Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I have a Late 2012 27" iMac (3.2 i5, 680MX GPU) and I love it.

It is near silent, even under load, runs very cool and has plenty of CPU and GPU grunt for whatever I throw at it (gaming in bootcamp mainly).

Even under heavy gaming the temperatures are nice and low - around 70 C with stock clocks (It has plenty of overclock headroom, but I don't bother since it is more than powerful enough for me as is).

The screen is excellent, and if you sit at an average distance away from it (around 33") then it's physically indistinguishable from a retina screen unless you have razor eyesight (that's simply physics). If you are closer to it then you will be able to tell the difference, but even then, it's an outstanding screen.

By all accounts the major downside of going for the retina iMac is that it runs hot due to the GPU they stuffed in there. The 680MX I am running is cool and quiet, as is the 780M in the current non-retina (they're basically the same card). The AMD card in the retina runs hot and causes throttling issues if you push it hard.

If you never intend to work it hard then the retina screen may be worth the premium to you.

Thank you for the detailed info. Unfortunately, Apple just removed the non-retina! My wife plans to lightly game on it, so I doubt that we will push it too hard...
 
I believe the 680MX is equal to the GTX 775M and the 780M is a small increase over that (~15-20%).

The 680MX has all the SMD cores turned on (1536) like the 780M. The 680MX is literally an under clocked desktop GTX 680, which is why the 780M isn't all that much of an upgrade over it - it's the same chip with the same number of cores and the same memory bandwidth. The only improvement the 780 offers is a higher base clock (820 vs 720).

The 775 has fewer cores and a slower memory clock than the 680MX, although the base clock is higher.

If you run the 680 with a mild overclock you essentially have a 780M, just with half the VRAM.

Given the performance of it at stock clocks, though, you don't really need to. It's a bit of a beast, even today - a full Kepler chip (all cores, full speed memory) that runs at 122 Watts. It's a gem.
 
Thank you for the detailed info. Unfortunately, Apple just removed the non-retina! My wife plans to lightly game on it, so I doubt that we will push it too hard...

Not sure if you saw my reply on the other thread. You should still be able to pick up the dropped high spec, non-retina model in Best Buy/any retail store that isn't apple themselves. Sure you won't be able to upgrade it, but you won't have to pay extra for retina.
 
Thank you for the detailed info. Unfortunately, Apple just removed the non-retina! My wife plans to lightly game on it, so I doubt that we will push it too hard...

Don't give up hope! If you really want a non-retina, I bet they will show up on the refurb store for some time to come.
 
Well, the situation should be pretty clear now. Intel not releasing any updates to the status of Broadwell H and Apple not updating the CPU, while they could wait another two months for Broadwell H…

There will never be Broadwell H!

Intel is going to skip Broadwell-H and deliver Skylake-H in the mid future instead, and my guess is a Late-2015 Skylake lineup. If Apple wants to push USB C, they have to deliver all their products with it. And Apple can't afford the MBP 13'' to be superior to the 15'' model (1866mhz-RAM). Thus, Apple will rush to Skylake, with a slightly redesigned chassis.

Then, there's the question to why Apple waited a month before refreshing the 15'' model. It could be production scaling issues for the rMB, or the dGPUs from AMD not ready, or Intel communicating that Broadwell-H isn't happening.
 
The 680MX has all the SMD cores turned on (1536) like the 780M. The 680MX is literally an under clocked desktop GTX 680, which is why the 780M isn't all that much of an upgrade over it - it's the same chip with the same number of cores and the same memory bandwidth. The only improvement the 780 offers is a higher base clock (820 vs 720).

The 775 has fewer cores and a slower memory clock than the 680MX, although the base clock is higher.

If you run the 680 with a mild overclock you essentially have a 780M, just with half the VRAM.

Given the performance of it at stock clocks, though, you don't really need to. It's a bit of a beast, even today - a full Kepler chip (all cores, full speed memory) that runs at 122 Watts. It's a gem.

I think the 775M and 680M benchmark approximately the same and the 780M a bit higher which is interesting considering the less cores etc.

Edit: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-775M.102532.0.html
 
Wow the spectrum in this thread is now "July/August 2015" all the way to Q4 2016..

