I hope to god that they have at least a 75% performance boost over the 330 that is being used right now. If not, I can use nTune in Windows to get that boost.
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.
Possible graphics Apple might use if they adopt Sandy Bridge in Jan 2011 period?
- Thread starter Julpride
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This sounds the most reasonable. I would say the 435m would be the "best" scenario you could hope for though. It's on par with the ATI 5650, so it would make sense due to the new Sony Vaio's and the HP Envy using it in their PCs. Even a 425m would be cool (on par with the 335m in the Alienware m11x). However, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 420m which is basically the same thing as now.
Hoping that they would look really deep into nvidia Optimus so that they can couple a higher TDP discreet graphics while enjoying extended battery life with on-board graphics when not required. It's a "win-win" for all parties, except for the person paying for the machine. xD
the 330m they use now is underclocked. im sure whatever they use in the future will be modified in the same way.
the 330m will be able to handle diablo 3 i have no doubt. on high? maybe, maybe, depending on the action. on ultra? no.
the 330m will be able to handle diablo 3 i have no doubt. on high? maybe, maybe, depending on the action. on ultra? no.
First Info on next-gen AMD Radeon Mobility Parts
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/11/09/amd-talks-new-mobile-parts/
Don't know whether they'll be ready for early 2011 MBP though.
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/11/09/amd-talks-new-mobile-parts/
Don't know whether they'll be ready for early 2011 MBP though.
For VRAM it will either be 256/512 or 512/1024
They would have to seriously underclock the Mobility Radeon 5830 like with the 330M
If they remove ODD, but that is hoped for
because of TDP
No, it is quite unlikely considering they've never done it before and they are starting to get interested in gaming
Not happening
Hopefully if Apple switches to AMD it will be the Mobility 6830 or better
Assuming of course that the 6830 is released in the next couple of months, and that it's anything like the 5830. Hopefully there will be a GPU (whatever it is called) that is capable of pulling over 800 GFlops (what the 5830 can do now) for 23W. I have a feeling that that won't happen with NVIDIA.
In terms of underclocking, at least in terms of the physics, it's better to take a big card and underclock it than take a small card and run it at a high clock speed. Power consumption is (theoretically) proportional to the square of the clock speed, so a small underclock should still give a large decrease in power consumption, while only decreasing processing power a small amount. Which is why I'm not bothered with underclocking.
And I will also be very disappointed if I can't get a gig of VRAM (GDDR5, anyone?) in the next MBP.
P.S. I have a feeling the Mobile Quadro suggestion was supposed to be a joke.
P.P.S. In summary, I will be ecstatic if Apple take what is in the present Envy 15", and give it some Apple Magic.
Completely agreed!
I just hope they get rid of the optical driver, get more bat and with that opt to a more TDP demanding videocard, maybe they just make a system in which sandy bridge let mac osx to have a looong bat life (with the new igp performance we wouldnt need to switch video card to se a 1080p youtube video 4 example) and a great performace card like 58xx
who knwos
If Apple wants to keep growing in appeal for gaming. They will have to stay with Nvidia. The major developers who are building the blockbuster games are building on an Nvidia platform, meaning the suggested graphics will be Nvidia as they will perform better than ATI all day.
Besides... Nvidia graphics are almost a year ahead of ATI performance wise... When ATI released their top of the line 4870 almost a year after the 8800GTX, the 8800 was annihilating the performance of the 'newer' technology with GDDR5. The theme has continued, most high performance gaming computers are based off Nvidia (with ATI as a BTO option for the faithful)... ATI builds their cards and chips for certain price points, not true performance. I have connections in the medical imaging diagnostics industry, I asked some of the guys what systems they use and most of their systems are based on Nvidia builds, because they are so superior to anything that exists by ATI.
Besides... Nvidia graphics are almost a year ahead of ATI performance wise... When ATI released their top of the line 4870 almost a year after the 8800GTX, the 8800 was annihilating the performance of the 'newer' technology with GDDR5. The theme has continued, most high performance gaming computers are based off Nvidia (with ATI as a BTO option for the faithful)... ATI builds their cards and chips for certain price points, not true performance. I have connections in the medical imaging diagnostics industry, I asked some of the guys what systems they use and most of their systems are based on Nvidia builds, because they are so superior to anything that exists by ATI.
Hilarious!!!
The NVIDIA 330M Is clearly far better than the AMD 5830, so maybe Apple should just stick with what it's already using.
But seriously, you clearly have some hate issues with AMD, or some ignorance issues, to work out. AMD have been way ahead of NVIDIA ever since like the HD 3000 generation. Maybe the 8800GTX WAS faster than the 4870, maybe not. I'd have to look up benches. But I bet it also used twice as much power, and cost twice as much. Which is why the sensible people would just use Crossfire, and cane the living bajeebas out of any NVIDIA card.
EDIT: On review of reviews, it appears that everything I wrote is irrelevant. As expected, the 4870 destroys the 8800GTX, and the 9800GTX, and probably most of the newer NVIDIA cards too. If you want references, too bad. Google it yourself. It's not hard.
