New 15 inch rMBP dedicated graphics card for gaming?

[snaky69]

I really think apple doesn't care about their products. People will just buy them, because if they cared they would add features that we ask such as touch screen, better graphics (willing to pay) and other things as well

What is it with people wanting a touchscreen laptop? It's one of the most useless and unergonomic feature you could possibly have. I just threw up in my mouth a little just thinking about it.

Touch screens make sense on horizontal surfaces where you can rest your arms on something. Flailing your arms in front of a screen for hours on end would get old, very fast.

 

[vbedia]

I really think apple doesn't care about their products. People will just buy them, because if they cared they would add features that we ask such as touch screen, better graphics (willing to pay) and other things as well

Most MBP or Air users I ever met don't want a touch screen on their MBP. I don't want it either.

 

[Natzoo]

Most MBP or Air users I ever met don't want a touch screen on their MBP. I don't want it either.

ik, that was just an example. But you have to agree that apple needs to improve on some stuff, like an updated graphics card and such. Because for 2,600 you can find a fully upgraded pc and is amazing but i want that on a mac. But anyways apple is great and so is their products

 

[rekhyt]

Sorry for not coming into agreement with that, but there are not haters here as far as I have seen. I think it is safe to say that we all like Apple to some degree. Probably some people more than others.

There are people here with different opinions, which ones do not share the same conclusion after reading stuff and thank God for that. Otherwise this would be quite boring, frankly.

So no, there are not haters here.

Hm. I've been following this topic for quite a while now and it appears that the general consensus is that the dGPU will disappear.

TRC, totally agree. My Pro is a work laptop that I normally use for at least 3 years before I hand them down to other people. Every once in a while, I want a gaming rig and then I just build my own. Like every time a new version of Diablo or Half Life comes out

I have a gaming PC myself, but the point of the 'Pro' series is performance. Which also comes under the 'graphics' category as well.

Gaming is just but one subset of 'graphics'. There are many other graphically demanding operations (video editing, 3D rendering, graphic design, ...) that requires a proper discrete graphics card.

I doesn't make sense to shuffle all your 'Pro' users over to the Mac Pro (or the iMac), especially if they desire portability.

I've said this in other thread, I will say the same thing in this.

Based on numbers from HD5300 and HD5500 we can assume, that Broadwell Iris Pro 6200 should be in performance on par with GTX670M which is pretty nice GPU even by todays standards. Increasing core amount by 20% and new architecture increased the performance by 60-80% depending on the job what the GPU has to do.

Skylake, which will end up in new MBPs this year will be AT LEAST 50% faster than Broadwell Iris Pro.

Yes, were talking about integrated GPU from Intel CPUs. And the performance of those Integrated GPUs will increase with every next generation.

Why would you need a dGPU if you have that kind of performance from Integrated?

I'm talking about the ultra-macro scale.

I cannot foresee the MacBook Pro series being stuck forever on the current 'retina' format, in terms of the screen. Technology will have to keep advancing. Towards 4K. Especially as a differentiating factor against the MacBook Air line, which will inevitably have retina as well (as, starting with Yosemite, proper retina adjustments (font, interface, ...) for retina displays).

Integrated graphics cannot really support 4K that well.

I really think apple doesn't care about their products. People will just buy them, because if they cared they would add features that we ask such as touch screen, better graphics (willing to pay) and other things as well

B-b-b-b-b-b-but... I thought they cared...!

 

[leman]

Hm. I've been following this topic for quite a while now and it appears that the general consensus is that the dGPU will disappear.

I think the general consensus is that there are two opinions. And that none of them have something to do with real Apple's plans.

I have a gaming PC myself, but the point of the 'Pro' series is performance.

Where do you have that from? Apple's MacBook Pro line has never been about raw performance. It has always been about flexibility. Those machines are multi-purpose workstations that try do do a bit of everything.

Gaming is just but one subset of 'graphics'. There are many other graphically demanding operations (video editing, 3D rendering, graphic design, ...) that requires a proper discrete graphics card.

Just because there is a work 'graphics' in it, it does not mean that it requires a GPU. Modern GPUs are built for accelerating games, plain and simple. The only reason video/photo-editing software benefits from them is because GPUs became flexible enough so that one can use them as mathematical coprocessors. Besides, you'd need to really push your editing workflows to see a significant difference between a dedicated GPU and integrated one. Not many people want to edit 32000x32000 pixel images on their laptop.

I cannot foresee the MacBook Pro series being stuck forever on the current 'retina' format, in terms of the screen. Technology will have to keep advancing. Towards 4K... Integrated graphics cannot really support 4K that well.

The next logical step for the 15" model is 4310x2700 (3x3:1x1 local scaling, up from current 2x2:1x1). And it will take some years to get there. By that time, integrated graphics will get several times faster and its biggest limitation (memory speed) will be mostly solved.

BTW, my HD4000 has no issues working with a 3840x2400 render target (which should qualify as 4K), and that is last-gen.

 

[rekhyt]

I think the general consensus is that there are two opinions. And that none of them have something to do with real Apple's plans.



