Next-Generation 15-Inch MacBook Pro Shows Up in Benchmarks

[Serban]

Thank you. So if for that difference Apple took the decision to put even a dGPU, there is no reason not to put in the new upgrade as well

 

[jxie0755]

I don't think it is insane. They are balancing the specs that matter for pros. It should also play games pretty well on the side, but that isn't what it is designed for. I think it would be insane to put a chip (maybe the 780GT) that draws as much power as a desktop chip to be better at gaming (that it should already be pretty good at). Gaming laptops are optimized much different and pro work would suffer. Usually lower res display since none of these chips are good at driving high resolutions in games yet, big cooler in a bulkier case, few CPU cores since games don't use them heavily, and a big GPU.

In one word, gaming laptop is just a desktop computer that comes with both the monitor and tower linked and slightly portable.

 

[Serban]

alienware and razor laptops are for gaming...

 

[RcktMan77]

Meh. I don't feel too left out despite being 2 generations behind.

Now go run Geekbench in 32 bit mode, and compare with that score with the score published by Macrumors here in this article...

 

[jxie0755]

The dual-core uses the Iris 5100. It is the same as the 5200 except it is lacking the level 4 cache. Intel said they didn't see a big performance difference when driving fewer CPU cores. I expect we will see this as an option on the new Mac Book Pro. That will basically replace the HD Graphics 4000 chips with a huge performance improvement. If you less compute intensive work, but want a retina display that will probably be the chip of choice. Particularly for graphics designers. The 5100 should have plenty of OpenCL performance for Photoshop.

Yeah, that would be the one I want.
I would like to buy a 13in RMBP to replace my 2008 first gen unibody 13 macbook. I am going for the rmbp because the sharpness and clearness of the retina screen totally shocked me. I would use it mainly for everyday life surfacing the web, news reading, document processing, video watching. Occasionally I edit my photos with Lightroom and photoshop. Rarely use the iMovie just to simply edit my videos from Camera uploaded to youtube. So I don't need the GPU to be fast as hell. But I do want Iris 5200 because I want it fast enough for next 5 years. If I can only go with Iris 5100 I'll accept that

 

[4nNtt]

i think the difference between 750M and Iris Pro is like the difference between 650M and Hd4000

Times are changing. Not a good comparison. It will probably be Iris 5200 on high end and Iris 5100 on low end. The 5200 is roughly equivalent to the 650M performance wise and more efficient. Better compute and shaders then 650M, but weaker (but not much worse) texture unit. 650M is also better at AA, but that is only likely to be used in games that run at a lower res. It isn't necessary when running at retina resolutions. The 5100 is way better then HD4000 and good enough for many professional applications. Basically the high end and low end are now much closer together.

 

[djra8]

Cinema 4d and after effects will loose huge benefits from no dGPU, not to mention countless plugins for AE. This laptop will be fine for novice graphics, print, photoshop and web, but will be seriously lacking for profesional animators.. another example of apple turning their backs on their pro users.

They should change the name from "Macbook pro" to "Macbook Premium" to reflect its price rather than its performance.

 

[4nNtt]

Yeah, that would be the one I want.
I would like to buy a 13in RMBP to replace my 2008 first gen unibody 13 macbook. I am going for the rmbp because the sharpness and clearness of the retina screen totally shocked me. I would use it mainly for everyday life surfacing the web, news reading, document processing, video watching. Occasionally I edit my photos with Lightroom and photoshop. Rarely use the iMovie just to simply edit my videos from Camera uploaded to youtube. So I don't need the GPU to be fast as hell. But I do want Iris 5200 because I want it fast enough for next 5 years. If I can only go with Iris 5100 I'll accept that

Should be no difference between the two for those tasks. Although there may be some compute heavy work, it will be limited by mostly uncached reads from main memory anyway so no real benefit to the level 4 cache in the 5200. Games will benefit from the level 4 cache in the 5200 though. 5 year upgrade times are rough. It is better to upgrade at a process shrink if you need to make it that long, but unfortunately the next one probably isn't until 2015. So at least it isn't like you are buying a chip right before a process change. Still going retina display should make it feel more usable. Would hate to buy a non-retina now if it had to last 5 years. It is that last year that will be the worst. I like to plan on 3 year upgrade cycle with the option to stretch to 4 if something new is coming out. I'm a few months from that 4 year point now, so I'm antsy.

