Skip the updated 15" MBP and wait for Skylake

[dusk007]

The new 15inch MBP is faster than the last refresh with or without the dGPU due to the faster SSD.

The SSD makes very little difference. There is almost nothing in which you will notice a difference at all. In a lot of things you cannot even measure the difference. HDDs used to be a bottleneck. But ever since 500MB/s SSDs there is no bottleneck anymore. CPU speed limits the SSD in 95% of cases and the random performance has not actually improved with those new pcie x4 SSDs.
These SSD speeds look good on paper but unless you jerk of to benchmark results they are an insignificant upgrade.

 

[dusk007]

What are you talking about? You can connect a 4K and 5K panel to these displays. You can even run the current rMBP 15" with the scaled 1920x1200 resolution, it's a built in option.

Please atleast look at this screenshot from a rMBP 15", see under the laptop where it says "Looks like 1920x1200". All Apple has to do is put in a 4K panel and update the scaled resolutions on offer.

What I mean is they don't have a dynamic DPI. DPI is always the same they just render at different resolutions. All graphics and apps are ultimately only perfect on best for retina which is exactly twice. Everything else is rendered at imperfect resolutions. Either rendering on a lower resolution (ie. wasting some resolution) or rendering at a higher (ie wasting processing power).
It is a it kind of works solution but I doubt that is enough for their default setting. They won't go for a 4k display while their rendering happens at 2880x1800 to get the icons in the right size. They might as well stick to the 2880x1800 resolution.
If you go for larger text like the looks like 1280x800 option. It actually only renders a 2560x1600 image and then upscales it. It is not ideal obviously and less sharp than if you just went for a 2560x1600 display to begin with.
Windows on the other hand just changes the DPI. OSX can only render 1x or 2x. Windows can render 1x 1.2x 1.nx 2x 3x at virtually any setting. It does not need to render at 2x and then up or downscale the result. It renders at just the DPI so the resulting image is exactly what the display needs, no down/upscaling necessary.

You just won't see a 4k 15" display from Apple. At least not without a significant change to OSX rendering first, which you'd hear about quite a bit in advance.

 

[Quu]

What I mean is they don't have a dynamic DPI. DPI is always the same they just render at different resolutions. All graphics and apps are ultimately only perfect on best for retina which is exactly twice. Everything else is rendered at imperfect resolutions. Either rendering on a lower resolution (ie. wasting some resolution) or rendering at a higher (ie wasting processing power).
It is a it kind of works solution but I doubt that is enough for their default setting. They won't go for a 4k display while their rendering happens at 2880x1800 to get the icons in the right size. They might as well stick to the 2880x1800 resolution.
If you go for larger text like the looks like 1280x800 option. It actually only renders a 2560x1600 image and then upscales it. It is not ideal obviously and less sharp than if you just went for a 2560x1600 display to begin with.
Windows on the other hand just changes the DPI. OSX can only render 1x or 2x. Windows can render 1x 1.2x 1.nx 2x 3x at virtually any setting. It does not need to render at 2x and then up or downscale the result. It renders at just the DPI so the resulting image is exactly what the display needs, no down/upscaling necessary.

You just won't see a 4k 15" display from Apple. At least not without a significant change to OSX rendering first, which you'd hear about quite a bit in advance.

I think you're confused. When you use the 1920x1200 setting, things get smaller. Icons, Text, the UI, everything.

All we want is a 1920x1200 default desktop size within a 4K panel. Instead of 1920x1200 inside of a 2880x1800 panel. We want 1:4 pixel ratio and not 1:3 or whatever the ratio is.

Their rendering system can totally do it. Right now the 1920x1200 setting renders everything at 4K then downscales it to 2880x1800 to fit in the LCD panel. If they go native 4K they won't need that 2nd scaling system they can just go straight to 4K and output it. If anything it'd run even better than the current system does due to the added scaling required.

Just to be clear again, we don't want things to stay the same size as 1440x900 that we currently have. We want them to get smaller so we can have a 1920x1200 desktop size.

 

[soupcan]

Why do people want a 4K resolution on a 15" display? You don't see the pixels now anyway so going to 4K will just mean more GPU performance needed to drive those pixels and worse battery life.

 

[Quu]

Why do people want a 4K resolution on a 15" display? You don't see the pixels now anyway so going to 4K will just mean more GPU performance needed to drive those pixels and worse battery life.

Because we want a 1920x1200 sized desktop. I've explained this many times on the forums so I'll try to condense the problem down.

Right now the display is 2880x1800 and it has an effective desktop size of 1440x900. Other 15" notebooks from every single manufacturer has been shipping a 1920x1200 screen size on their 15" notebooks for more than half a decade. Either as the default or a build-to-order option.

