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
Sounds good.
No trace of a rumor to "air out" the MacBook Pro performance for a thinner design.
The great screen of the last generation MBP will probably in this one as well (gladly no super thin, lower quality screen).
Curious about heat generation.
Very much considering upgrading to this baby (maybe I shouldn't call the MBP a baby. It has matured, grown up, and is now a full fledged computer with almost none of the downsides of earlier laptops - except storage space, of course).
No trace of a rumor to "air out" the MacBook Pro performance for a thinner design.
The great screen of the last generation MBP will probably in this one as well (gladly no super thin, lower quality screen).
Curious about heat generation.
Very much considering upgrading to this baby (maybe I shouldn't call the MBP a baby. It has matured, grown up, and is now a full fledged computer with almost none of the downsides of earlier laptops - except storage space, of course).
Aha. I had thought it was a mobile GPU. I stand corrected.
The highest number I can find on Passmark for a GeForce 8600 is the GeForce 8600 GTS clocking in with a G3D Mark score of 520. However, I don't know which model was in the MBP, which reportedly used a variant with DDR3.
A GeForce 8600 GT scores 384, while other variants score lower, including the plain GeForce 8600, with a score of 233.
That doesn't seem to "beat the crap out of the intel 3000". Am I looking at the right metrics?
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/mid_range_gpus.html
Ah, I didn't know it was an integrated graphics controller. Thanks for the clarifications and performance results!
These MacBook Pros are sounding good, but with Mountain Likn comi g later this year, would it be better to ge a wa machine with the new OS preinstalled, or to upgrade on its arrival? Although any new models would be more than capable of handling the new OS, it would be cleaner to wait it out? What are general thoughts on when releases of hardware and software shave happened in the past, is it worth waiting until not are updated? Thanks
Wait all you like
Only potential problem... Wait... Wait... Wait... Wait... oh ???... yes... Wait.... Wait... Wait... Wait.... OMG!.. Wait....Wait... Wait.. Wait... Car Accident.. Too Late!
Keep things in perspective. To design a new chip Intel has to do tons of work (each Intel CPU nowadays contains billions of transistors). All Apple has to do to release new Mac is to order new PCBoard from Foxconn.
I still think you're trolling... but here goes.
Mac computers need high-bandwidth data ports like Thunderbolt, and power ports like ... the power port. These cannot be effectively replaced by wireless connections. That's why it can't be done.
On the other hand, the next iPhone may very well be completely port-less. Since it's a low-powered device, it can be charged inductively. There's almost no need for a USB 2.0 connection anymore, since there's now Wi-Fi syncing, and 802.11n is almost as fast as USB 2.0.
----------
Oh yeah, that's a very objective and non-biased view. Apple definitely has it so easy, even you could be releasing new MacBooks.
Ho hum
Ivy Bridge is not a large increase in speed. That is disappointing.
A 20% speed increase is not big enough to upgrade your system by buying a whole new Macintosh.
The graphics speed in Ivy Bridge increase also means nothing since the 15 and 17 inch MacBook Pros have discrete GPUs that have much much faster speed.
Generally, I think a 100% increase in speed is worthy of buying a new computer. Perhaps next year we'll get an upgrade that reaches this plateau compared to the 2011 Macs.
Ho hum, indeed.
Ivy Bridge is not a large increase in speed. That is disappointing.
A 20% speed increase is not big enough to upgrade your system by buying a whole new Macintosh.
The graphics speed in Ivy Bridge increase also means nothing since the 15 and 17 inch MacBook Pros have discrete GPUs that have much much faster speed.
Generally, I think a 100% increase in speed is worthy of buying a new computer. Perhaps next year we'll get an upgrade that reaches this plateau compared to the 2011 Macs.
Ho hum, indeed.
Would a dedicated Graphics card improve the laptops performance of:
- Video Editing in 1080p content
- Playing 1080p content
- Powering an 1 external Monitor, or more
- converting video
- Running multiple intensive programs at the same time - i.e - iMovie alongside photoshop, & handbrake
Also what advantages do the quad-core processors give over the dual-core?
These 2 factors, will decide if I am to upgrade my current 2010 13" MBP, with a new 15" MBP or 13" MBP
- Video Editing in 1080p content
- Playing 1080p content
- Powering an 1 external Monitor, or more
- converting video
- Running multiple intensive programs at the same time - i.e - iMovie alongside photoshop, & handbrake
Also what advantages do the quad-core processors give over the dual-core?
These 2 factors, will decide if I am to upgrade my current 2010 13" MBP, with a new 15" MBP or 13" MBP
Why? If you want light and thin, get the air.
Where are you going to put it?
4GB is fine for the base model. 1600MHz is almost no benefit over 1333MHz but if that's what Ivy Bridge comes with as a default, we'll take it.
Fat chance. 256GB is a $250 drive retail. How much do you think Apple pays for the 320GB or 500GB HD they use now? Probably $30.
Some people still want ethernet and firewire, especially those who don't want to spend $400 on a single Thunderbolt hard drive.
It's fine. Not everyone is using 3D Studio or Call of Duty on their Mac.
Good question, I wager never.
The logical reason is that a low-end (think low-end MacMini,low-end laptops and most servers) computers that don't need a dedicated GPU, will get along just fine, as these devices aren't marketed as gaming rigs.
The trouble is that line of thinking should have gone away 2 years ago when Adobe started to use GPU acceleration. That leaves only office suite software as the only software that doesn't take advantage of a dedicated GPU. Everything graphics and video related does.
So either laptops are heading towards becoming useless "email machines" that can easily be supplanted by a iPad+keyboard, or one giant leap in graphics performance must be put in laptops to keep them relevant.
Intel for it's part, is barely keeping up to 5 year old graphics performance, and it's a joke. It's been a joke since the i810 chipset in 1999, when integrated graphics started in the southbridge. It's been a joke ever since. But only with the i3/i5/i7 has it become an outrageous joke because it wastes die space, and with it battery life.
In a desktop it's less of an issue because you can always drop in a PCIe video card and the only thing you have to complain about is the "onboard GPU tax" and maybe some power being wasted if you count all your watts.
Induction wastes power, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but you're looking at only around 30% efficiency. Induction only makes sense on devices that aren't large enough to have a charging connector and are low-power. Think bluetooth headphones, hearing aids, and implantable devices.
A Laptop is not a good candidate for induction charging. If a 95 watt charger is used normally for charging a quadcore laptop, then this suddenly goes up to 250+ watts, which is more power consumed than my two dual core desktop's running and their monitors.
Induction power is mostly a scam for people who don't want cords, I don't know about you, but I don't want hundreds of watts of radiated power bouncing around a concentrated area of a room that also has people on in it. There is a reason why our cell phones, wifi routers, and such radiate less than one watt.
Last edited:
Exactly!
It was never supposed to be a huge gain. Ivy Bridge is a tick, not a tock. It's a re-tooled version of the Sandy Bridge (Moving to 22nm, 3D transistor technology, lower TDP and much faster IGP)
Also, it's not about speed anymore, it's about efficiency or performance per watt. The speed war has died a short while ago when the heat was getting to be too much, same reason that Apple switched away from PPC Gx series from IBM.
With that in mind, we're talking about 20% increase while also decreasing the heat and power being used. If they can add 30 minutes to an hour to the current battery life, it's a killer upgrade.
For some laptops, they can lower the battery weight to keep the same battery life while reducing the weight of the laptop.
Ivy Bridge low-power CPUs are going to be great in MBAs.
I don't think that's going to happen for a while. I think it has to do with patents and licensing. PowerVP probably can only do mobile stuff.