Last edited:
Let's not get distracted by petty arguments about AMD v NVIDIA. For example, the Geforce GTX 580 may be the fastest single GPU at present, but that's not in the least bit relevant to this conversation: we're not going to see 300W+ GPUs in a MacBook Pro.
There are some advantages (outside performance and power consumption) for preferring AMD or NVIDIA. For example NVIDIA has CUDA, which is the most mature compute API, but AMD can drive more displays from one card (6000 series can chain many DisplayPort monitors from one port).
However, I think what most people on this thread want is to keep the basic form factor and battery life of the 15" MacBook Pro (maybe minus the optical drive) but increase the graphics performance significantly. This requires a GPU with a thermal design power (TDP) around 20W.
Based on available specifications and laptops in production, I believe the Mobility 5830 (24W TDP*) is the closest thing to the ideal GPU for the 15" MacBook Pro at present. If anyone has information on a similar or better NVIDIA GPU I'd be very interested to read it.
New NVIDIA 5xx and AMD 6xxx series GPUs may change this picture, but there isn't much time as Sandy Bridge CPUs (and therefore new MBP) are due in January 2011.
It should also be noted when Apple last refreshed the iMac and Mac Pro they opted for AMD graphics. This increases the likelihood the next MBP will have an AMD GPU.
*Taken from official AMD spec sheet: http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/NOTEBOOK/GRAPHICS/ATI-MOBILITY-HD-5800/Pages/hd-5830-specs.aspx
There are some advantages (outside performance and power consumption) for preferring AMD or NVIDIA. For example NVIDIA has CUDA, which is the most mature compute API, but AMD can drive more displays from one card (6000 series can chain many DisplayPort monitors from one port).
However, I think what most people on this thread want is to keep the basic form factor and battery life of the 15" MacBook Pro (maybe minus the optical drive) but increase the graphics performance significantly. This requires a GPU with a thermal design power (TDP) around 20W.
Based on available specifications and laptops in production, I believe the Mobility 5830 (24W TDP*) is the closest thing to the ideal GPU for the 15" MacBook Pro at present. If anyone has information on a similar or better NVIDIA GPU I'd be very interested to read it.
New NVIDIA 5xx and AMD 6xxx series GPUs may change this picture, but there isn't much time as Sandy Bridge CPUs (and therefore new MBP) are due in January 2011.
It should also be noted when Apple last refreshed the iMac and Mac Pro they opted for AMD graphics. This increases the likelihood the next MBP will have an AMD GPU.
*Taken from official AMD spec sheet: http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/NOTEBOOK/GRAPHICS/ATI-MOBILITY-HD-5800/Pages/hd-5830-specs.aspx
Last edited:
It's somewhat confusing, the page you reference says "According to rumors, the power consumption of the GeForce GT 445M should be about 45 Watt (TDP including the MXM board and memory), which is about the level of the Mobility Radeon HD 5830."
However, the notebookcheck.net page on the 5830 (http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5830.24733.0.html) and AMD's own specs (referenced in my previous post) show 24W. Though the 445M figure apparently includes MXM board and memory? There must be concrete figures on the 445M TDP somewhere. I'd be delighted if it were in the ~20W range. Why can't NVIDIA just include them on the spec sheet?
I'd like to see MBP graphics performance at least twice that of the current 330M model with support for 1GB graphics memory. I don't care whether it's NVIDIA or AMD.
Last edited:
nVidia hasn't released any official TDPs. The TDP of 330M is unknown as well. 9600M GT is 23W, that's all we know.
I doubt we'll see 445M, 435M or 425M sounds more likely. I would be surprised if the GPU in next gen was twice as fast. Even 5850M is only ~50% faster.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3887/nvidia-400m-dx11-top-to-bottom/ has a good comparison of the NVIDIA 400m GPUs. Page 2 has the mid-range GPUs that Apple would be using if going the NVIDIA route.
Don't say that!
The 13" mbp is the perfect size for a laptop.
BUT - - - - The only problem is you can get something from another company with:
i7 740qm (quad with hyperthreading) (vs 2.4 c2d),
2gb graphics (vs shared 256mb)
640gb 7200rpm (vs 250gb 5400rpm)
and 8gb ram 1333 (vs 4gb 1066)
and a full hd screen
with blu ray and usb 3 (vs just dvd and usb 2.0)
- - - - - ALL FOR THE SAME PRICE!!! as the macbook pro.
The battery life, design, weight, etc are AWESOME on the 13" mbp, but when you buy one, you get 4 year old hardware. Just getting that point out there.
Which laptop is this?
PS the MBP is not a laptop, it is a Notebook
yup, anything over 1GB is utter rubbish unless it is controlling something very large/hi-res
Even 512MB is pretty useless for 330M as seen in the benchmarks. The difference is negligible.
as long as you have enough VRAM it doesn't really matter. when I was talking about 1GB I was talking about GPUs in general, I could see the iMac 27 using 1.5GB VRAM. The MBP should get 512MB across the line
Usually there are no ATI GPUs with 1.5GB of VRAM, it's either 1GB or 2GB. Not impossible though but iMacs' VRAM just got bumped so I wouldn't expect a new bump anytime soon
According to the roadmaps we've seen, it will be 256-bit
Not a surprise since Barts has 256-bit bus