I didn't watch the keynote but viewed the technical specs on Apple.com. Yes, I'm happy it's been "upgraded" and is $200 cheaper for base. I'm not happy because they took out the dedicated graphics card in the base model. I don't care what Apple says: Intel integrated graphics will never be as fast as a dedicated card. Also, clock speeds were reduced. Seriously?! Wtf.
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.
rMBP - A Giant Step Backwards
- Thread starter Squilly
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Buy the old one. According to you it'll be faster. Also make sure you don't click any links that have benchmarks for the new machine. Boom problem solved.
Well then... Enlighten me. Iris Pro is obviously faster than a dedicated card, I'm sure.
I think you need to understand computer architecture before showing your gross ignorance.
Haswell reduces clock speed while maintaining performance, it's one of the ways Intel reduces power consumption. While I'm going for the 750M version the Iris Pro is still pretty respectable providing your not gaming, but for everything else it's great.
650M is more like a 660M and the 750M is more like a 760M, Iris Pro is like a 640M. The samples Apple use are golden samples and are overclocked, they are surprisingly capable.
Haswell reduces clock speed while maintaining performance, it's one of the ways Intel reduces power consumption. While I'm going for the 750M version the Iris Pro is still pretty respectable providing your not gaming, but for everything else it's great.
650M is more like a 660M and the 750M is more like a 760M, Iris Pro is like a 640M. The samples Apple use are golden samples and are overclocked, they are surprisingly capable.
I quoted a specific part of your post. Your inability to hold a discussion makes any efforts to explain futile.
What type of gaming can I get out of the iris pro? I wanna try out a game like BioShock Infinite on my mac book pro. But the MBP would not be my primary device for gaming. Most of my gaming will be through consoles.
Providing it's the Iris Pro and not just Iris you should be OK on medium to high settings, low level AA (Intel's graphics solutions really don't like AA), just keep the resolution lower at say 1440x900.
The only time you should ever compare CPU's by clock speed is when they are on the same architecture, otherwise it's meaningless. Why do you think Intel's 4770 hammers AMD's 5GHz beast on most applications (read; anything that isn't multi core rendering or transcoding).
Some of the stuff idiots come up with across the web just now like Apple is short changing them by lowering the clock speed is incredible, they increased performance, increased battery life, lowered the weight and size (13") and lowered the price on a laptop so good a die hard windows PC builder like me is jumping ship and they still complain. It's astonishing, I always believe these people are the fools I meet in real life and don't ever accomplish much. Apple has innovated more than any other company over the last decade since the iPod started it all. I am their first cynic when they make a mistake but on the whole they've performed remarkably!
It's simple Iris Pro will be OK for games providing they aren't too demanding at middle of the road settings. Just don't expect much.
The 750M with its 2GB of GDDR5 is not going to smash a Titan out of the park but it will be OK. There's a channel on YouTube called retinagameshow or something like that, he benchmarks games on his top spec Ivy machine and it performs pretty well. That's what you can expect plus around 5-15% depending on the game.
The 750M with its 2GB of GDDR5 is not going to smash a Titan out of the park but it will be OK. There's a channel on YouTube called retinagameshow or something like that, he benchmarks games on his top spec Ivy machine and it performs pretty well. That's what you can expect plus around 5-15% depending on the game.
How is possible that apple is still shipping a Pro laptop with 4gb ram?
My 4 year old laptop had 4gb of ram. Then i updated it...
No matter how you look at it, this is embarrasing.
Microsoft was the best in 1998, and still they were a evil company.
Now apple is the best, by far, and they are also evil.
Regarding phones and tablets, nice to have android, to copy apple and make it better and cheaper.
My 4 year old laptop had 4gb of ram. Then i updated it...
No matter how you look at it, this is embarrasing.
Microsoft was the best in 1998, and still they were a evil company.
Now apple is the best, by far, and they are also evil.
Regarding phones and tablets, nice to have android, to copy apple and make it better and cheaper.
You seem awfully sure of the "never" part. Do you have time travel ability? Can you pick me up a Skylake MBP on the way back?
To be realistic, making the dedicated non-standard is a smart move. Most users likely aren't going to use it and it can be a big power drain if not correctly managed. The users who want to do some gaming on their Macbook or plan on taking advantage of a GPU accelerated program can get the upgrade or go for a gaming laptop.
And as everyone else has pointed out, there's a big difference between clock speed and actual performance. I have an old Celeron processor clocked at 2.93Ghz that wouldn't hold a candle to these dual cores. My old desktop quad, an Intel Q6700 doesn't even come close to the quads in the base Macbook despite it out-clocking them by 667Mhz.