 

[daneoni]

Now go run Geekbench in 32 bit mode, and compare with that score with the score published by Macrumors here in this article...

Already did and...nope. Still don't feel left out...

 

[nesafarm]

These scores seem to suggest it won't be a huge amount better than the current generation. I'm predicting a new graphics card and better battery life being the top new features. Everything else seems like unnecessary updates. Got the current gen a few months ago and love it! Was worried I'd be annoyed when the Haswell rMBP comes out, looks like I won't need to be.

Yep, got rMBP with 750gb ssd, 16gb RAM and best cpu in that line. Geekbench score is about 13700. If they don't include significantly better dGPU compared to 650m I see no reason to even think about upgrading. This one I'm working on chew up anything I throw at it and it kindly asks for more

 

[asthamapheo]

wow, that's a massive score, can't wait for this beast to hit the market.

 

[Buakaw]

I think we might see Apple do this to the 15" line:

• drop the non-retina model
• make the base model use integrated graphics
• add a good dedicated graphics card (switchable) to the upper end model

Exactly this. It's supposed to be a mobile workstation. I guess most audio professionals don't want to pay extra for a dedicated gfx card, but for instance an motion graphics designer would really benefit from it.

A gtx would consume to much batterylife, a 780m would be nice, but it's probably going to be a 750m 2GB.

 

[magbarn]

Times are changing. Not a good comparison. It will probably be Iris 5200 on high end and Iris 5100 on low end. The 5200 is roughly equivalent to the 650M performance wise and more efficient. Better compute and shaders then 650M, but weaker (but not much worse) texture unit. 650M is also better at AA, but that is only likely to be used in games that run at a lower res. It isn't necessary when running at retina resolutions. The 5100 is way better then HD4000 and good enough for many professional applications. Basically the high end and low end are now much closer together.

Yup, it seems we've hit a wall in GPU performance (or just a lack of competition). AMD/Nvidia have gotten used to slowing down from annual (true updates) upgrades to just jacking up a few Mhz and 're-branding' the 'new chips' It's going to be late 2014/early 2015 before we get a new GPU process shrink. Unfortunately, if Apple is going to forever dump discrete GPU's from their MBP lineup, those new chips are only going to be a benefit only for the iMac/Mac Pro crowds.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

I doubt Apple would plonk a quad-core processor on a 13" and effectively cannibalising the low-end 15"...

It's 47W on the TDP...!

Hot Hot Hot...!!!

47 W TDP does NOT mean that the machine runs hot. It is just an upper limit for system engineers.

 

[Memole]

i would love to see rMBP 15" without dGPU as i want larger screen of laptop and since i dont do gaming on laptop, or do some serious 3D modeling HD5200 is perfect for my developing use

cant wait to buy rMBP 15" with HD5200 only

 

[RamGuy]

The market is obviously moving towards integrated graphics all over the board (besides gaming rigs and workstation notebooks). For the MacBook line-up (including the MacBook Pro 15" Retina) there is really no need for a dedicated graphics card no more.

Some might argue that Apple needs to offer something for the "power user" etc.. Well the MacBook line-up hasn't been about the power user for quite some time now have it? The MacBook Pro 17" was discontinued last year so it seems like the new Mac Pro will be aimed at power-users and the MacBook line-up is aimed at consumers and portability users and one could of course hook up a external GPU over thunderbolt if need be.


Considering the Intel HD 5200 (Iris Pro or whatever) basically offers the same performance capabilities as the current GeForce GT 650M it's quite obvious that Apple will consider dropping the dedicated GPU altogether for far better cooling and power efficiency on the upcoming model.

I don't quite believe they'll will go all "integrated" this year though, because that would mean the new MacBook Pro 15" Retina isn't offering anything other than a bump in power efficiency and battery life. The new CPU is basically identical with the current generation in terms of performance, the Intel HD 5200 offers basically the same GPU performance, the new PCI-Express based SSD solution performance boost is barley noticeable in practical use and the same goes for the 802.11ac wireless rendering the new model somewhat lacklustre.


I think we'll see the MacBook Pro 15" Retina taking over for the MacBook Pro 15" entirely with a model offering integrated graphics only at about the same price point as today's MacBook Pro 15" with a second higher price option featuring GeForce GT 760M or something. And next year with the release of Intel's Bordwell platform we'll see all MacBook's featuring Intel HD 6000 besides the higher priced MacBook Pro 15" Retina featuring Intel HD 6200 which should offer plenty of performance for everyone.

 

[Quu]

They're not going to do it again as this very expensive Iris Pro chip featured in the benchmarks costs the same as a lower end non-Iris Pro Haswell + GT750M. One thing that Apple likes to hold on to is their profit margins and they're not going to sell the rMBP with a $650+ CPU for $1700. We're looking at the benchmarks of the 'high end' rMBP 15 as the lower priced one will have either the cheaper 4750/4850HQ as their cpu.

If this is the high end model the CPU clock speed would be higher. This is not the high end MacBook Pro this is the low-end model.

 

[Bregalad]

The moment I saw Haswell GPU benchmarks placing it close to the nVidia 650M I predicted that the entry level 15" rMBP would forgo a discrete GPU in order to improve battery life and reduce cost. But I was confident that only the entry level model would forgo the discrete GPU to hit the $1799 price point currently occupied by a non-retina model.

This Geekbench entry really puzzles me. The 4950HQ is a step backward in graphics performance from the 650M found in the current MBP, a chip considered the bare minimum needed to drive a retina display.

Downgraded graphics would probably be an acceptable trade-off to get a retina display into a $1799 computer, but the 4950HQ costs a whopping $657. That's significantly more than the 3840HQ offered as a build-to-order option in the current rMBP.

That, along with the 16GB of RAM suggests the machine that submitted these results is going to be priced at or near the current $2799 price point.

Is Apple really going to put a barely adequate GPU into their flagship laptop?

Using Apple's current price points I had expected this:

$1799
4750HQ (2.0GHz with integrated Iris 5200 graphics), 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD.

$1999
4850HQ (2.3GHz with integrated Iris 5200 graphics), 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD.

$2199
4700MQ (2.4GHz with HD 4600 graphics), AMD GPU, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD

$2799
4800MQ (2.7GHz with HD 4600 graphics), AMD GPU, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD

$3049
4900MQ (2.8GHz with HD 4600 graphics), AMD GPU, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD

 

[beaniemyman]

i'm really waiting for this one, please apple, bring it out this year or i'll be forced to buy a windows laptop.

 

[Quash]

The moment I saw Haswell GPU benchmarks placing it close to the nVidia 650M I predicted that the entry level 15" rMBP would forgo a discrete GPU in order to improve battery life and reduce cost. But I was confident that only the entry level model would forgo the discrete GPU to hit the $1799 price point currently occupied by a non-retina model.

This Geekbench entry really puzzles me. The 4950HQ is a step backward in graphics performance from the 650M found in the current MBP, a chip considered the bare minimum needed to drive a retina display.

Downgraded graphics would probably be an acceptable trade-off to get a retina display into a $1799 computer, but the 4950HQ costs a whopping $657. That's significantly more than the 3840HQ offered as a build-to-order option in the current rMBP.

That, along with the 16GB of RAM suggests the machine that submitted these results is going to be priced at or near the current $2799 price point.

Is Apple really going to put a barely adequate GPU into their flagship laptop?

Using Apple's current price points I had expected this:

$1799
4750HQ (2.0GHz with integrated Iris 5200 graphics), 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD.

$1999
4850HQ (2.3GHz with integrated Iris 5200 graphics), 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD.

$2199
4700MQ (2.4GHz with HD 4600 graphics), AMD GPU, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD

$2799
4800MQ (2.7GHz with HD 4600 graphics), AMD GPU, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD

$3049
4900MQ (2.8GHz with HD 4600 graphics), AMD GPU, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD

That's exactly why there won't be any more dedicated graphics.
A 4750HQ makes sense if you want to release a cheaper simpler macbook pro.

But a 4950HQ makes no sense if you are also gonna release a model with dedicated graphics. Because it probably would cost the same as a system with a 750m and a higher clocked MQ cpu but would perform worse.

Apple probably knows more about intel upcoming lineup (broadwell & skylake). then we do and that why it's switching now. Intel is improving so fast now that Nvidia and Ati will not be able to keep up (with limited power envelopes). Their fabs are the best. It's gonna be hard to compete with intels 14nm while NVIDIA/ATI will have to hope they have TSMC 20nm silicon available to them. Sure NVIDIA/ATI can make great 250w desktop cards, but if you have only 20w available for graphics, intel has such a big advantage with their fabs.

 

[jxie0755]

Should be no difference between the two for those tasks. Although there may be some compute heavy work, it will be limited by mostly uncached reads from main memory anyway so no real benefit to the level 4 cache in the 5200. Games will benefit from the level 4 cache in the 5200 though. 5 year upgrade times are rough. It is better to upgrade at a process shrink if you need to make it that long, but unfortunately the next one probably isn't until 2015. So at least it isn't like you are buying a chip right before a process change. Still going retina display should make it feel more usable. Would hate to buy a non-retina now if it had to last 5 years. It is that last year that will be the worst. I like to plan on 3 year upgrade cycle with the option to stretch to 4 if something new is coming out. I'm a few months from that 4 year point now, so I'm antsy.

I was originally plan to upgraded after 3.5 year. But just before I was about to do so, my wireless netcard was broken. I took it to the apple store and replaced a new one. But then, the macbook started to freeze every 10 minutes with no reason. I took it back to the apple store, they couldn't figure out why. So it went back to the factory. The factory somehow ran a full test on it and replaced all the faulty part with new parts: New CPU, New motherboard, New Monitor, New battery and New wireless card. More than enough to solve my problem

Although my warranty had expired long before 2011, but the replacement of the wireless card caused all these problems. Therefore I was only charged $100 for the wireless card. The rest of them I got for free (if only they upgraded for me as well, but no, they were still the same old model as when it came out in 2008).

I upgraded the RAM and Harddrive myself in 2009 and 2010, So basically I got a new macbook again after 3 years, therefore I decided to make it go for another 2 years.


But this time, because the RMBP is much more expensive than a base model of MBP, I do hope to use it at least for 4 years. Now with your explanation that Iris 5100 would make almost no difference than 5200 if not used for games. I feel relaxed than would buy a 5100 13RMBP as soon as it came out with no hesitation.

 

[HVDynamo]

I would have bought rMBP back in December when I upgraded, but I decided the convenience of an integrated DVD player (and to a lesser degree the price) outweighed the retina display. I bring my MBP with me when my family travels, and I like the ability to play RedBox rentals on it. Pick up a movie in one town, play it on the mac in the car, drop it off at the next town.

iTunes doesn't compete there. I can either plan ahead and rent the movie on iTunes before I leave (inconvenient and overpriced), or stream them over an unreliable LTE connection (annoying and expensive), or the RedBox app finds a movie for me somewhere along my route and reserves it for $1.29

And a DVD works in my hotel room regards of how crappy the hotel's wifi is.

I love MacOS, but Apple is in a wrongheaded drive for as thin as technically possible, and to hell with everything else. What happened to finding the right balance?

By the way. I have a rMBP for work. I really like the screen and the SSD. I couldn't care less that it is thinner than my personal MBP. Offer a thicker version with a DVD/BlueRay!

And SSDs are still too expensive. A thicker body would be really beneficial if it allowed them to put a fusion drive inside a MBP. Or they could always put in a hybrid drive. The only time my slow HDD bothers me on my MBP is when booting or waking. A fusion drive should take care of that nicely.

Yea, I really wish they would have added Bluray instead of just phasing out optical all together. I bought a 15" cMBP in January because I valued having an optical drive and massive storage over fast storage/retina screen. What I really would have liked is a retina on this model with a bluray drive, but we all know that is never going to happen.

 

[otismotive77]

pretty impressive, too bad i wont be able to buy this because i'm waiting for the iphone 5s.

 

[polymersayb]

If this is the high end model the CPU clock speed would be higher. This is not the high end MacBook Pro this is the low-end model.

No, CPUs have been getting clocked lower in exchange for efficiency, smaller transistors, more cores, etc. Also idle speed is lower with higher "Turbo Boost" speeds available for heavy demand. The other processors in the same family (quad core mobile processors with Iris Pro graphics) have clock speeds of 2.0 and 2.3 GHz. The max speeds are 3.2/3.5/3.6 GHz single core.

 

[WildCowboy]

Apologies as I'm not familiar with Geekbench, but where does it indicate this is a 15" laptop as opposed to, say a new high end 13" model?

We already saw the 13" model with a J44 code name, running a dual-core chip. This J45 would be a different model, not a different configuration of the same model. And the sequential numbering indicates same family, so J44 would be 13" and J45 would be 15".

Also wouldn't expect this high-end quad-core chip to go into the 13" at all.