Nvidia Maxwell released

[Joelist]

Two quotes from Anandtech's look at Iris Pro:

Where Iris Pro is dangerous is when you take into account form factor and power consumption. The GT 650M is a 45W TDP part, pair that with a 35 - 47W CPU and an OEM either has to accept throttling or design a cooling system that can deal with both. Iris Pro on the other hand has its TDP shared by the rest of the 47W Haswell part

.

TDP is half of the story with Iris Pro, because the CPU, GPU and eDRAM all fit into the same 47W power envelope. With a discrete GPU, like the 650M, you end up with an extra 45W on top of the CPU’s TDP.

Anand (and he did this himself not a guest writer) is saying the same thing I did, and this is the whole appeal of integrated GPUs especially ones that are on die - much lower TDP. In the case of ones that are on die they fit into the CPU power envelope.

So yes what I posted is correct. And it is the whole point to integrated graphics from the POV of the OEM. The TDP is way lower so cooling is not the same kind of issue and a smaller PSU can be used too. It means better battery life also. Using a discrete GPU is a choice that has consequences - use a beefier PSU/cooling system, accept lower battery life and/or throttle the dGPU.

 

[thunng8]

Two quotes from Anandtech's look at Iris Pro:

So yes what I posted is correct. And it is the whole point to integrated graphics from the POV of the OEM. The TDP is way lower so cooling is not the same kind of issue and a smaller PSU can be used too. It means better battery life also. Using a discrete GPU is a choice that has consequences - use a beefier PSU/cooling system, accept lower battery life and/or throttle the dGPU.

Not saying that there are some power benefits of integrated only - but the numbers you quoted are not matched in reality (47W vs 92W).

Tests have proven you cannot add these CPu + Discrete GPU together and get a meaningful power/heat numbers. 15" MacBook Pro Retina with discrete graphics card uses much less power than the CPU TDP + GPU TDP (92W vs 77W and the 77W figure was total system power including display, SSD etc)

BTW, Anand's tests of Iris Pro had no power usage figures at all.

Do you really think that the Iris Pro GPU component uses no power whatsoever?

How can a Haswell CPU with Iris Pro component running idle use the same power as Haswell CPU + Iris Pro GPU loaded?

Another thing - the 2013 15" Macbook Pro integrated only uses the same power adaptor as the one with the discrete graphics This would give you an idea that Iris Pro is power hungry.

When Apple last made an integrated only 15" MacBook Pro in 2009 - the integrated only version used a power adaptor which was rated 25W less (60W vs 85W).

 

[koyoot]

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-Ivy-Bridge-Quad-Core-Processors.73624.0.html


This is the reviev of Ivy Bridge processors, and power draw in relation to TDP. Power draw is different, depending on the clock of Processor.

SSD, RAM, Motherboard, display. Does this really brought 30W of power? I dont think so.

6W of power draw difference between 3610QM and 3720QM. And the clock difference is 300MHz. Both are 45W of TDP.

Looking by the numbers - 3615QM should take in stress around 44W of Power. Notebookcheck says that Retina Macbook Pro was drawing in stress max of 77W.Which means that there was 33W of power draw for display, SSD, RAM, Logic Board, Discreet GPU. I thought that GT650M was 45W part?

Maybe GT650M is 45W chip. But Apple disabled Turbo Boost in it, and overclocked it. They lowered the TDP in the BIOS of this Chip, the same way as they did in new Mac Pros with D700(109W of TDP which is mind boggling).

That is why they can manage lower power draw in MBP.

And Maxwell in 860M is 5-7 W lesser POWER DRAW, according to words guys from notebookreview forum, than GT750M.

 

[Joelist]

Remember Iris Pro is only on the Haswell i7 Quad Cores. And yes the iGPU and CPU both fit in the 47W TDP envelope. That is clear from multiple sources. It auto throttles back if pushed outside that envelope for any length of time, which is why all the benches for Iris Pro can safely say the total TDP is 47W or less.

