Sidebar Sidebar
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

izzisdashiz said:
Looks like I'll finally be making the jump from my C2D Macbook Pro!
Click to expand...

Me too, as long as they don't remove too much stuff.

I guess I can live without an optical drive (and it would be great if they replaced it with an SSD bay in addition to the HDD bay). However, since Thunderbolt is still pretty much a non-starter, I don't want to see the Firewire 800 port go away. USB 3.0 would also be a great upgrade.

I would still like an ExpressCard 34 slot, but I don't see that happening.
 
miceblue425 said:
I'm not much of a computer person, but can someone explain what the difference is between integrated graphics and a dedicated graphics card? (ie. when will the computer use integrated graphics vs the dedicated card?) What would be the advantage to only having the integrated graphics....other than cost?
Click to expand...

In general, discrete/dedicated graphics cards are faster, but are typically larger, use more power, and generate more heat (in addition to the expense).

On systems that have both, some have switching, either automatic or user selectable. For example, one scheme could use dedicated graphics when the machine is plugged in, and integrated otherwise.

Also, sometimes there are features implemented in integrated graphics that may not be otherwise available - for example in Intel's HD3000, there are routines for compressing video.

I'm still using a 2008 unibody aluminum Macbook with an NVIDIA GeForce 9400M 256MB graphics card. How would the integrated graphics of the Ivy Bridge processor compare to my dedicated graphics card?
Click to expand...

I'll come back for this.
---------------------
Update:
Intel HD3000 scores 521 on Passmark GPU benchmark
Intel HD4000 should score roughly 815 (~55% better).
A GeForce 9400M G (not sure if that's the same performance as yours, but should be similar) scores 303.

So the new integrated graphics should be about 2.5-3 times faster than your 4 year old discrete card.
 
Last edited:
So to sum-it up:

1. The Macbook Pro 13" is useless compared to the 13" Air and I can attest of that, I had both. The Macbook Air is thinner, lighter, has a higher resolution screen, and the same useful ports, yet it does everything a MBP 13" does. A MBP 13" is fatter, heavier, has a useless drive and firewire, a lower resolution but MOST OF ALL, it doesn't have a dedicated graphic card to make the difference.

2. Because it is all about the dedicated graphic card, not the resolution, or the CPU. The Intel HD 3000 sucked and so will the Intel HD 4000, it's even worse than old Nvidia Geforce 320M I had in my Core2duo Macbooks.

3. So the truth is: The Macbook line is currently incoherent. If you want a thin laptop you are going to sacrifice power and graphic. But if you want graphic, you can't buy a 13", you have to at least have a 15" MBP which are equiped with dedicated graphic car.

I think this is simply due to the lack of refresh AND lame upgrade of previous MBP making date quickly outdated.
 
robvas said:
I had a couple 13" Pros and I have the current 13" Air. I think the 13" Pro gets a bad shake. You get the ability to have 8GB or even 16GB of RAM, you can have two hard drives inside (or mix SSD+HD), you have Firewire and Ethernet....

Best of all, it's a little 'thicker' but it takes up the same amount of room on a desk, or more importantly airplane seat tray.

The battery lasts a little bit longer but the 1280x800 really stinks if you have used the 1440x900 on the Air. They should really upgrade the screen. Thunderbolt is nice but it's very expensive, devices are rare, and you only have one port.

The 11" Air is the real true portable, but the screen makes it hard to get any real work down (only 768 vertical pixels? Hello 1995!) and the battery life leaves a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...

You could not be more correct, the ability to have dual hard drives and more ram is what sets the MBP apart from the MBA. But once thunderbolt hubs, and drives become more prolific in the consumer market, could still be a year away from this :(, I do not think there is going to be a need for more on-board storage greater than 256gb or 512gb. Plus with Apple's acquisition of the Israeli flash memory corp we should only see improvements in SSD's. 13" MBP fits the bill for a great % of consumers.
 
Those performance marks cited from Sandy to Ivy sure are unimpressive.