The rMBP supports scaled resolutions higher so that you can run the notebook with a desktop size of 1680x1050 or 1920x1200. But because the actual display size is 2880x1800 these resolutions do not look good. They look slightly smudged and when you move applications around the screen that use fine lines (text, 1 pixel high/wide lines) they begin flashing as the scaler tries to scale the pixel to fit.

See when you run 1440x900 on a 2880x1800 the scaling is perfect because there is 4 real pixels to represent 1 virtual pixel. A perfect square. But when you go out of this ratio either higher or lower than 1440x900 that's when you get the imperfect scaling and flashing of small details.

If the display was 4K then we could have a pixel perfect 1 virtual pixel to 4 real pixels with a desktop size of 1920x1200.

It's not that we want 4K so we "cant see the pixels". It's that we want 4K because that will make the display workable with a 1920x1200 desktop size. I hope this makes sense I know it's complicated to convey in comment form like this, it's much easier to show someone by using the actual laptop and changing resolutions so they can see the flickering for themselves.

 

[magbarn]

Because we want a 1920x1200 sized desktop. I've explained this many times on the forums so I'll try to condense the problem down.

Right now the display is 2880x1800 and it has an effective desktop size of 1440x900. Other 15" notebooks from every single manufacturer has been shipping a 1920x1200 screen size on their 15" notebooks for more than half a decade. Either as the default or a build-to-order option.

The rMBP supports scaled resolutions higher so that you can run the notebook with a desktop size of 1680x1050 or 1920x1200. Once PCI manufacturers abandoned 16:10 displays at around 2006 or so, they also dropped 1920x1200 as a common resolution, it's only really found mostly on 'workstation/business-class' laptops. Ironically I had a dell from 2003 that had this resolution on a 15 inch. But because the actual display size is 2880x1800 these resolutions do not look good. They look slightly smudged and when you move applications around the screen that use fine lines (text, 1 pixel high/wide lines) they begin flashing as the scaler tries to scale the pixel to fit.

See when you run 1440x900 on a 2880x1800 the scaling is perfect because there is 4 real pixels to represent 1 virtual pixel. A perfect square. But when you go out of this ratio either higher or lower than 1440x900 that's when you get the imperfect scaling and flashing of small details.

If the display was 4K then we could have a pixel perfect 1 virtual pixel to 4 real pixels with a desktop size of 1920x1200.

It's not that we want 4K so we "cant see the pixels". It's that we want 4K because that will make the display workable with a 1920x1200 desktop size. I hope this makes sense I know it's complicated to convey in comment form like this, it's much easier to show someone by using the actual laptop and changing resolutions so they can see the flickering for themselves.

You mean 1920x1080 instead. The vast majority of pc manufacturers use the horrid 16:9 ratio. Part of the reasons why I stick to Apple is the the 16:10 ratio on their MacBook pros. I do want a 4k display though as I edit 4k videos and while the current retina 15 is pretty good it's not as good as 1:1 4k display.

 

[aaron5566]

I personally am still on the fence between upgrading or waiting for Skylake. I have been using my 2012 MBA more lately and starting to notice its' quirks like giving me headaches, slower gaming performance or the occasional random restart. :/

 

[dusk007]

All we want is a 1920x1200 default desktop size within a 4K panel.

Okay I wouldn't mind that either. I run the 1680x1050 version but 1920x1200 would fine 1440x900 is horrible. Still do you think it is likely that after all these years on all their macs with this UI size they will switch. That isn't very Apple like to make such a move. I don't see any chance that is happening.
I wouldn't mind it, though I don't suppose I will buy another MBP after this one anyway. Price vs value vs what alternatives their just doesn't look so rosy anymore. Euro prices are nuts.

 

[magbarn]

I personally am still on the fence between upgrading or waiting for Skylake. I have been using my 2012 MBA more lately and starting to notice its' quirks like giving me headaches, slower gaming performance or the occasional random restart. :/

For you it would be a huge upgrade. Not so much for prior rMBP owners. I still don't understand crazy reasoning to upgrade a 2013 rMBP 15 to the new model, considering it has the same CPU. Yeah it's a bit faster in openCL (I have yet to see FCPX benchmarks comparing the two-other than from Apple) and a bit faster in games, but unless you have cash to burn and don't care or you a don't mind ripping off somebody who doesn't know much about computers you're going to take a big hit in upgrading. If you sell a 2014 rMBP 15 2.5/512/750M for the average selling price of about $1900 on ebay, you'll lose almost $300 in listing/shipping/paypal fees. Then you go and buy a 2015 rMBP 15 with m370x for $2499 + tax (I guess you can 'cheat' and get the education discount) Even with the edu discount, you're still at almost $900 in the hole.... For that price difference you can get a pc gaming laptop that will kill the m370x or even build a desktop one if you have the space.