ANY dGPU solution will be higher because the dGPU has its own TDP which goes on top of the CPU TDP. While in theory with the iGPU being off in the case if a dGPU remember that 47W still applies to now just the CPU which will rev up to fill the gap.

If a Maxwell part draws, let's say, 7W less then it still is drawing about 35W. So depending on load the combination is in a range that tops out around 82W or so. Still nowhere near the TDP of an integrated GPU, and it never can be.

It's all a question of what is considered valuable. If battery life and form factor/size are important than the TDP drives you to integrated solutions. If raw gaming performance is key then you need discrete. What Iris Pro and its children have done is made integrated viable for less strenuous gaming scenarios and also for other scenarios due to the high Open CL performance.

 

[koyoot]

Remember Iris Pro is only on the Haswell i7 Quad Cores. And yes the iGPU and CPU both fit in the 47W TDP envelope. That is clear from multiple sources. It auto throttles back if pushed outside that envelope for any length of time, which is why all the benches for Iris Pro can safely say the total TDP is 47W or less.

ANY dGPU solution will be higher because the dGPU has its own TDP which goes on top of the CPU TDP. While in theory with the iGPU being off in the case if a dGPU remember that 47W still applies to now just the CPU which will rev up to fill the gap.

If a Maxwell part draws, let's say, 7W less then it still is drawing about 35W. So depending on load the combination is in a range that tops out around 82W or so. Still nowhere near the TDP of an integrated GPU, and it never can be.

It's all a question of what is considered valuable. If battery life and form factor/size are important than the TDP drives you to integrated solutions. If raw gaming performance is key then you need discrete. What Iris Pro and its children have done is made integrated viable for less strenuous gaming scenarios and also for other scenarios due to the high Open CL performance.

Why would you want to use dGPU on Battery only?

rMBP does work 9 hours on battery regardless if its a iGPU only wersion, or dGPU.

If dGPU is 50% faster that iGPU, and doesnt lower the battery life because when you are unplugged and working on battery its shut down, why loose it?

I really don't understand...

And once more - Maxwell part will draw WAY less than 35W.

 

[Joelist]

You do realize that the only reason they can keep the battery life like that is the switchable graphics don't you? It uses the iGPU and turns off the dGPU until the load calls for it. Try running something that needs the dGPU on battery and see what the life is. I'll give you a hint - it plummets.

And along with the lower power and lower cooling needs there is also lower cost. The discrete GPU adds cost as opposed to the CPU/iGPU alone. So the OEM would need to either cut back on the CPU to include discrete graphics or just raise the price - which is what Apple did. There's a reason the top rMBP is $600 more than the next in line, and the larger SSD and more RAM are not all of it.

In all likelihood the next revision of the line will have the same breakpoints as now, with only the most expensive MBP 15 having discrete graphics. The only change we'll likely see is the next version of Iris Pro on the other !5 and maybe, just maybe they up the CPU on the 13s so they also can have Iris Pro.

 

[thunng8]

And along with the lower power and lower cooling needs there is also lower cost. The discrete GPU adds cost as opposed to the CPU/iGPU alone. So the OEM would need to either cut back on the CPU to include discrete graphics or just raise the price - which is what Apple did. There's a reason the top rMBP is $600 more than the next in line, and the larger SSD and more RAM are not all of it.

Cost is a weak argument. As for lower cooling needs - a MacBook Pro that is integrated is not any smaller/light/thinner and it has exactly the same power adaptor.

haswell CPUs with iris pro costs quite a lot. That's why you see most competitors opt for a non iris pro CPU combined with a discrete graphics card.

In fact, Apple is the only oem I know of that has a model that combines an iris pro haswell CPU with a discrete gpu.

If you compare an iris pro haswell CPU with an non iris pro CPU + discrete gpu .. The price would be very similar. You would get at least the same CPU performance or higher ( non iris pro CPU have higher base clocks) and much better gpu performance.

 

[Joelist]

I'm not "arguing" here, just trying to "think like Apple".