Apple will garner greater system performance with more and more applications offloading processing to the GPGPU(s) than upgrading to Ivy Bridge.
 
diamond.g said:
I am curious to see how that turns out. Does the display not report the true resolution? Typically the larger the resolution the smaller the items appear on the display.
Click to expand...

There is already preliminary HiDPI support in lion. A 15" MBP with it enabled will list 720 x450 (HiDPI) and 640 x 400 (HiDPI) options in Displays. See here, towards the bottom.
 
Also, to sum up the wanted feature in order of importance for the new 13" model

1. Thinner and Lighter body
2. Dedicated GPU for 13"
3. 8GB Ram 1600Hz by default, upgradable to 16GB Ram
4. 256 SSD default (even the 2010 MBA has had 128GB by default) with option for upgrades to 516GB or 772GB or option for HDD at 7200rpm
5. Get rid of optical drive, firewire and ethernet. Add USB 3.0 and one more TB
6. Mate screen and higher resolution to at least 1080p (even the 2010 MBA has as 1440x900)
7. Ivy Bridge (the Intel HD 4000 is again, useless)
8. iSight HD (the crappy quality of the current iSight is a joke)
9. Bluetooth 4.0 and Wifi 802.11ac

The sad thing I realized why writing this, is that in these time of Apple penetrating the mass market of ignorant sheep and marketing ********, we are not talking about innovation anymore. Why not a 4G tuner, a full surface trackpad, touchable menu buttons, new design, new mag safe ?...
 
Does anyone know what this will mean for Aperture performance on the 13" and other models?

I have an old (2006) Macbook where the performance is unbearable. I've tried Aperture on the current 13", and find it worlds better, but still a little sluggish feeling for comparing before/after edits.

How GPU dependent are Aperture edits? I've heard in the past that it can be pretty dependent.
 
MikhailT said:
Don't have to be curious, check out iPad 3 in person and compare it to iPad 2, it's the same thing. Apple already have 2-3 years worth of Retina display experience and they'll apply it to OS X with the HiDPI mode, which is already showing up in Lion and Mountain Lion in pieces.
Click to expand...
So interface elements would be rendered at the present day resolution but with a larger DPI and the display would scale the elements automatically. That way they retain their current size versus getting smaller (which is what happens currently).
 
Apple is gonna streamline everything. They are gonna ax the 13in macbook pro, spec bump and slim down the 15in and 17in macbook pros. They will then have 11 and 13in airs and slimmer "airlike" 15 and 17in pros. They will eventually get rid of the air and pro monikers and everything will just be called the new "XX inch" macbook.
 
Augure said:
So to sum-it up:

1. The Macbook Pro 13" is useless compared to the 13" Air and I can attest of that, I had both. The Macbook Air is thinner, lighter, has a higher resolution screen, and the same useful ports, yet it does everything a MBP 13" does. A MBP 13" is fatter, heavier, has a useless drive and firewire, a lower resolution but MOST OF ALL, it doesn't have a dedicated graphic card to make the difference.
Click to expand...

Corrections:

1) MBP has a far superior quality screen, slightly lower resolution - contrast, viewing angles, and color saturation

2) It has a faster CPU and Ethernet, DVD drive, Firewire - actually all useful to some people

2. Because it is all about the dedicated graphic card, not the resolution, or the CPU. The Intel HD 3000 sucked and so will the Intel HD 4000, it's even worse than old Nvidia Geforce 320M I had in my Core2duo Macbooks.



3. So the truth is: The Macbook line is currently incoherent. If you want a thin laptop you are going to sacrifice power and graphic. But if you want graphic, you can't buy a 13", you have to at least have a 15" MBP which are equiped with dedicated graphic car.
Click to expand...

If you want graphics and quality screens - you have no choice but to go Pro.

The HD4000 will be faster than the 320M.
 
Augure said:
The Macbook Pro 13" is useless compared to the 13" Air and I can attest of that, I had both.
Click to expand...

You also didn't use the 13" MBP nearly to its fullest potential. Try using a MBA to do things that need more than 4GB of RAM, like running multiple virtual machines. Even running a single VM on an Air can be painful, depending on what you're doing.