And as everyone else has pointed out, there's a big difference between clock speed and actual performance. I have an old Celeron processor clocked at 2.93Ghz that wouldn't hold a candle to these dual cores. My old desktop quad, an Intel Q6700 doesn't even come close to the quads in the base Macbook despite it out-clocking them by 667Mhz.
Just to throw some numbers into the discussion, http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
Where you can see that this year's mid-level option (the 2.3) actually beats the early 2013 top of the line slightly (2.8 Ivy gets 3062 while 2.3 Haswell gets 3092). I'd say that's not a bad accomplishment, considering it even leaves you the option to upgrade to a CPU which scores 3334 (that's faster than an i7-3770, the top of the line Ivy desktop chip!). Or sticking with the mid-level CPU (2.3) will get you just slightly more than last year's top of the line performance for a notably lower power and heat cost.
As far as the GPU discussion, well... The 750m is indeed faster in games, but rarely more than 15-20% (sometimes less based on the tests that are being done by users). I suppose the complaint going around is that gamers would have preferred a 256/8 option with the 750m, and I can understand the complaint, but I'd hardly call that a "huge step backwards."
Where you can see that this year's mid-level option (the 2.3) actually beats the early 2013 top of the line slightly (2.8 Ivy gets 3062 while 2.3 Haswell gets 3092). I'd say that's not a bad accomplishment, considering it even leaves you the option to upgrade to a CPU which scores 3334 (that's faster than an i7-3770, the top of the line Ivy desktop chip!). Or sticking with the mid-level CPU (2.3) will get you just slightly more than last year's top of the line performance for a notably lower power and heat cost.
As far as the GPU discussion, well... The 750m is indeed faster in games, but rarely more than 15-20% (sometimes less based on the tests that are being done by users). I suppose the complaint going around is that gamers would have preferred a 256/8 option with the 750m, and I can understand the complaint, but I'd hardly call that a "huge step backwards."
Thanks for all that info! This seems to be exactly what I needed to know regarding the different 15" variations and sums it all up in terms that I can understand...
Since you seem to be pretty knowledgable on this, do you think it's stupid to opt for the Iris Pro-only model (2.3/16/512) for $2400 the exact same price as the upper-level 15" with the same specs and the dGPU included? Also know I don't do any gaming.
For base model purchasers, it's a small step backwards (due only to the GPU, not the CPU, as explained above) and (ultimately) a small price drop. I say "ultimately" because you could get an Ivy Bridge days ago for $1999 from resellers like Amazon, and today, you can get Haswell for $1999, so the impact of the lower MSRP doesn't really matter at present. Eventually, as resellers get stock and lower their prices, it'll reach a similar equilibrium.
At the end of the day, though, anyone dissatisfied with the loss of GPU can always buy an Ivy Bridge model. Problem solved.
I agree that it's an underwhelming update, but it's also pretty much exactly what was expected. The only disappointment (again, for base users) is the modest increase in advertised battery life, but some users are suggesting those claims are actually understated. Pending a more empirical analysis of that issue, it's tough to draw final conclusions.
----------
You didn't ask me, but I'm going to chime in anyway. Yes, that would be pretty dumb for anyone except people who often use Boot Camp (since it defaults to the dGPU and doesn't switch dynamically). You can always use gfxCardStatus to keep the Iris Pro enabled if you don't like the dGPU for some reason, but at the end of the day, I would definitely love to have the option in my back pocket, no question.
At the end of the day, though, anyone dissatisfied with the loss of GPU can always buy an Ivy Bridge model. Problem solved.
I agree that it's an underwhelming update, but it's also pretty much exactly what was expected. The only disappointment (again, for base users) is the modest increase in advertised battery life, but some users are suggesting those claims are actually understated. Pending a more empirical analysis of that issue, it's tough to draw final conclusions.
----------
You didn't ask me, but I'm going to chime in anyway.
Yes, that would be pretty dumb for anyone except people who often use Boot Camp (since it defaults to the dGPU and doesn't switch dynamically). You can always use gfxCardStatus to keep the Iris Pro enabled if you don't like the dGPU for some reason, but at the end of the day, I would definitely love to have the option in my back pocket, no question.
Confirmed by Arstechnica - they ran 24 GB of programs on a 16 GB machine before it hit swap at all. Given 16 GB dimms are unobtainable/expensive, I'll gladly take a "free' 8 GB due to memory compression thanks.