And to Apple, Iris Pro costs less than a CPU plus a discrete GPU. Now a Gamer class laptop OEM like Falcon NW, Alienware (Dell) or others would probably stick a top line GPU plus top line CPU in their laptop - battery life would not be good and pricing would be high but it would cut through most all games like butter.

However, gaming has always seemed to be far from high on Apple laptop priorities. They are more concerned with other GPU functions and in those areas Iris Pro more than does what they want while still being a good, solid gaming piece if not exactly high end. In fact, this generation of Iris Pro seems more or less made for Apple as they are the launch partner and it seems somewhat tailored to the typical Mac graphics scenarios.

The more interesting thing to see will be where Intel goes with Iris and Iris Pro in Broadwell. Will it still be only on the high quad core bins or will they work out a way to use it on the i3 and i5 lines too? If they do, will it be at a lower cost (almost certainly so just from the die shrink and fab cost on the L4 cache going down over time).

 

[koyoot]

I'm not "arguing" here, just trying to "think like Apple".

And to Apple, Iris Pro costs less than a CPU plus a discrete GPU. Now a Gamer class laptop OEM like Falcon NW, Alienware (Dell) or others would probably stick a top line GPU plus top line CPU in their laptop - battery life would not be good and pricing would be high but it would cut through most all games like butter.

No, it does not cost less using one GPU than CPU + dGPU.
In fact, Intel processors with Iris Pro cost 90 dollars more than using model without it. So in fact the cost is the same for both configs.

And Apple used higher cost processor, and discreet GPU.

So the cost is irrelevant for Apple .

 

[Vanilla35]

Cost is a weak argument. As for lower cooling needs - a MacBook Pro that is integrated is not any smaller/light/thinner and it has exactly the same power adaptor.

haswell CPUs with iris pro costs quite a lot. That's why you see most competitors opt for a non iris pro CPU combined with a discrete graphics card.

In fact, Apple is the only oem I know of that has a model that combines an iris pro haswell CPU with a discrete gpu.

This is correct. Before Haswell was released, it was believed by the vast majority that Apple would either go Iris pro only, across all models - or that they would go Intel HD 4600 (iGPU) + discrete, which is significantly cheaper. The Iris Pro + discrete option cost them a lot more money this year. That is part of why it's interesting. His point about no other OEM doing so is also correct. The cost is way too high and relatively pointless, as the performance gap between Iris Pro and 750M is relatively small.

And to Apple, Iris Pro costs less than a CPU plus a discrete GPU.

This is just not true based on what we know. Apple is a big buyer but you can't shave off 35% of a cost of a product just because you're Apple. Iris Pro is expensive. Unless you have some insider information about Apple participating in an acquisition of Intel (not happening) then this is not true.

However, gaming has always seemed to be far from high on Apple laptop priorities. They are more concerned with other GPU functions and in those areas Iris Pro more than does what they want while still being a good, solid gaming piece if not exactly high end. In fact, this generation of Iris Pro seems more or less made for Apple as they are the launch partner and it seems somewhat tailored to the typical Mac graphics scenarios.

I will agree with this part of your post though. I am also very intrigued as it seems the Intel graphics suite Apple's MacBook lineup perfectly (and Apple specifically has always had a crappy dGPU switching mechanism).

I think the fact that Apple chose to include Iris Pro + 750M in the higher end this year, despite it being much more expensive, alludes to a possibility they are planning on dumping the dGPU this upcoming year.

*Another way to think about it is that if they had gone 4600 + discrete in the higher end model, then the iGPU would be weaker in the higher end model than the lower end model - which doesn't make too much sense*

 

[Joelist]

This is correct. Before Haswell was released, it was believed by the vast majority that Apple would either go Iris pro only, across all models - or that they would go Intel HD 4600 (iGPU) + discrete, which is significantly cheaper. The Iris Pro + discrete option cost them a lot more money this year. That is part of why it's interesting. His point about no other OEM doing so is also correct. The cost is way too high and relatively pointless, as the performance gap between Iris Pro and 750M is relatively small.