Augure said:
2. Because it is all about the dedicated graphic card, not the resolution, or the CPU.
Click to expand...

It's not always about the dedicated GPU.
 
Dan-- said:
In general, discrete/dedicated graphics cards are faster, but are typically larger, use more power, and generate more heat (in addition to the expense).

On systems that have both, some have switching, either automatic or user selectable. For example, one scheme could use dedicated graphics when the machine is plugged in, and integrated otherwise.

Also, sometimes there are features implemented in integrated graphics that may not be otherwise available - for example in Intel's HD3000, there are routines for compressing video.



I'll come back for this.
---------------------
Update:
Intel HD3000 scores 521 on Passmark GPU benchmark
Intel HD4000 should score roughly 815 (~55% better).
A GeForce 9400M G (not sure if that's the same performance as yours, but should be similar) scores 303.

So the new integrated graphics should be about 2.5-3 times faster than your 4 year old discrete card.
Click to expand...

Actually the 9400M is also an integrated onboard graphic controller, just older and from another company.
An OLD middle-range dedicated GPU would be a geforce 8600 (e.g. the dedicated GPU in 2008 MBPs) which back then you could find on "budget" PC gaming computers for about $700-800 which btw beats the crap out of the intel 3000.
It is confusing but believe it or not GPU power does not improve too fast, a 5years old Geforce 8800 (top of the line back then) could very well beat middle range gpus today.
Dont get me wrong, the HD3000 and HD4000 would be perfect for most people. Low heat, decent performance (yes you can actually play some games on it @ low settings and sometimes even medium settings) etc. But if you paying 1500-2000 for a computer it should really come with some kind of dedicated graphics, probably even medium-high dedicated graphics and not just entry level.
 
Can't wait to make the jump from my 2009 C2D MBP. Retina or not, new design or not, the upgrade looks like it will be worth it.

With 8 gigs of RAM, how much would my computer be worth? Ebay says about $800, but, you know... its Ebay...
 
Chimaera said:
Thats not strictly true - when the 12" and 17" Powerbooks came in years ago they went to the new design (an early precursor to the current aluminium unibody designs) - the 15" carried on in the oldstyle titanium design for several months.

Additionally from the article it looks like the chips *likely* to go in the 13" won't be available til June - if thats accurate then they have little choice...
Click to expand...

When do you people think the new 17 inch will come out?
 
I was thinkin... If they can put a 35W cpu, a dedicated graphic card, and a dual 2,5" drive in the new Mac mini, after removing optical drive... Why can't they do about the same on the new 13"? Maybe blade SSD and standard single 2,5" drive, but a configuration with 35W quad-core cpu and discrete graphics is techincally possibile. At least on the high-end configuration...

We will see...
 
As an owner of a high end current generation MBP, I would say that processing speed is no longer a purchasing factor for me. It's crazy fast. Sure, I suppose it could always be faster and that would be fine. But not once have I thought to myself, "gee, wish this would happen more quickly." It's crazy fast, especially with an SSD.

The real platform improvements that should be made to MB pro is to drop the optical drive and slim it down / reduce weight. I also think a dual HD / SSD drive option would be nice. Increased battery life is always good. But if I could name the single thing that makes all portables better– it's cooler and lighter with the same performance gamut.
 
miceblue425 said:
I'm still using a 2008 unibody aluminum Macbook with an NVIDIA GeForce 9400M 256MB graphics card. How would the integrated graphics of the Ivy Bridge processor compare to my dedicated graphics card?
Click to expand...

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

Looks like the new HD4000 will be at least 3x better than your 9400M.

I hope they put the Kepler GTX660M in the 15' and 17'. Kepler and Ivy.
 
Last edited:
Display

way to go, apple! why don't you amp up the display while you're at it!? i wouldn't mind a retina panel on my laptop. make the much-acclaimed display even better, make it exceptional, phenomenal, and beat out all the rest!

i can't wait to see the new line-up. I hope they release it by the end of this month.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back