 

[Quu]

Okay I wouldn't mind that either. I run the 1680x1050 version but 1920x1200 would fine 1440x900 is horrible. Still do you think it is likely that after all these years on all their macs with this UI size they will switch. That isn't very Apple like to make such a move. I don't see any chance that is happening.
I wouldn't mind it, though I don't suppose I will buy another MBP after this one anyway. Price vs value vs what alternatives their just doesn't look so rosy anymore. Euro prices are nuts.

I do because they've made such a hoo-haa about 5K on the Retina iMac. People want 4K, it's a great marketing term. I think it's time too we've had these same displays since 2012.

But I don't have a crystal ball. It's just my opinion.

----------

You mean 1920x1080 instead. The vast majority of pc manufacturers use the horrid 16:9 ratio. Part of the reasons why I stick to Apple is the the 16:10 ratio on their MacBook pros. I do want a 4k display though as I edit 4k videos and while the current retina 15 is pretty good it's not as good as 1:1 4k display.

Most of the laptops I've bought myself have been 1920x1200 but you're totally right most of the ones on the market are overwhelmingly 16:9 offering 1920x1080 instead. I too went out of my way to get 16:10.

Having said that though, I'd rather have a 1920x1080 desktop size than 1440x900. If they went that way. I mean heck at this point even 1680x1050 would be nice. 1440x900 is just too small for my work.

 

[mcarling]

I disagree. The iPhone received several updates to its screens before other devices were updated to Retina.

Apple made one transition (from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4) when they introduced Retina display to the iPhone. All the other changes were changes to the screen size.

I'd also argue that the MacBook is the successor to the MacBook Air. They'll probably release a 13" MacBook and then the Airs will be put out to pasture.

Perhaps, but the point is that Apple are still selling computers that don't have Retina displays. They will not start selling post-Retina display equipped computers while they are still selling pre-Retina display equipped computers. Apple will complete the transition to Retina first.

 

[Quu]

Perhaps, but the point is that Apple are still selling computers that don't have Retina displays. They will not start selling post-Retina display equipped computers while they are still selling pre-Retina display equipped computers. Apple will complete the transition to Retina first.

You base this on what though? Apple have not come out and said this at all. Remember when the new Retina iPhones came out, they called them Retina HD.

iPhone 4: 326 PPI
iPhone 5: 326 PPI
iPhone 6: 326 PPI
iPhone 6+: 401 PPI <- This is Retina HD.

 

[mcarling]

iPhone 6+: 401 PPI <- This is Retina HD.

That's a new size, not a change to an existing size.

In the seemingly unlikely but possible event that Apple introduce a 17" rMBP, it might have a 4K display which, like the iPhone 6 plus, has somewhat higher pixel density than it's smaller siblings.

 

[Quu]

That's a new size, not a change to an existing size.

In the seemingly unlikely but possible event that Apple introduce a 17" rMBP, it might have a 4K display which, like the iPhone 6 plus, has somewhat higher pixel density than it's smaller siblings.

Them bringing the 17" back would be wonderful. But that's never going to happen, I've accepted that.

They could have made an iPhone 6+ with the same PPI as the iPhone 6, 5 and 4. But they chose not to. They even came up with a new name for it, Retina HD. That to me is an upgrade to Retina.

Everyone else is putting 4K panels in their notebooks. Apple will follow suit, eventually.

 

[dusk007]

You are an optimist.
I am a pessimist in such matters. Apple is Apple and they do their thing no matter what displays the competition has.

 

[Quu]

When it comes to this I'm optimistic I suppose. But ya know, just my opinion as always.

Trying to figure out what Apple will do next is like throwing darts at a board. Sometimes they do things logically sometimes they do stuff that makes no sense.

 

[newellj]

Trying to figure out what Apple will do next is like throwing darts at a board. Sometimes they do things logically sometimes they do stuff that makes no sense.

Whatever else is true here, this ^^^ is certainly true!

 

[mcarling]

Everyone else is putting 4K panels in their notebooks. Apple will follow suit, eventually.

Eventually, yes, Apple will increase the resolution of their computer displays, post-Retina, but not while they are still shipping pre-Retina displays. I guess it might be very roughly about 2020ish.

 

[actuallyinaus]

The SSD makes very little difference. There is almost nothing in which you will notice a difference at all. In a lot of things you cannot even measure the difference. HDDs used to be a bottleneck. But ever since 500MB/s SSDs there is no bottleneck anymore. CPU speed limits the SSD in 95% of cases and the random performance has not actually improved with those new pcie x4 SSDs.
These SSD speeds look good on paper but unless you jerk of to benchmark results they are an insignificant upgrade.