Yes that's bacause the rollout of a processor generation takes about a year or longer.

Some people on this thread think, that once the first skylake processors come out, all of them will magically be available
 
Apple is the only one who uses the big GPU versions but all other 17W chips came out with other OEMs sooner.

Wong, the microsoft surface pro 3 high end model uses the big GPU version.
And I never said anything about the other versions, nor did I deny that other OEMs had the other versions earlier.



No one uses those chips other than Apple. They are the first of one. There maybe one or two other notebooks that use them at all and they have widely varying release cycles.

Correct, so like I said apple was the first OEM to ship notebooks with those CPUs, or the first to have access to them.

Apple uses the Iris Pro processors and those came out a little after the standard quads. Even Iris Pro showed up first in other notebooks. XMG had a 4750hq out before Apple released their MBPs.

Apple hasn't been first with much of anything. As far as Iris Pro goes they are pretty much the only ones buying them so naturally they get launched basically for Apple. All other Iris Pro notebooks that exist are low volume exotic types.
Nobody else uses the big GPU 15/17W chips because they are mostly pointless. They cost more but offer notehing worthwhile. The GPU is barely any faster in snythetic tests and in real ones not at all. TDP and bandwidth just make them not worth it.
The 28W chips aren't used because they are more expensive than a 15/17W + 840M but perform worse in both absolut performance and battery life. There is no upside to them outside of a smaller logic board. That is why nobody bothers using them.

If Apple only uses chips that come out after the rest they are not exactly a priority. 5500U and such have been out long before the Airs with their chips. Iris Pro broadwell will be launch now and not replace until Q2 2016, while everybody else uses the other quad cores which are probably skylake by the end of the year Q4 2015. So Apple gets served last because they want the special sauce.

You are right, there were some others that had iris pro last year before the 15MBP came out.

I am interested in what you say about the 28W chips, I believe you,
but can you show me some source that shows they perform worse or have less battery life than 15W + 840M
 
Apple has just released a new 15 inch MacBook Pro with the same Haswell processors and the Force Touch trackpad. I hate to say told you so, but I did. I would have liked to believe you but I guess I'll be waiting for the next refresh.

You were right. I still find it inexplicable why Apple didn't do this at the same time they introduced the 13" Broadwell MBP. Why wait until now? Maybe to clear inventory.
 
You were right. I still find it inexplicable why Apple didn't do this at the same time they introduced the 13" Broadwell MBP. Why wait until now? Maybe to clear inventory.

I think Apple usually does these interactive upgrades, no? The SSD and the higher end's AMD graphics are decent iterative upgrades. Waiting for Skylake to give it 12+ hrs of battery life.
 
You were right. I still find it inexplicable why Apple didn't do this at the same time they introduced the 13" Broadwell MBP. Why wait until now? Maybe to clear inventory.

It is puzzling. There is also the question of what I think was a silent refresh on the SSD in the 11" MBA, which reportedly got the same 4-channel PCIe upgrade that the 13" MBA and 13" rMBP got. Odd product management by Apple.
 
You were right. I still find it inexplicable why Apple didn't do this at the same time they introduced the 13" Broadwell MBP. Why wait until now?

Perhaps Intel was still dangling a carrot back then?
 
If that's the case, why didn't it happen at the Spring Forward event?

Seems like Apple waited because there was more to add (very soon) other than a new trackpad.

You're wrong. Apple waited a year to release a new iPad mini that was exactly like the last save for the Touch ID. Same situation (besides the fact it's the Force Touch with 15 Retina)
 
Last edited:
You're wrong. Apple waited a year to release a new iPad mini that was exactly like the last save for the Touch ID. Same situation (besides the fact it's the Force Touch with 15 Retina)

Good point. But my Retina notebook arrived today and is way faster than my old 13" MacBook Pro from 2012... No regrets!
 
Thanks for those stats, but now, please compare it to an ATI or nVidia GPU... Intel is so far behind. Plus, not having dedicated RAM really hurts performance.
Also, for such an expensive computer, the least Apple could do is add a decent GPU, not a crappy and cheap Intel Iris Processor that sucks your RAM to do its job.

