Extremely unlikely unless your only daily activity is running benchmarks.
----------
No, too many other components in the way.
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.
New 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro Lives Up to Apple's Claims, Reaches SSD Throughput Speeds of 2GB/s
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Extremely unlikely unless your only daily activity is running benchmarks.
----------
No, too many other components in the way.
5k over thunderbolt 2, I hope this is true for my Mac Pro 2013 and other thunderbolt 2 devices as well.
Thunderbolt digital video output
Support for up to 5120x2880 resolution at 60Hz on a single external display (model with AMD Radeon R9 M370X only)
Give's me hope for a 5k cinema display this year or an unlock for the 5k iMac to work as a display.
Maybe i'm dreaming.
Thunderbolt digital video output
Support for up to 5120x2880 resolution at 60Hz on a single external display (model with AMD Radeon R9 M370X only)
Give's me hope for a 5k cinema display this year or an unlock for the 5k iMac to work as a display.
Maybe i'm dreaming.
I thought the problem was Thunderbolt 2's bandwidth not being enough for 5K? This is why they're waiting for the next version of DisplayPort, which is a part of Thunderbolt 3, that can handle 40gb/ps throughput.
That's exactly what i thought and why i was so surprised to see it in the specs on the new MBP 15"
Had to looks twice because i didn't think it was possible, but apparently it is.
Unless it's a typo?
Many people are saying that they would never ever pay over 2K dollar on a laptop with AMD graphics card in it. Is there any particular reason for this? How is nvidia better than AMD or vice versa. Please explain thanks.
Generally nVidia chips have been outperforming AMD chips in the model range AMD puts their chips in. An R9-290x gets similar performance to a GTX970, even though the former is a top-of-the-line GPU whereas the 970 is the 980's little brother. Also a common thing among AMD chips is that they run super hot and consume far more power than nVidia chips/cards while not delivering the same performance per watt.
Generally people went to nVidia for the best performance at a bit higher price while people went to AMD for the best price-to-performance. Finally, AMD like to rebadge a lot of chips. The R9-280X for example was just a rebadged 7870 with some higher clocks. AMD got a lot of hate for that (with good reason), although it looks like they're coming around on that which is a good thing. nVidia needs some proper competition again.
----------
5K at 60 Hz. That's a lot of data going trough that Thunderbolt port. Or did they do some firmware tweaks for additional throughput?
My business involves mainly photoshop and illustrator work and Im still battling on with my trusty 2009 MBP mainly because lots of other equipment needed upgrading more urgently in recent years. However, I will be buying the top of the range within next six months. Even current one would be a huge upgrade on what I have in terms of speed. Having read through this tread so far, think I might as well hold off a little while longer as Ill likely keep next MBP for a similar length of time
I'd love someone to test/confirm this, its good news if a firmware update has made this possible.
It means my 2013 Mac Pro should be good to go for 5k.
Definitely - in the mid 2000's my entire computer performance plateaued and then along came my first SSD and it was maybe the single biggest performance increase in both benchmarks, stats and real world usability i've experienced since doubling my ram in a system back in the early 90's.
In fact in my 20+ years of computing I don't think a big CPU increase has ever achieved any real world performance increase - you don't boot up a new CPU computer and notice it doing anything particularly faster. Yet the aforementioned RAM and SSD upgrades were click for click improvements.
Again id always refer to CPU as "power" rather than "speed" anyway. Sure it'll make it encoding tasks faster, but its not going to make the computer boot quicker or opening apps or clicking around much faster, but it will allow me to load more tracks in my music sequencer for instance which could only be described as power rather than speed, nothing is happening any quicker, I can just do more of it at once.
Many people are saying that they would never ever pay over 2K dollar on a laptop with AMD graphics card in it. Is there any particular reason for this? How is nvidia better than AMD or vice versa. Please explain thanks.
It's only concerning gaming, but Nvidia chips/cards offer much better performance & better drivers. There's no reason to buy AMD unless you are on a budget and even then I'd still choose an Nvidia chip/card over AMD.
Having said all of that, if one of your main uses of a computer is for gaming then you shouldn't be looking at a Mac anyway. A Mac is an appalling choice for a gamer.
And you know that how?
Maybe you are an Apple employee? I mean soon an ex-Apple employee?
Or you talked to an Apple employee? I mean a soon ex-Apple employee?
I'm about 90% sure a Skylake Macbook Pro will be launched this fall. I'm not always waiting for new when it comes to my laptop, I'm waiting for a significant update. Skylake is that.Until next year than...
There is always "new" around the corner and waiting for it, you're living permanently in the past...
You could probably sell your Haswell MBP for a decent price if you decide to jump on a Skylake model. Stay strong.
More like 5-6.
If you're upgrading from a non-retina iMac, then it should be a pretty huge upgrade.
