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.
Updated MacBook Pro to See Significant Performance Boost with Ivy Bridge
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Look at the motherboards for the new and old Airs - the spot where the 320M was is now occupied by the Intel E78296 01PB10 / E116A746 SLJ4K Platform Controller Hub. There's no room for a graphics chip.
And the M11x is what, 3 times as thick as an Air? No wonder they can fit a chip in there.
m11x R3 from Dell's site:
System Dimensions
Height: 32.7mm (1.29 inches)
Depth: 233.3mm (9.19 inches)
Width: 285.7mm (11.25 inches)
Starting at Weight3: 2.0 kg (4.4lbs)
MBA 11":
Height: 0.11-0.68 inch (0.3-1.7 cm)
Width: 11.8 inches (30 cm)
Depth: 7.56 inches (19.2 cm)
Weight: 2.38 pounds (1.08 kg)
If only the 13 inch would have an option for a dedicated GPU, Intel graphics is a piece of turd, and always will be XD
I wish Apple went back to the Nvidia, only they know what they are doing
When you compare kepler with the 7000 series are you comparing mobile or desktop variants? Mind you that no one here (save for the Mac Pro fans/hopeful, and the custom desktop PC hobbyists [of which there are a few of here]) care about the desktop comparison or variants.
If only the 13 inch would have an option for a dedicated GPU, Intel graphics is a piece of turd, and always will be XD
I wish Apple went back to the Nvidia, only they know what they are doing
The 13" MacBook Pro never had a discrete GPU and unless something drastic happens with the next rev, in terms of GPU and CPU designs (but so far none of that is to be prescribed in the near future). At best, instead of an Intel IGP, we had one made by NVIDIA, which, for its time, was always consistently better than Intel's IGP while still being behind an actual discrete GPU. It's small, that's its problem. The thing most on here don't get is that you can't mix power and small as the two are practically contradictory. This is why I've personally given up on the 13" and am going for a 15" instead.
What are you talking about. We have at least two new MacBook Pro themed rumors a week. Unless you're referring to the fact that all of those rumors are really non-rumors either from unreliable sources or, in the case of this one, a no-brainer that everyone already knew months ago.
I feel like doing the same, as long as the weight is reduced in the new MBP. This is what swayed me to purchase a 2010 13" MBP.
But I can seriously see them retiring the 13" MBP for good.
Oh, he said a quad core 17" MBP. If you buy one today it is a 2012 no? Like I said, they are available now. They are not Ivy Bridge but he made no mention of that, just quad core.
I received last week my new 15" 2.4ghz MBP with 8GB ram, high-res matte screen. Should have been back here more recently to see what was going on.
This machine is an upgrade from my ThinkPad that I had used for graphic and web design and plan to use it for some basic video work too. It took so long to get this approved in my office as we are a strictly PC company. I wonder if returning it when a release date is announced is an option....
It is better to wait for the new architecture + DDR4 memory.
I will skip the upcoming generation!
I will skip the upcoming generation!
It is better to wait for the new architecture + DDR4 memory.
I will skip the upcoming generation!
DDR4 will enter the mainstream market in 2014/2015
I agree that there isn't room in an Air for a graphics chip. However, I was talking about the 13" Macbook Pro.
Err, well, I've put about $500 of upgrades (256GB SSD, DataDoubler, 16GB RAM) into what was already a pretty expensive computer for me, even though I bought it second hand. What I was saying is that 20% processor speed improvement isn't enough to make me want to upgrade from my highly customized machine, and it probably wouldn't be as fast overall anyway unless I made the same upgrades.
The second comment, which I guess was far to ambiguous for anyone to actually understand what I meant, was based on the fact that my next project at work is with the iOS division of my company, and I don't have a Mac at work yet to run XCode. In fact, I use my personal MBP at work to do my work, since it's quite a bit faster than the Dell laptop they saddled me with as well as the Dell T3500 12 core workstation (my MBP has more ram too, go figure). So, I was hoping I could get them to buy me a work MacBook Pro instead of using my own.
This waiting is killing me!
I've been waiting since last summer, which is when developing on my 2008 MBP got painful. With multiple VMs and OSs, and a max 6GB of RAM it hasn't cut it for a while. Now I'm reduced to daily trolling for rumours of the new Ivy Bridge, retina MBP. I haven't been able to buy a 27" cinema display either as the last two versions have only offered Thunderbolt and Mini DisplayPort so I've also been stuck with this 2008 Samsung. Oh will it ever be a happy day.... !!!
I've been waiting since last summer, which is when developing on my 2008 MBP got painful. With multiple VMs and OSs, and a max 6GB of RAM it hasn't cut it for a while. Now I'm reduced to daily trolling for rumours of the new Ivy Bridge, retina MBP. I haven't been able to buy a 27" cinema display either as the last two versions have only offered Thunderbolt and Mini DisplayPort so I've also been stuck with this 2008 Samsung. Oh will it ever be a happy day....
!!!Lucky you. After trying for most of a year to get my boss to refresh my 2007 MBP that's flaky, an order was finally placed with IT, who sent me a standard glossy instead. Said boss just took that one and told IT to re-order mine, and they sent a hi-res glossy instead, which got sent back. At this point I thought it best to wait for the new model from Apple. The chips are now, now, let's get it announced!
Looking at benchmarks of the Intel HD 4000, Intel is going in the right direction. Before, their chips would be far behind discrete chips, now they are beating low-end discrete graphics. Each new chip is significantly faster than their previous chip, 40% in this case (3000 to 4000). The next generation is supposed to be around 40% faster also. If they keep this up, it'll be enough for most people to use except gamers, graphic designers and any one else who needs serious graphic performance.. but even for gaming they're becoming usable. I remember the days when you couldn't play any but the most basic games on low detail on Intel integrated graphics.
So I wouldn't say the Intel HD 4000 sucks... It's reaching GeForce GT 630M speeds in some games and giving the GeForce GT 610M a run for its money. Pretty impressive for a graphics card with no integrated VRAM. Of course its speed depends on the chipset and CPU, different chipsets run the 4000 at different speeds.
----------
You pretty much called the new MacBook Pro with Retina display, apart from the mate screen and 802.11ac WiFi, you even got the new mage safe right... Good job!
It's still not that great in certain aspects but I agree it is a step in the right direction. As was the HD3000 card compared to initial Intel offerings.
The main things I notice is the shader generator, Deus Ex for example has load times of upto 5 minutes because the shader generation is a lot slower compared to other cards, it is also as a newer platform has a few more bugs than AMD or Nvidia cards. In both regards it's continually improving and we work with Apples driver team to report and work on issues we find.
It will never be anything more than a min spec card but for someone who would like to play a game once in a while or play older titles it does fine. The new MacBookAir (with a the 2Ghz CPU upgrade) is really very impressive, we have one here and it can play Empire Total War on lower settings something I would have never guessed possible with an integrated card.
Edwin