Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by lixandrinho, May 19, 2015.
Do you think Yosemite will runs better with the new Gpu?
Surely not, it runs well on my 2011 MBA...
It's very unlikely that the problems with yosemite are down to hardware. Better hardware seems to help what is a fundamental software issue. Your hope should be that apple sort out their software issues on the new OSX in autumn.
so no hopes on a better optimization with new hardware? It's just a software problem?
Hardware and software work together. There could be improvements beyond speed in the new GPU and Yosemite related to how Yosemite interacts with the gpu. It's pretty common to speed up interface elements this way. But my gut feeling is you probably won't see much difference.
With the dGPU?
Those only come on when they're needed.
Will this be able to drive a 5k external display?
I don't think so because it doesn't have the bandwidth (doesn't it need 1TB?)
I imagine it will run it just fine since my 2012 first gen retina has 0 problems and runs it perfectly...
according to this post it does...
I can't find where it says that on Apple.com though.
I read someone else's response to this exact quote. Apparently that's 5K height but 4K width...but I don't know I'm just passing on info
On topic though, don't care about no Broadwell. Just go the update so I can buy a computer for college
This is why terms like "4K" and "5K" are poor shorthands. The resolution of all current "5K" displays is 5120x2880. The new MacBook Pro does not support this. It requires DisplayPort 1.3 which needs Skylake. End of story.
My apologies for my ignorance but why would you need Skylake? wouldn't a dGPU like the one just released be enough to support it if it does have a dp-1.3? What would Skylake add aside from higher iGPU? (My undertsanding of 2k, 3k, 4k, 5k, ect... is limited, so again my apologies.)
Displayport 1.3 wasn't finalized that long ago. Displayport itself typically has several years between updates. In the case of 1.2 to 1.3, 1.2 wasn't widely implemented for a long time. It was finalized in Q4 2009 and included details for 4K that needed to be standardized across vendors. Other details are vendor specific, but the standard itself ensures compatibility across different hardware oems. This was before Apple started using resolutions that were a multiple of two with respect to each dimension when compared to their predecessors. VESA accounted for this by adding 5K to the next standard, but it's up to AMD/NVidia/Intel and to some degree Apple to deal with the driver implementation issues of these things.
The current version of OSX is supported on an extremely wide range of hardware, some of which wouldn't be officially supported at all if it was incapable. It's not always that it's a hardware problem, but I'm so sick of people blaming it on gpus. It doesn't take much power to write the contents of a framebuffer. An issue might be one of starvation, but just updating gpus wouldn't fix that at all.
Ah, I am mixing things.
Currently no GPUs support DisplayPort 1.3. Until that happens, no 5K support.
Skylake is needed because it brings Thunderbolt 3 support, which will bring DisplayPort 1.3. DisplayPort 1.3 is enough on it's own, but absent the new MacBook, everything else has a Thunderbolt port. There will not be Thunderbolt 2 with DisplayPort 1.3.
If/when this happens, it will only come to the 15" MacBook Pro with dedicated GPU. No integrated GPU has enough performance to drive a 5K display. Proper 4K support @ 60Hz only just came to Broadwell this year.
Yeah. The higher resolution support of the AMD chip is actually a big benefit for osx scaling for hidpi. The chip may be asked to render higher than 4k for scaling reasons on a 4k monitor. Even though it will display 4k anyway, the hardware is designed to render even higher.
Thanks for the information everyone.