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.
Nvidia Max-Q. Apple about to get destroyed if it sticks with AMD.
- Thread starter dallas112678
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Take a look at the 2013 rMBP too.
- Built-in 95-watt-hour lithium-polymer battery
- 85W MagSafe 2 Power Adapter with cable management system; MagSafe 2 power port
EDIT. Just for fun, the 2009 Macbook Pro at 5.5 pounds.
- Built-in 73-watt-hour lithium-polymer battery
- 60W or 85W MagSafe Power Adapter with cable management system
- MagSafe power port
Queen6
macrumors G5
No, however it completely limits the potential for more powerful dGPU's. As stated the MBP will be stuck with mediocre dGPU's. Your missing the point completely, battery capacity has a limit to be allowed as carry on, Power delivery is simply irrelevant and now very much limited due to USB C.
Q-6
[doublepost=1496342605][/doublepost]
Power supply, not battery capacity, there a distinct difference, USB C has zero impact or implication on battery capacity, however USB C is limited to 100W power supply, which with things as they stand leave around 35W - 40W for the dGPU, so nothing special happening anytime soon on that front with the MBP, while the Windows OEM's will continue to offer faster & more powerful systems.
Q-6
Last edited:
I've always thought this, Nvidia and AMD are competing in different segments of the customer base. Unfortunately, Apple has always operated under the low energy low cost discrete graphics solution space which AMD is currently performing quite adequately.
What i can actually see happening is Apple ditching both and using their own discrete graphics solution in the future.
What i can actually see happening is Apple ditching both and using their own discrete graphics solution in the future.
SteveJUAE
macrumors 601
Exactly, the previous MBP were not limited by spec as the Apple was free to use whatever power adapter they chose, by adopting USB C as power source they have imposed a limit on themselves if you rule out some ugly dual charging option.
The cap may equally impose limits on dGPU or bigger battery charging times for those who dreamed of a 17" MBP Pro Pro for example
As a side issue it may be irrelevant soon (re 100w Battery) if the Aviation Authorities get their way and no laptop on-board any plane and must be checked baggage.
ZapNZs
macrumors 68020
It certainly has the potential to increase productivity, especially at a time where portable CPU growth has been slower than GPU growth IMO. Much of that may depend on the future of OS X itself and how much Mac Users utilize Windows.
https://www.lifewire.com/graphics-cards-3d-graphics-834089
The future and advancement pace of LiCo cells will also play a role, given the implications with run time.
Show me an Apple laptop that had higher than a 100w power supply BEFORE USB-C. You cannot just blame this on USB-C when apple has ALWAYS done this. This is what my point is. You guys are blaming USB-C. Okay, where were the laptops BEFORE it that used a higher power supply?
Last edited:
I disagree with the OP. I think the Macbook Pro is a great tool for development. It's why you look at tech companies (including the one I work at), and all you see are people with macbooks. The Nvidia Max-Q is targeting a niche crowd, and that crowd is not on the Apple platform.
As a mac user AND developer, the only time I use Windows is for PC gaming. Since many games were designed for PC first, I would prefer to not game extensively on the Mac.
The only time I use a VM of Windows is for PS3/PS4 development (which is where the dedicated GPU helps)
As a mac user AND developer, the only time I use Windows is for PC gaming. Since many games were designed for PC first, I would prefer to not game extensively on the Mac.
The only time I use a VM of Windows is for PS3/PS4 development (which is where the dedicated GPU helps)
ZapNZs
macrumors 68020
I've always been interested in how many people use Windows on their Mac. I have like 10 Windows VMs on my main MBP. One reason I choose Mac is because Macs run Windows so darned well that most Windows PCs don't run it as well as a Mac!
I didn't realize the Macbook Pro was actually the "Macbook Development". Having a better GPU won't take away your tool for development, however it will make the pro a much better tool for other applications that are NOT gaming related (for the millionth billionth trillionth time).
Unless it is Final Cut Pro, which I need to use. If Apple implements it to where AMD and NVIDIA performs the SAME, then fine. Otherwise, they need to stick with AMD.
Sorry, that is the way businesses are run. Apple would not intentionally hurt their OWN product for better Premiere Pro CC support since it uses CUDA more.