This is just not true based on what we know. Apple is a big buyer but you can't shave off 35% of a cost of a product just because you're Apple. Iris Pro is expensive. Unless you have some insider information about Apple participating in an acquisition of Intel (not happening) then this is not true.



I will agree with this part of your post though. I am also very intrigued as it seems the Intel graphics suite Apple's MacBook lineup perfectly (and Apple specifically has always had a crappy dGPU switching mechanism).

I think the fact that Apple chose to include Iris Pro + 750M in the higher end this year, despite it being much more expensive, alludes to a possibility they are planning on dumping the dGPU this upcoming year.

*Another way to think about it is that if they had gone 4600 + discrete in the higher end model, then the iGPU would be weaker in the higher end model than the lower end model - which doesn't make too much sense*

I decided to do some more research on part prices, especially in light of the 35% mark. If that is true then Iris Pro would cost $154 more than non Iris Pro based on the part price of the i7 4750HQ.

After a lot of hunting for some type of price for the 750M (or any mobile dGPU for that matter) I tried using configurations for a bunch of OEMs. On average they charged $150 to go to the 750M from integrated. Let's say $50 of that is profit and the dGPU probably is $100-ish. Now that is on top of the CPU price.

Iris Pro seems to be $62 more than the MQ version of the CPU as far as I can see, so the per unit difference is probably in the $30-$40 range on this round (the MBP is using the i7 4750HQ). Both parts (with and without IP) are 47W.

So it seems that the IP integrated is indeed less expensive (albeit only a little) than the CPU/dGPU combo. Still, less expensive is less expensive not more expensive as some claimed. Add in the TDP savings which translate into battery life and the fact that Iris Pro excels in the very areas Apple cares about the most and one can see why the lineup came out like it did.

 

[MacDevMike]

Expect Apple to include a Maxwell dgpu in the middle and high end units. Especially for dealing with 4K displays in the future. They will use this as a gateway to more expensive MBPs as they do today.

 

[Joelist]

All of a sudden I am wondering if Apple got a price break what with being the launch partner and all.

 

[lewdvig]

Nvidia waiting until Microsoft announces DirectX12 at GDC on March 20th since they are going to be announcing that the upcoming Maxwell fully supports DirectX12. They'll also be showing more of Maxwell at the conference in late March, which they're going to release Maxwell mid/high end cards.

Oh you know

Yes I do believe Maxwell will support DX12, but regarding the Maxwell mid-high Maxwell GPU's they may just be announcing or leading into their official announcement later on. I never said anything about shipping immediately.

Is that what happened today?

 

[cirus]

I decided to do some more research on part prices, especially in light of the 35% mark. If that is true then Iris Pro would cost $154 more than non Iris Pro based on the part price of the i7 4750HQ.

After a lot of hunting for some type of price for the 750M (or any mobile dGPU for that matter) I tried using configurations for a bunch of OEMs. On average they charged $150 to go to the 750M from integrated. Let's say $50 of that is profit and the dGPU probably is $100-ish. Now that is on top of the CPU price.

Iris Pro seems to be $62 more than the MQ version of the CPU as far as I can see, so the per unit difference is probably in the $30-$40 range on this round (the MBP is using the i7 4750HQ). Both parts (with and without IP) are 47W.

So it seems that the IP integrated is indeed less expensive (albeit only a little) than the CPU/dGPU combo. Still, less expensive is less expensive not more expensive as some claimed. Add in the TDP savings which translate into battery life and the fact that Iris Pro excels in the very areas Apple cares about the most and one can see why the lineup came out like it did.

When have upgrades ever been indicative of hardware cost? Retail prices are never indicative of manufacturing prices.

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto.do

HP charges $85 for a 740m and $95 for a 840m. They are making a margin on that price.

Margins are ridiculous, as they always are in retail.

