This post won the internet today. Apple controlled car ahaha...
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.
Some 15-Inch MacBook Pro Models Misreporting Intel Iris Pro 580 Graphics
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This post won the internet today. Apple controlled car ahaha...
So, you've never come across an insignificant OS bug on a newly released product, that had zero use impact, from another company, say, Microsoft? Or google? And if you did, did you express similar outrage?
You have probably never developed commercial software.
I pointed out in my first post that the NUC was the only device with Iris Pro 580. Intel never found an outside customer for the SKL-H 4+4e parts, they only show up in NUCs, and only with the lower clocked 6770HQ. Someone who has one could be kind enough to update the Wikipedia page for that part at least, but where can you find the other two? And the NUC didn't ship until late in Q2, well after Intel "released" that CPU.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
The thing is this was also true with the haswell generation. There's a few euro laptops that used haswell iris pro, but I can't seem to find any quad core iris pro models stateside.
The more I think about it, it seems pretty much Apple's MO for the 2016 rmbp release was to see if they could cram last year's performance envelope into a thinner chassis. The soldered ssd, the lack of a 32gb ddr4 option, 20% smaller battery, the dgpu power limit reduced by 10 watts, the dropping of MagSafe.....
Last edited:
Major or not is irrelevant. It's a bug nonetheless and the 2016 mbp's list of bugs is growing every day.
Here's the difference. The tight integration that everyone hails as one of apple main features so they don't have that many models available. I mean, they have to hard code that stuff in, and what really takes that cake is they don't even use a processor that has this. From the article.
No...but would you want a carOS that crashes before sending you off a cliff and into a physical crash? Apple's testing procedures are so bad these days they probably use crash test dummies just to test the MacBooks.
Tight integration between hardware and software.
I think people complain about little stuff like this because Apple used to make fun of competitors for stuff like this. It fits into the realm of the "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" advertising. It's ironic that a bunch of little things like this are beginning to pile up (2 gimped Thunderbolt 3 ports, failure to work with some Thunderbolt peripherals, etc.). Some of those things mean more than others, but none mean much on their own. And this "reporting the wrong GPU" matters even less. But, when you add them up together and put them in the context of Apple marketing over the years....magical...just works...pro...I'm a Mac....etc....we're getting somewhere where the complaints gain a critical mass.
I think people complain about little stuff like this because Apple used to make fun of competitors for stuff like this. It fits into the realm of the "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" advertising. It's ironic that a bunch of little things like this are beginning to pile up (2 gimped Thunderbolt 3 ports, failure to work with some Thunderbolt peripherals, etc.). Some of those things mean more than others, but none mean much on their own. And this "reporting the wrong GPU" matters even less. But, when you add them up together and put them in the context of Apple marketing over the years....magical...just works...pro...I'm a Mac....etc....we're getting somewhere where the complaints gain a critical mass.
A coder made a mistake that slipped through. With zero use impact.
How many real issues did Microsoft's surface laptops, as just a single example, have when released? And did you take them to task on those issues?
Ditto with Samsung phones, as one more example.
Ha, ok. We're on the same page. I wasn't sure if you were dismissing my post about the apple car being a bad idea with their history. Sorry for the friendly fire.
No, you'd have to go to MicrosoftRumors.com for that community.
That's what I'm saying. They only show up in low volume products and limited markets. They never had a full production run. We're looking at a little more than engineering sample size wafer starts here. Either Intel completely failed to produce viable chips, or nobody was buying them for some reason.
Ostensibly, Apple really is the only significant buyer for them. In fact, they're almost custom SKUs designed specifically for Apple. But this is why I find it so fascinating and don't understand why nobody is reporting on this situation. Everyone is acting like Intel has been making good on their production schedules and blaming Apple for late or missing product updates (although they are legitimately late on refreshing the mini and Pro). And it looks like Samsung will be shipping 10nm before Intel gets there. So much for that massive process lead Intel had.
Listen. I'm done here. This is why I hardly ever come to this site anymore. Way too many people willing to explain away Apple's mistakes regardless of whether it's little or big.
They are meant to be held to a higher standard. Period. The price of their products demand it, and their marketing would agree with me.
And forgive me, but you being from San Francisco makes me not want to pay attention to your comments because that whole area lives in a bubble and for the most part is out of touch with the rest of us "common folk", i.e. the consumer.
i7-6770HQ with Iris Pro 580 has been out for a few months now. No excuse for Apple.