Actually extracting compressed files (rar / zip ...) are SSD bound on my rMBP15", the CPU is not being stressed at all, so this would be a noticeable area of improvement, albeit probably one of the very few areas.

Eventually, yes, Apple will increase the resolution of their computer displays, post-Retina, but not while they are still shipping pre-Retina displays. I guess it might be very roughly about 2020ish.

You really think that they won't ship a 4K display on the skylake rMBP? I hope they do, because 200% scaling with 2880x1800 leaves 1440x900 which is too large for me, I would like 3120x2400 which would give 1920x1080 (at 200% scaling). Heck my phone has 2560x1440, It's not that hard to put a 4K display on a 15" laptop.

And then nobody would buy the machines. USB-C data sticks? Nowhere to be found.

http://www.sandisk.com/products/usb/dualdrive-type-c/

Personally though I think the first rMBP to feature USB type-c ports will probably have at least one USB type-a port.

 

[neteng101]

Thoughts?

Its got an AMD GPU - I'd totally take a pass on it. Hopefully by the time Skylake arrives they'll wise up and realize no one wants that AMD junk.

 

[atheist.]

Its got an AMD GPU - I'd totally take a pass on it. Hopefully by the time Skylake arrives they'll wise up and realize no one wants that AMD junk.

What's wrong with the GPU?

 

[magbarn]

Its got an AMD GPU - I'd totally take a pass on it. Hopefully by the time Skylake arrives they'll wise up and realize no one wants that AMD junk.

Just because it's AMD it isn't junk, it's just that it's 3 years old and should've been retired awhile ago. If Apple puts an AMD 14nm gpu in the skylake rMBP, I'll buy it.

I don't know why Apple even bothered with this update...

At the very least they should've used a Tonga based core.

 

[mcarling]

You really think that they won't ship a 4K display on the skylake rMBP?

I don't expect it before very roughy about 2020.

I hope they do, because 200% scaling with 2880x1800 leaves 1440x900 which is too large for me, I would like 3120x2400 which would give 1920x1080 (at 200% scaling).

I would like that too, but wanting it doesn't lead me to believe that Apple will do it.

----------

What's wrong with the GPU?

It isn't integrated with the CPU.

 

[magbarn]

I don't expect it before very roughy about 2020.


I would like that too, but wanting it doesn't lead me to believe that Apple will do it.

----------



It isn't integrated with the CPU.

What's wrong with dGPU's (other than Apple can't seem to make reliable one). If you think Intel integrated GPU's are suddenly going to become equal to dGPU's anytime soon, you're dead wrong. Haswell-E paired with DDR4 with quad channel is at 64GB/s total memory bandwidth. Even with the laptop memory is just as fast desktop DDR4-2133 memory, it's only going to be half as laptop Skylake is only dual channel. A mid-range Maxwell chip gets 112GB/sec vs 32GB/sec on Skylake. That's what's killing the performance of integrated GPU's. Crystalwell cache helps a bit, but it's just a band-aid.

 

[dusk007]

Actually extracting compressed files (rar / zip ...) are SSD bound on my rMBP15", the CPU is not being stressed at all, so this would be a noticeable area of improvement, albeit probably one of the very few areas.

Then they are likely only archives and not actually using any compression. Like lots of file sharing content is. Just packed together in one file because that stuff like movies/music cannot be compressed anyway. If you have any actual compressed files you will be CPU bound I promise you.
Unpacking archives is why I wrote 95% that is the 5% where is useful. But that is about it and I doubt anybody does it often enough to be considered a serious upgrade like some promote this fancy SSD speed. I think you will agree quite a few people put too much faith in this upgrade. It is nice to have but nothing really noticeable like the double speed number would suggest to the non tech savvy consumer.

A mid-range Maxwell chip gets 112GB/sec vs 32GB/sec on Skylake. That's what's killing the performance of integrated GPU's. Crystalwell cache helps a bit, but it's just a band-aid.

HBM memory could change all that. In theory AMD could put some of its zen cores with a serious gpu into one chip and use 16GB of HBM memory as main memory shared with the gpu.
Intel could do the same thing if they wanted to. Powerful integrated GPUs are not that far off. But Interposers are expensive and who knows when Intel is willing to pay the price to push its high end GPU chips. Eventually they will have to.
Imagine 16GB HBM main memory would also allow for a much smaller logic board. DDR Ram takes quite a lot of space. 16GB HBM is much smaller and it would need to sit right around the cpu. No routing of copper around the board. It could be MacBook logicboard like in size even with all the extras for the ports the 15" needs.
Sadly I suspect AMD would use that tech before greedy Intel. Not that Intel couldn't with the prices they charge and they would only need to for the high end gpu chips in soldered bga form not the whole range of products.