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.
More Reports of NVIDIA Graphics Chips in Next-Generation MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd be surprised if they put an nVidia chip in another Apple product. OSX is cloaking itself in OpenCL and ATI/AMD cards have a much higher price->performance return.
GT 650M is a dog anyway for the level we're talking about: a mid-range video card in premium-priced hardware, is a joke. It's not fit for anything other than browsing the web and playing "undemanding" games.
Of course that may actually be the new target demographic. Or this may be just another completely fabricated rumor...though it didn't come from digitimes.
GT 650M is a dog anyway for the level we're talking about: a mid-range video card in premium-priced hardware, is a joke. It's not fit for anything other than browsing the web and playing "undemanding" games.
Of course that may actually be the new target demographic. Or this may be just another completely fabricated rumor...though it didn't come from digitimes.
What the hell have you been something? The entire nVIDIA Kepler line has pretty much offered better power / performance and heat / performance ratio compared to AMD Souther Island in the desktop department, why wouldn't the same go for the mobile department?
People are comparing with older architectures and older die sizes we had with GeForce 8xxx and 9xxx series back in the day and completely ignore the fact that things change, graphics card have developed since those days and with Kepler nVIDIA has proven to pretty much beat AMD in every department this time around.
So you'd rather take a graphics card with higher heat / performance and power / performance just because nVIDIA didn't offer decent mobile cards a few years back? Some people are just silly..
People are comparing with older architectures and older die sizes we had with GeForce 8xxx and 9xxx series back in the day and completely ignore the fact that things change, graphics card have developed since those days and with Kepler nVIDIA has proven to pretty much beat AMD in every department this time around.
So you'd rather take a graphics card with higher heat / performance and power / performance just because nVIDIA didn't offer decent mobile cards a few years back? Some people are just silly..
Looks like it plays Skyrim and BF3 at med/high, although obviously not on a retina display. If a GTX 570 desktop card just barely plays BF3 on ultra 1080p and 60 fps, I'd say that's not to shabby for a mobile gpu.
You know you are completely wrong and are making a complete fool out of your self, right? OpenCL performance is no worse with GeForce cards compared to Radeon cards and with the optimized nVIDIA drivers in Mountain Lion who knows which one would be the better in the end? You my good sir are talking out of your *a*s*s*.
When it comes to price / performance nVIDIA have been pretty much dead on with AMD with it's Kepler architecture. They tend to cost a few % extra, but at the same time you get about the same % extra in terms of performance so it all balances out. Are you talking your numbers based on older generations of cards or what?
There is nothing premium priced with the GT 650M, which card from AMD do you find in the same price-range not being mid-range and offer way better price / performance ratio? None.. And it's performing more than decent enough to play most modern games on half decent settings and again which AMD card for the same price would offer you that much better gaming performance? None.. And since when did MacBook Pro's become all about gaming anyway. You will normally find better GPGPU support and performance with GeForce cards compared to Radeon cards.
It doesn't seem like you have any clue on what you are talking about, so why open your mouth in the first place?
I don't play games on my macbook, I work and I use big manly software to do serious things. Just because "ooh it's a kepler! it's like magic!" doesn't mean it's going to be any faster in 12 months time because software EATS all that extra horsepower, year on year - we'd all be using supercomputers by now if it didn't. Seeing as some of us use computers to make money for a living, wouldn't it be just dandy to have PRO hardware. Sadly, Apple doesn't do Pro anymore - and if you think they do, you're kidding yourself.
Again, not on a retina display, looks like it'll do ultra if you don't 30-40 fps, and high for much more. I know for MMO's fps doesn't seem near as important as it is for FPS's. Also, all these tests were on Sandy Bridge so maybe Ivy Bridge will squeeze a few more out.
Bear in mind that Optimus does not work with 3D panels. The discrete video is stuck running even at idle.I see the new Asus G75 offers the GTX 660M with 2Gb and also the GTX 670M with 3GB. And an Ivy Bridge i7 3610QM. I wonder if the battery will last for 2 hours?Samsung also has a new 700 series but it has the GT 650M with 2 GB. Both are 17". Maybe Apple will offer something similar.
Just hope nVidia cleaned up its act...