100% total markup

The CPU list price on intel.ark does not include bulk/OEM discounts. Iris pro also requires the L4 cache which is at least $50 on its own + larger HD 5200 chip.

 

[Joelist]

Actually the Intel price is right on the mark. The CPU is one price which includes Iris Pro - the L4 cache is part of that price. And I said the nVidia price is a complete guess as there seems not to be a source for the part price. If you get a i7 QH CPU it has Iris Pro and Crystalwell inherently. For the 750M I just took the upgrade price from integrated then lopped off a number for profit. I made the margin a little smaller because OEM is completely different than retail - margins are smaller.

So all in all my guesstimated price difference of about $30 per unit with the iGPU being cheaper still sounds about right. And remember I am not guessing at all at any Apple discount from Intel, and as the launch partner they may well get one.

 

[Vanilla35]

Is that what happened today?

Yes.

http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/03/20/directx-12/

Looks very promising. Now more than ever the GPU of your computer is highly valued

 

[cirus]

Actually the Intel price is right on the mark. The CPU is one price which includes Iris Pro - the L4 cache is part of that price. And I said the nVidia price is a complete guess as there seems not to be a source for the part price. If you get a i7 QH CPU it has Iris Pro and Crystalwell inherently. For the 750M I just took the upgrade price from integrated then lopped off a number for profit. I made the margin a little smaller because OEM is completely different than retail - margins are smaller.

So all in all my guesstimated price difference of about $30 per unit with the iGPU being cheaper still sounds about right. And remember I am not guessing at all at any Apple discount from Intel, and as the launch partner they may well get one.

Crystalwell is NOT part of the die.

It is part of the package but not part of the CPU.

If your average price is still higher than the lowest price then something is wrong. (For the GPU). The 750m + parts probably cost around $50-60 in the volumes apple is buying.

ARK intel is completely wrong. How is the 4770k $339 according to intel but $300 on amazon?

http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/intel-core-i7-4770k-processor-8m-cache-up-to-3_90-ghz

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CO8TBQ0/?tag=pcpapi-20

Iris Pro probably costs around $50 more than non-iris. Intel likely has lower margins on it.

Going by intel's tray prices (very wrong but it may be a okay approximation if actual OEM pricing is proportional).

http://ark.intel.com/products/76087/Intel-Core-i7-4750HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz

http://ark.intel.com/products/75117/Intel-Core-i7-4700MQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz

$434 vs. $378.

 

[Joelist]

Congratulations. You made my point. Iris Pro is nothing like 35% more expensive than non Iris Pro. It's $56 and I thought it was $90. Even better.

 

[thunng8]

A 40% performance jump in Iris Pro 2 would put it past the 750M. And remember this is at a FAR lower TDP than any discrete solution can produce.

Don't be so sure about that. In less stressful games the difference isn't that much (25-30%), but crank up the resolution and quality level or more stressful game and 750M is up to 70% faster than Iris Pro.

Some benchmarks here:
http://www.archagon.net/a-few-pointless-thoughts/2013/12/19/late-2013-15-macbook-pro

That means in some situations, Iris Pro 2 (if it is 40% faster than Iris Pro) will not beat the current 750M.

 

[thunng8]

Congratulations. You made my point. Iris Pro is nothing like 35% more expensive than non Iris Pro. It's $56 and I thought it was $90. Even better.

It is really hard to tell how much OEMs part for CPUs or GPUs. Maybe Apple got a really good price on Iris Pro. We can only speculate.

All we know for sure is except for Apple, there isn't a single major OEM that has went for the Iris Pro solution in a laptop All have went for integrated only with cheap laptops and if graphics performance is required, they have added a discrete graphics card.

 

[Joelist]

True enough.

In fact, remember I was wondering a bit earlier if Iris Pro was basically created for Apple as the areas where it excels (and in some areas the current one even beats the 750M) seem to be exactly the ones Apple typically values the GPU for in a laptop scenario.