I have the OG rMBP. Mid 2012. I'm so ready for the upgrade.
Mine came with the Macbook. I doubt the SSD in your 2009 is original. If you mean by daily tasks, email and web browsing, those won't challenge most machines that came out in the last 5 years or so. On the other hand, if you're virtualizing web servers for development or something else that requires a lot of processing, you'll see a big difference.
The SSD speed of this new rMBP is certainly impressive BUT in real life, most of you will not notice any significant difference between this SSD and the one on a 2012 rMBP for example.
The huge difference in speed can only be observed in HDD intensive tasks like video editing.
The other thing I want to talk about is the Radeon card in the new iteration of rMBP: I feel that this is a really bad choice for such expensive machine.
I have very bad experience with Radeon cards since they appeared for PC desktops because 2 out of 3 of my Radeon cards for PC died but luckily for me, they were under warranty.
Unfortunately I can't say the same thing about my old Early 2011 MBP whose Radeon 6750M card decided to die after three years but a few months before the replacement program.
So, for me Radeon cards either desktop or mobile are BIG NO, NO, NO, NO's!
This leads me to another topic: the Iris PRO graphics!
After I repaired and sold my old 2011 MBP, I've bought the Late 2013 15" rMBP with Core i7 at 2.0 Ghz and Iris PRO graphics.
I was and still am stunned by the graphics performance of the Iris PRO which is the same or better than the performance of the GT 650m from NVidia!
In Bootcamp I play GTA V at 1440x900 at normal/medium settings at minimum 30 fps, average 35 fps and maximum 50 fps! Battlefield 3 performs even better: I get minimum 35 fps, average 45 fps and maximum 60 fps at 1440x900 at medium/high settings!
Of course with AA or MSAA disabled in both games.
For an integrated graphics card, this is HUGE!
Here are some benchmarks of it: http://us.hardware.info/reviews/4776/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-the-end-of-mid-range-gpus
I have a friend with a 2012, non-retina MBP with an NVidia 650M 1GB and the performance is identical or a bit lower than the Iris PRO! It's really unbelievable..
If you count the increased battery life, low operating temperatures and the missing "which graphics card is running now?" fuss, the Iris PRO MBP is a clear winner!
Now, one can really understand why Apple chose not to include a dedicated graphics card in the standard 15" rMBP. It's a great decision!
Anyway, if you're more than a casual gamer or you need workstation class graphics for video editing and such, I have a serious tip for you: External GPU (eGPU) which works over Thunderbolt!
I recommend for such setup a non-dedicated GPU MBP (Iris PRO only), MBA or Mac Mini but with a Quad Core Core i7 and Thunderbolt 2 (20Gbps) because the MBP's that have a dedicated GPU cannot use the eGPU to display content on the integrated display so you'll be forced to use an external display.
The setup costs between 250$ and 450$ + the GPU card itself.
Here are some examples with Macbook Pro's or Air's (most are the 13" model) running with PC desktop graphics cards that achieve 90% of the performance of a PC Gaming Desktop.
THIS IS A GAME CHANGER FOR MACS!
Take a look here: https://youtu.be/h_wAxRs0YAE
And here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvcChAeli7Y
And here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZZdwkICE3M
Or here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs5WcDEAGtM
Here's a tutorial/story on how to make your own eGPU setup for your MBP/Air/Mac Mini: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic...setup-guide-benchmarks-egpu-setup-windows-81/
Conclusion:
1. Iris PRO > the same or better than the dedicated GPU NVidia GT650m 1GB.
2. Macbook PRO with Iris PRO only > Great configuration, awesome for casual gaming, great battery life, much lower temperatures and no risks of failed dedicated GPU's.
3. Macbook PRO with Iris PRO only + eGPU > Extremely Powerful Gaming Station!
It must be something to use an NVidia GeForce GTX TITAN Z with a MacBook PRO on Yosemite like this dude here(Octane Render and Cinema C4D benchmarks included):
https://youtu.be/cPOB9qmPjaE
The huge difference in speed can only be observed in HDD intensive tasks like video editing.
The other thing I want to talk about is the Radeon card in the new iteration of rMBP: I feel that this is a really bad choice for such expensive machine.
I have very bad experience with Radeon cards since they appeared for PC desktops because 2 out of 3 of my Radeon cards for PC died but luckily for me, they were under warranty.
Unfortunately I can't say the same thing about my old Early 2011 MBP whose Radeon 6750M card decided to die after three years but a few months before the replacement program.
So, for me Radeon cards either desktop or mobile are BIG NO, NO, NO, NO's!
This leads me to another topic: the Iris PRO graphics!
After I repaired and sold my old 2011 MBP, I've bought the Late 2013 15" rMBP with Core i7 at 2.0 Ghz and Iris PRO graphics.