Where do you have that from? Apple's MacBook Pro line has never been about raw performance. It has always been about flexibility. Those machines are multi-purpose workstations that try do do a bit of everything.



Just because there is a work 'graphics' in it, it does not mean that it requires a GPU. Modern GPUs are built for accelerating games, plain and simple. The only reason video/photo-editing software benefits from them is because GPUs became flexible enough so that one can use them as mathematical coprocessors. Besides, you'd need to really push your editing workflows to see a significant difference between a dedicated GPU and integrated one. Not many people want to edit 32000x32000 pixel images on their laptop.




The next logical step for the 15" model is 4310x2700 (3x3:1x1 local scaling, up from current 2x2:1x1). And it will take some years to get there. By that time, integrated graphics will get several times faster and its biggest limitation (memory speed) will be mostly solved.

BTW, my HD4000 has no issues working with a 3840x2400 render target (which should qualify as 4K), and that is last-gen.

In response to point by point:

1) Good point.
2) True. Back when I had the MBP 15" (2009) I always had an impression that the MBP series, despite it being 'Pro', was really behind in terms of both the CPU and GPU. Mainly the CPU, as I didn't play games back then.

However. As the 'Air' series inches closer and closer to the 'Pro' series, with the last barrier being the 'Retina' aspect, what really differentiates it?

Perhaps Apple will just move to 2 major models: the MacBook Air 12", and the MacBook Pro 15". Even then, the MBA 12" seems more compelling. Lighter, thinner. Graphics performance broadly similar to MBP 15".

In order to create a true distinction between the two lines, a discrete graphics card will need to be in place.

Here's to hoping that the 50W nVidia Maxwell cards will come in the 2015 refresh.

3) Yes, but what about video editing and 3D-rendering? Should all these activities be confined to a unmovable desktop? What about those who want to edit on the go? Imagine (in the vein of the Apple 'creative' ads) a nature photographer and video editor, in harsh and formidable terrain, taking photographs, editing it (ignore the issue of the lack of power source for a second.) there. Or an aid worker, working in a third-world country, moving from town to town, having no access to a stable area to place his desktop (in addition to a monitor).

4) It won't take years to get there. It's sooner than we think.

See: 1) http://www.toshiba.com/us/p50t 2) http://www.pcworld.com/article/2453340/lenovo-ships-first-4k-laptop-challenging-toshiba.html.

In addition, Apple is more keen on pushing tech than we expect. See: iMac 5K. We expected 'retina' level, maybe 4K. But 5K? No one saw that coming.

5) Is it usable though? 4K at 60 fps, no interface lag?

 

[koyoot]

Integrated graphics cannot really support 4K that well.

Yes, they can.

Lets say that Broadwell Iris Pro will get 3500 pts in 3dmark11 benchmark.

That means that Iris Pro HD7200 will get around 5500 pts in the same test. That is around GTX775M score.

And the performance of Integrated GPUs will get bigger and bigger with every single generation.

If you want to play in 4K - forget it. So far Only light games from Blizzard are capable of running flawlessly in 4K, the rest need to wait for more powerful cards with higher memory bandwith. And thats the field where Intel really has to work on. Because it is only place where it lacks a bit right now. HD, FullHD - fine. But for 4K we need more memory bandwith.

 

[leman]

3) Yes, but what about video editing and 3D-rendering? Should all these activities be confined to a unmovable desktop? What about those who want to edit on the go? Imagine (in the vein of the Apple 'creative' ads) a nature photographer and video editor, in harsh and formidable terrain, taking photographs, editing it (ignore the issue of the lack of power source for a second.) there. Or an aid worker, working in a third-world country, moving from town to town, having no access to a stable area to place his desktop (in addition to a monitor).

As I have argued in my previous post, the integrated graphics can do this job just fine.

In addition, Apple is more keen on pushing tech than we expect. See: iMac 5K. We expected 'retina' level, maybe 4K. But 5K? No one saw that coming.

You seem to be missing one important detail. Apple does not care about the standard '4K' or '5K', whatever that may be. In Apple's approach, the retina display is an nxn resolution increase over their traditional resolutions. The traditional resolution for the 15" is 1440x900, that's why we get a 2880x1800 display there. The traditional resolution for the 27" iMac is 2560x1440, thats why we get a 5120x2880 display here. In comparison, the Lenovo's 4K laptop would translate to a non-retina 1920x1080 15" display, which Apple never shipped with any of its laptops. And I don't see them changing the aspect ratio of their screens now. The closest thing to 4K you'd get if they would release a 17" retina MBP with a 3840x2400 screen. Which is quite unlikely.

Is it usable though? 4K at 60 fps, no interface lag?

I haven't experienced any noticeable performance degradation on the highest scaling mode. Getting FPS measurements is very difficult with UI code because drawing is managed by the OS. But I can watch fullscreen videos without having dropped frames, which is the most bandwidth-taxing practical task I can imagine for a desktop compositor. This means that the GPU has enough hardware resources to stream and rescale the frames at these resolutions.