why I don't believe his arguments make much sense.
As I said like the 2013 model, it will only really be a chipset upgrade
Maybe TB2 but I think laptops are a mature product and we don't see too many major changes from year to year.
Do you think Apple might go with a touch screen?