You're trying to compare an IGP with a DGP, two GPUs designed for completely different scenarios? My point is that Intel GPUs are quite good for what they are: Low-power GPUs. Even an Nvidia IGP, if they still made those, wouldn't be that much faster than the Intel ones, if at all, based on the explosive performance increases Intel has shown. I believe AMD creates IGPs for their CPUs. That would be a fairer comparison.
 
Good point. But my Retina notebook arrived today and is way faster than my old 13" MacBook Pro from 2012... No regrets!

Have fun. :D:)

----------

You were right. I still find it inexplicable why Apple didn't do this at the same time they introduced the 13" Broadwell MBP. Why wait until now? Maybe to clear inventory.

The necessary Haswell chips did not come out. Maybe they were holding out hope it would come out later. The fault lies with Intel.
 
I am interested in what you say about the 28W chips, I believe you,
but can you show me some source that shows they perform worse or have less battery life than 15W + 840M
At low load if display and everything else was the same the battery life would be similar as the 840M would be disabled.
Under full load they would again need about equal power.
Yet under normal medium load the 840M gets a lot more work done with the same power level. The 840M/940M get close to twice the performance of a 5100/6100 Iris chip.
Under medium load the 15W CPU + X40M combination will need less power to do the same work.
Under full load you get twice the performance for the same power budget.
Under low load you are running just on a smaller intel gpu with a cpu that keeps itself to 15W so if anything it will last a little longer.

Given that Turbo clocks aren't that far apart the only real advantage is sustained cpu performance with the Iris chip as the cpu can clock for longer at high clocks. And the saved logic board space.

Asus and Acer got notebooks that come with either but the Iris versions are the more expensive ones.
Acer Iris
Acer dGPU
Asus Iris
Asus dGPU
Asus dGPU Broadwell
They both got the high quality panels in the Iris model, ergo they aren't perfectly equal. The Asus are the most similar. But they are fairly similar.
At the end a 840M/940M + the 15W GPU just makes the better package and it is the cheaper model. Yes you get the panel upgrades and all but that is because the cpu is so expensive it has to come in the expensive package. Anyway the new zenbooks are Core-M like the Macbook so there isn't even a Broadwell version and there probably won't be one. Those chips are only used by Apple now. The two linked ones above are also the only non Apple Iris notebooks I can find, along with their respective business class versions. So 4 all in all.
 
At low load if display and everything else was the same the battery life would be similar as the 840M would be disabled.
Under full load they would again need about equal power.
Yet under normal medium load the 840M gets a lot more work done with the same power level. The 840M/940M get close to twice the performance of a 5100/6100 Iris chip.
Under medium load the 15W CPU + X40M combination will need less power to do the same work.
Under full load you get twice the performance for the same power budget.
Under low load you are running just on a smaller intel gpu with a cpu that keeps itself to 15W so if anything it will last a little longer.

Given that Turbo clocks aren't that far apart the only real advantage is sustained cpu performance with the Iris chip as the cpu can clock for longer at high clocks. And the saved logic board space.

Asus and Acer got notebooks that come with either but the Iris versions are the more expensive ones.
Acer Iris
Acer dGPU
Asus Iris
Asus dGPU
Asus dGPU Broadwell
They both got the high quality panels in the Iris model, ergo they aren't perfectly equal. The Asus are the most similar. But they are fairly similar.
At the end a 840M/940M + the 15W GPU just makes the better package and it is the cheaper model. Yes you get the panel upgrades and all but that is because the cpu is so expensive it has to come in the expensive package. Anyway the new zenbooks are Core-M like the Macbook so there isn't even a Broadwell version and there probably won't be one. Those chips are only used by Apple now. The two linked ones above are also the only non Apple Iris notebooks I can find, along with their respective business class versions. So 4 all in all.



I am aware of all the notebooks you pointed out, I have used both of the Asus models.

However, I am still confused about power consumption. You describe at full load that the 15W + 840M use the same amount of power as iris.

But I do not understand, if the 840M uses about 30W. Then it would use about 15W + 30W at full load. so 45W which is 60% more than 28W.

Or am I missing something here.
 
The 840M uses about 15W of power not 30W. 30W is where the 750M/950M are already at excluding turbo mode.
Check the power consumption of the notebooks. They are more or less the same.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.