That whole MBP GPU issue from a few years ago is still fresh in my mind. Between my wife and I, we've owned 10 Macs in many years (each Mac in use for years), and the only one that experienced any kind of catastrophic failure was the MBP with the nVidia GPU problem.
Just saying . . .
That whole MBP GPU issue from a few years ago is still fresh in my mind. Between my wife and I, we've owned 10 Macs in many years (each Mac in use for years), and the only one that experienced any kind of catastrophic failure was the MBP with the nVidia GPU problem.
Just saying . . .
Hmm, looks like a 650M is considerably better than a 6770M while also using less power, so if you were happy with that, you should be fine...
If you weren't, than I can't help you.
The premium price is the Macbook Pro. And you clearly don't know much about OpenCL and nVidia's (let's say craptastic) support of it. Lemme quote you back:
But of course, it's because you're a gamer. Everyone using macs these days are just gamers, dribbling over from the PC side because they bought an iPhone and need to have the full collection.
----------
Hmm, looks like a 650M is considerably better than a 6770M while also using less power, so if you were happy with that, you should be fine...
If you weren't, than I can't help you.
Don't say that, I'll have to go read spec sheets and god help me actually apologise or something if it's true.
I'll just go for a cig instead : )
I disagree, the higher res screen is a must.
The GPU performance should not be effected that much by the higher resolution. Epecially with 2D tasks, recent tests I've completed proved the extra resolution from 1080p to 1800+p has little or no frame count loss, (using a QuadroFX card.)
The main problem would be if your are doing tasks that would require more GPU dedicated RAM than the graphics card has onboard. This could be a problem with carrying the extra pixels, and a higher memory card would resolve this. Also when you consider the current pro is using very old out dated GPU boards, it should not be any worse.
For games and 3D work, again not much of a problem. The flash HD (SSD) would help in most cases and create a snapy improvement on the current model.
This is a much needed update thats about 12moths too late in my opinion. The current pro is out of date and in too many ways to list here.
You may be correct with Apple drivers as what I've been looking up has been on Windows 7. Although, at least if it's better on one OS and not the other, it's not the hardware's fault.
What's funny is if you spent a little time reading hardware enthusiast forums and articles(obviously not usually Mac people), you'll see quite a bit of compalining about AMD drivers over Nvidia's.
http://hardocp.com/article/2012/01/17/amd_crossfirex_drivers_opportunity_lost
It's true. If Apple could put an old turd in a shiny box and sell it, they would.
Or is that what the current pro is??
512 is more likely and 1gb would be the most Apple would go as they are tight when it comes to putting solid hardware in their shiny box. But this should actually be enough for most people. The machine would only slow down if you used the entire 1GB and needed more. More Ram on a graphics board will not speed up the computer, only enable it to take on larger tasks before it grinds.
When was the last time you used more than 500GB RAM on a task. Most games even struggle to use this much.
I'm assuming you mean 500MB, and BF3 easily caps out at 2GB Ram AND 2GB VRam at 1080p.
Here are two pictures of BF3 at only 720p using almost 800mb of VRAM and Adobe plus BF using almost 8 gigs of RAM.
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n223/stilev1/VRAM720p.png
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n223/stilev1/FrapsCPU.png
I agree. The Mac Pro could really use an update these days. It's nearly two years ago since it was a top performer. It's embarrassing com'on Apple.
Regarding laptops I don't agree, though. The MacBook Pro line is still super fast and well balanced. Not the fastet on the market but still fast enough for laptop totin' pros.
You write the article is old. Of course it is old, because the 9600M GT is old. What do you expect? If you read it, you see that NVIDIA claimed they used a stronger material for the 9600M GT CPUs, but the analysis shows, they use the same problematic material for the 9600M GT and for the 8600M. Not very difficult to understand!?
This is not important (i've a newer AMD MBP now). I described it here on MR several times, i will not repeat myself. And why do you want to speak about a mobile GPU from 2009?
Regarding your google search:
http://www.google.com/search?num=30&safe=off&q=black+screen+apple+9600m+GT
When was the last time machines held 500GB of RAM?
If you meant to say 500MB of RAM I routinely see > 1GB of RAM on tasks.
This is why I hate the internet. It's so hard to get intent across. I was not trying to be an @#$ here in any way. I am genuinely curious because I still use the "mobile GPU from 2009."