They seem to value stuff like Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Creative Suite, Final Cut, Logic Pro and so forth. In other words, things that like Open CL and Compute/Transcode scenarios. And Iris Pro just happens to truly shine in those areas. It also doesn't hurt that it drives the retina display easily and even drives 4K very, very well (I had a 4K display hooked up to my rMBP and everything flowed like water).

I think a lot of the other (and to be honest there are not a lot) of laptops with discrete GPUs were looking at other things as higher value, specifically things that go with playing games. And the lower end iGPU rigs are basically trying to be as inexpensive as they can.

I suspect Broadwell will tell us more about where Iris Pro is heading. We already know it will also be on the K series desktop Quad Cores - I wonder if they will perhaps put it on higher clocked i5 mobiles. The price should come down as they get more capacity for Crystalwell and Broadwell is getting a die shrink too.

Wild guess, Apple's lineup basically stays the same except we get a rMBP 13 with Pro on it too.

 

[mr.bee]

True enough.

In fact, remember I was wondering a bit earlier if Iris Pro was basically created for Apple as the areas where it excels (and in some areas the current one even beats the 750M) seem to be exactly the ones Apple typically values the GPU for in a laptop scenario.

They seem to value stuff like Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Creative Suite, Final Cut, Logic Pro and so forth. In other words, things that like Open CL and Compute/Transcode scenarios. And Iris Pro just happens to truly shine in those areas. It also doesn't hurt that it drives the retina display easily and even drives 4K very, very well (I had a 4K display hooked up to my rMBP and everything flowed like water).

I think a lot of the other (and to be honest there are not a lot) of laptops with discrete GPUs were looking at other things as higher value, specifically things that go with playing games. And the lower end iGPU rigs are basically trying to be as inexpensive as they can.

I suspect Broadwell will tell us more about where Iris Pro is heading. We already know it will also be on the K series desktop Quad Cores - I wonder if they will perhaps put it on higher clocked i5 mobiles. The price should come down as they get more capacity for Crystalwell and Broadwell is getting a die shrink too.

Wild guess, Apple's lineup basically stays the same except we get a rMBP 13 with Pro on it too.

indeed, business wise, a dGPU is a pain in the ass for Apple. Especially from a company that dictates their own rules like Nvidia. They do not like it and they want to get rid of it, or at least don't depend on it.

Besides the specific Nvidia case, that's what Apple always does, divide their demands to different suppliers so they won't get dependent on them. (hello porter strategy)

Also for marketing reasons, you have now a low end rmbp 15 that is perfectly capable for day to day tasks and even a lot of professional tasks. And a high end rmbp for 3D uses and high end gaming.

As long as Nvidia has a tight grip on the gaming market and 3D, Apple will consider using it if it impacts the user experience significantly.

so you can throw with as much numbers as you'd like the decision is business not technology.

 

[cirus]

Congratulations. You made my point. Iris Pro is nothing like 35% more expensive than non Iris Pro. It's $56 and I thought it was $90. Even better.

I said $56 +/- huge margin of error. I also said that its about the same cost as the 750m hence the two are about equal to implement.

 

[thunng8]

Two quotes from Anandtech's look at Iris Pro:

.



Anand (and he did this himself not a guest writer) is saying the same thing I did, and this is the whole appeal of integrated GPUs especially ones that are on die - much lower TDP. In the case of ones that are on die they fit into the CPU power envelope.

So yes what I posted is correct. And it is the whole point to integrated graphics from the POV of the OEM. The TDP is way lower so cooling is not the same kind of issue and a smaller PSU can be used too. It means better battery life also. Using a discrete GPU is a choice that has consequences - use a beefier PSU/cooling system, accept lower battery life and/or throttle the dGPU.

Finally tracked down a review of the power usage of the Iris pro. It is an review of the only other laptop ( apart from Apple) that I know of that uses iris pro

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Schenker-S413-Clevo-W740SU-Notebook.98313.0.html

Under load iris pro is not power efficient . Maximum power usage is as high as the 2012 retina MacBook Pro with 650m.