I am surprised you didn't think about development. Like other posters have said, the Mac OS (plus the unix kernel) is a great environment for all sorts of development.
When your applications don't take advantage of a high end GPU and your GPU turns on, guess what happens when you aren't plugged in?
As of right now, the 2015 MBP with VMs up will last probably about 2 hours for me. Sometimes they are just sitting on the Windows desktop doing nothing. If I have a more powerful video card, what does that really get me?
agreed, but they do hurt a large segment of their customer base which use a mix of software, FCP screams along on the AMD GPU's for sure but as soon as I flip to Maya, 3dsMax, Revit, Solidworks, CC, Avid and a couple more I start slamming my head against the wall and flip machines.
I agree, it's great for development, does that mean that's all it should be great at? No, after all, it's called the "Pro" which implies a range of professions. Right now, the MBP is only truly good for programming and Final Cut. If you need any other professional apps then you are at a very expensive disadvantage all due to Apple's obsession with thinness and the resulting choice of AMD.
As for the video card question, this is very simple, offer multiple tiers of GPU performance exactly like they do now. Except do it with a brand that offers significantly more performance with a much higher ceiling for use in professional applications (nVidia). You could have a lower powered nVidia card that keeps your battery life, while also giving other access to significantly more power if they'd like to pay an upgrade fee.
As for Final Cut, I'm sure Apple could optimize it for nVidia if they wanted to. With that being said, I think they enjoy locking people into Final Cut rather than other programs due to the heavy optimization for AMD while others are doing CUDA.
At the end of the day, I'm still amazed that people are defending Apple for designing themselves into such a thermal corner that gives them no other choice but to use a GPU with 25% of the power of what you can get in a ~.7", 5 lb PC.
It's very possible that if they didn't have the intense desire to shave off a few more millimeters and ounces, that they could have gotten a significantly more powerful GPU in the old case.
So somebody needs to write a driver? It's not some insane hurdle, focusing efforts on writing an optimal driver for MacOS nvidia opencl performance is well within the normal scope of switching GPU manufacturers in an Apple notebook.
AMD doesn't have some ridiculous OpenCL advantage right now - it may have an edge, but there's absolutely no way my Radeon Pro 460-equipped 2016 MBP has an advantage over the GTX 980 Ti in my hackintosh in OpenCL. The 980ti mops the floor with the 460 in both FCPX 10.3 and Premiere/AE.
And there is no way you can compare a desktop GPU running at 250W with its own cooling and a 35W card for a thin light laptop, of course it mops the floor with it.
Weird. I must be hallucinating then, because I could've sworn my tMBP is much faster then my 2010 cMP in Photoshop, InDesign and friends. Unless, of course, a memo went out excluding most of the CC suite from pro level aps, in which case I will have to redo my resume.
I think you may have made a statement which you will have a hard time backing up, unless you're going to construct a definition of pro use which is so convoluted as to be useless. I know professional photographers who run their businesses from 13" MBPs, 3D animators who use 15" MBPs, and on and on. I understand who wish Apple would use nVidia's GPU solutions, but you're taking it a little far.
Queen6
macrumors G5
No blaming USB C, equally it's now a hard limitation, as others have stated Apple has simply painted the MBP into a corner with this design as we see more powerful cooler running dGPU's released the MBP will be very limited device due the choice of form over function.
Personally in the 15" space I am looking for quad core, twin M.2 slots, 1060/1070, relevant ports, keyboard designed or heavy use not space saving, expandable RAM an advantage. Thing is they are available or about to be available, although depending on timing waiting on Max-Q may also be factor, as I too want a manageable package, however not at the cost of everything else.
Q-6
Actually, it will. Having a better GPU at this point means having less battery runtime or having a less mobile computer.
And for the millionth billionth trillionth time: even with this Max-Q marketing gimmick, the Nvidia GPUs will still be twice as hot as what Apple is using right now. Yes, you can make a gimmick gaming laptop that is only optimised for cooling. But this doesn't necessarily make a good working machine.
[doublepost=1496394879][/doublepost]
And there are laptops like this available, no? Why does it have to be Apple? Apple made it clear about a decade ago that they are not interested in making desktop replacement laptops. If you are prepared to give up some more mobility, there are plenty of designs to choose from.