I don't need to try to say it. It's the damn truth lol. I personally would NEVER buy something so expensive without the warranty. Even though Apple is a high quality manufacturer, nothing is ever "perfect". My 2008 MBP is still going strong, but I used the 3 year warranty I got a couple times. Luckily for the past 5 since it ended, I haven't had any problems.
I mean sure, it'd be nice if they just gave you 3 years, but does any computer manufacturer do that? I was pricing out an XPS 15 and could've sworn that was 1 and you could buy extra. Don't remember the cost, but it's not like everyone gives you a long warranty and only Apple charges for it.
[doublepost=1479481980][/doublepost]
If you go into a store and complain enough, they'll fix it for you. I had nothing but good experiences in the past with a couple fixes for my current MBP under warranty (without having to complain at all). I've actually never had a bad customer service experience with them. Plus I know someone who works in customer service for Apple, so I can always ask her to try to help me out I guess lol.
I suspect you've never written a line of code in your life and therefore have little understanding or context.
Let me know when you find that perfect computer, phone, or other high-tech product with zero software bugs having zero use impact, when initially released to the public. In the mean time, be sure and rail against every other manufacture when one is found.
Being we're in the real world, Apple will quickly fix this insignificant bug. No big deal, no computer down time, and no one hurt.
"And forgive me, but you being from San Francisco makes me not want to pay attention to your comments because that whole area lives in a bubble and for the most part is out of touch with the rest of us "common folk", i.e. the consumer."
What a precious ad hominem... I could write paragraphs about that sentence, but I'll just leave it at that.
Last edited:
Apple didn't make the CPUs in the 13-inch MBPs that lack PEG lanes, nor did they make the PCH that only provided 12 total PCIe 3.0 lanes, Intel did. Apple's choices were to only have 2 Thunderbolt 2 ports, to use a PCIe 2.0 x2 connection for the SSD and gimp that, use a USB connection for the Wi-Fi module, or do what they did and *still* provide more I/O bandwidth than any other laptop in history aside from the 15-inch MacBook Pro.
Those "gimped" Thunderbolt ports still provide 2x DP 1.2 links, full USB 3.1 Gen 2 performance, 10 Gbit/s network bridges, and an external PCIe 3.0 x2 interface.
Apple also was not responsible for the first stepping of the Alpine Ridge controllers, many of which were sold off at a discount to be used just as USB 3.1 xHCI controllers because they were garbage. Intel created that mess, and once again Apple gets blamed. The lack of compatibility with the early Thunderbolt 3 silicon is by design, and lack of support for the 5 or so devices that were released with that first round of chips is not really a great loss.
Edit: And just so I'm not unduly dishing on Intel, the incompatible Thunderbolt devices MacRumors reported on a few days ago were the result of a Texas Instruments USB Power Delivery and USB Type-C plug orientation detection chip. That's neither Apple's fault nor is it even strictly speaking a Thunderbolt issue.
Last edited:
That the Skylake graphics drivers include code for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580 is no news to me. Yes. It includes the device-id's of all used SKU's, by Apple, and one that hasn't been used yet.
So instead of complaining about a silly software bug, that should have been spotted by Apple's QA team, I'd say that the fact that the code is there already, that may actually be good news. I for one certainly want a Mac mini with a SKU in it with the GT4. That would be awesome wouldn't it?
So instead of complaining about a silly software bug, that should have been spotted by Apple's QA team, I'd say that the fact that the code is there already, that may actually be good news. I for one certainly want a Mac mini with a SKU in it with the GT4. That would be awesome wouldn't it?
That would be awesome if it were true.
Part of me is wondering if The next Mac Pro will actually be something like the Razer Core, with a massive processor and GPU, along with tons of I/O, tethered to a MacBook via Thunderbolt.
A man can dream…
That CPU is $434 vs $378 which obviously Tim spots as $56 extra profit!
Btw it's interesting the 2.6Ghz and 2.7Ghz CPUs are the same price, according to Wikipedia which probably isn't up to date. So why didn't Apple just put the faster one in both 15" models and leave the SSD size as the differentiating factor? Nice and simple.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
This issue is small, to be honest, but as I and others have said, it's an issue that really shouldn't have happened on a such a contentious machine.