I was and still am stunned by the graphics performance of the Iris PRO which is the same or better than the performance of the GT 650m from NVidia!
In Bootcamp I play GTA V at 1440x900 at normal/medium settings at minimum 30 fps, average 35 fps and maximum 50 fps! Battlefield 3 performs even better: I get minimum 35 fps, average 45 fps and maximum 60 fps at 1440x900 at medium/high settings!
Of course with AA or MSAA disabled in both games.
For an integrated graphics card, this is HUGE!
Here are some benchmarks of it: http://us.hardware.info/reviews/4776/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-the-end-of-mid-range-gpus
I have a friend with a 2012, non-retina MBP with an NVidia 650M 1GB and the performance is identical or a bit lower than the Iris PRO! It's really unbelievable..
If you count the increased battery life, low operating temperatures and the missing "which graphics card is running now?" fuss, the Iris PRO MBP is a clear winner!
Now, one can really understand why Apple chose not to include a dedicated graphics card in the standard 15" rMBP. It's a great decision!
Anyway, if you're more than a casual gamer or you need workstation class graphics for video editing and such, I have a serious tip for you: External GPU (eGPU) which works over Thunderbolt
!I recommend for such setup a non-dedicated GPU MBP (Iris PRO only), MBA or Mac Mini but with a Quad Core Core i7 and Thunderbolt 2 (20Gbps) because the MBP's that have a dedicated GPU cannot use the eGPU to display content on the integrated display so you'll be forced to use an external display.
The setup costs between 250$ and 450$ + the GPU card itself.
Here are some examples with Macbook Pro's or Air's (most are the 13" model) running with PC desktop graphics cards that achieve 90% of the performance of a PC Gaming Desktop.
THIS IS A GAME CHANGER FOR MACS!
Take a look here: https://youtu.be/h_wAxRs0YAE
And here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvcChAeli7Y
And here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZZdwkICE3M
Or here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs5WcDEAGtM
Here's a tutorial/story on how to make your own eGPU setup for your MBP/Air/Mac Mini: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic...setup-guide-benchmarks-egpu-setup-windows-81/
Conclusion:
1. Iris PRO > the same or better than the dedicated GPU NVidia GT650m 1GB.
2. Macbook PRO with Iris PRO only > Great configuration, awesome for casual gaming, great battery life, much lower temperatures and no risks of failed dedicated GPU's.
3. Macbook PRO with Iris PRO only + eGPU > Extremely Powerful Gaming Station
!It must be something to use an NVidia GeForce GTX TITAN Z with a MacBook PRO on Yosemite like this dude here
(Octane Render and Cinema C4D benchmarks included):https://youtu.be/cPOB9qmPjaE
Last edited:
To have a reasonably performant test database I would have needed an array of SAS hard drives running at high speeds with low latency to compensate for the fact that a single hard drive performed pretty poorly for database operations. I can now do the same thing with the equivalent flash drive using NVMe interface with easy -- and much cheaper.
We are held back by the slowest components in the computer and that is storage. We have had a "need" to up the memory to try and avoid using the slow storage.... or performance would suffer horribly. Faster SSD is more important than pushing up the CPU speed, it is immediately noticeable. Bumping the CPU by 30% will get overall performance gains of 5 - 7% because the slower components are holding it back.
If you have large video files that you play sequentially -- obviously it is not necessary to have those on an SSD.... but things that are constantly accessing the hard drive.... faster SSDs are better. SSDs have much more impact in how you perceive the performance of your computer -- more than any other component... (except for maybe games that you load completely into memory and only save intermittently).... but then a Mac is not usually the goto gaming platform.
We are held back by the slowest components in the computer and that is storage. We have had a "need" to up the memory to try and avoid using the slow storage.... or performance would suffer horribly. Faster SSD is more important than pushing up the CPU speed, it is immediately noticeable. Bumping the CPU by 30% will get overall performance gains of 5 - 7% because the slower components are holding it back.
If you have large video files that you play sequentially -- obviously it is not necessary to have those on an SSD.... but things that are constantly accessing the hard drive.... faster SSDs are better. SSDs have much more impact in how you perceive the performance of your computer -- more than any other component... (except for maybe games that you load completely into memory and only save intermittently).... but then a Mac is not usually the goto gaming platform.
I dont think they can/will make the 15" any thinner than it is now. what I'm ideally looking for is the bezel free design with the edge to edge keyboard, making the overall footprint of the laptop significantly smaller, but the current thickness is perfectly fine and with the components in the 15" pro I think it will stay that way.
Actually, I expect a shrink in the pro line towards the size of the Macbook Air (for thinness and weight). Die shrinks on the CPU, more efficient technology in the screen -- would allow for shrinking of the battery.