Queen6
macrumors G5
Nor does comprising everything for the sake of the aesthetic, being thinner for the sake of it, and their own production costs...
Well is doesn't these day's nor likely to be...
Q-6
Last edited:
Ma2k5
macrumors 68030
Either way, you mentioned something about they have <100w power chargers due to the law, which is incorrect. The only law is down to <100w battery capacity.
You said "No, not thanks to USB-C. Thanks to the law." instead of "Well Apple always used <100w power chargers even before USB-C".
maflynn
macrumors Broadwell
Apple has a long history of not caring about GPUs, and they're more interested in providing a solution that caters to the majority. There's a reason why Oculus CEO Slamed Apple, its because they don't have the hardware to run VR.
For my needs and wants, it doesn't matter if Apple uses AMD or nvidia, tbh and I'm not complaining about Apple, but rather pointing out that for what ever reason Apple chooses to use slower GPUs. Heck, I remember people complaining about how Apple underclocked the GPUs, just so the laptop could have decent battery life.
For my needs and wants, it doesn't matter if Apple uses AMD or nvidia, tbh and I'm not complaining about Apple, but rather pointing out that for what ever reason Apple chooses to use slower GPUs. Heck, I remember people complaining about how Apple underclocked the GPUs, just so the laptop could have decent battery life.
Apple has a particular design target in mind, based on their own laptop vision — which, again, is over a decade old. Their laptops traditionally offer the best balance of performance, portability, battery and connectivity on the market. It might not work for some users, but it works for plenty. Apple has always been opinionated in their designs and I don't see how that is a bad thing. You might talk about "compromising everything" (fact: they have compromised nothing in comparison to their previous laptops), but this doesn't change the market situation. There is no other laptop currently on the market that matches the overall balance of the 15" MBP. There are laptops that are lighter and have better battery life (but sacrifice performance), there are laptops that have better GPUs (but sacrifice mobility and battery) and practically all of the competition sacrifices connectivity. So again, if Apple's vision doesn't suit your use case — there are enough of other laptops to choose from that choose to prioritise other areas (such as GPU performance).
SteveJUAE
macrumors 601
Now you have looked at the heads side of the coin now turn it over and look at the other side this is the point we are making, it's that simple 🙄
In the current format with USB-C charging Apple have capped the MBP, that cap was not there previously
This has likely sealed the fate of all the day dreamers who wish for an even more powerful pro laptop come desktop replacement etc, whether Apple was ever going to produce one we will never know but it looks most unlikely given the cap now
IE MBP will most likely remain a portable 85% daily consumer device and only a 15% Pro device
Sigh. Yes it is. In a way it is thanks to the law. Apple will not put a GPU in there that makes the battery last 1.5-2.8 hours or so. I guarantee you if the law was not in place and they could put larger batteries in there to make it LAPTOP WORTHY battery life, they would. But 100 w battery is the max, so they balance battery life out to where a LAPTOP dGPU can be used and still get VERY good battery life. Much better than those with the GTX 1080 cards in them.
Take a look at the reviews on some of those with a better GAMING GPU. 2.5 hours, 1.7 hours, and more around that range. I do NOT want to be on battery working on a video and have it only last 2.5 hours because it uses the GPU.
Therefore, Apple balanced it out to provide the best BALANCE of power and battery life. Double the battery capacity by throwing the law out the window and there is a BIGGER room for a higher performance GPU. They were always locked in with the FAA. Apple's goal is to make a perfectly balanced system with BATTERY LIFE and PERFORMANCE. Their goal is not to make Gaming laptops. Their goal is not to create mobile Workstations otherwise we would have seen Xeons in these for a long time now.
Edit. Razer Blade Pro battery life is only 2.75 hours just web browsing. Not even playing games. JUST WEB BROWSING. That is not attractive to be in a LAPTOP.
This really has nothing to do with the power adapters. Apple doesn't want to release a 99wh battery that only lasts 3 hours because they threw a GTX 1080 in there.
[doublepost=1496406263][/doublepost]
YES IT WAS. Read my post. Looking at it objectively it was always due to the FAA. Unless you don't mind Apple releasing a laptop that only lasts 3 hours like the ones with the GTX 1080 in them.
Last edited: