like i said it is a prototype for the already announce 12" macbookNO, it is right there
![]()
That will be the end of the review.yea and that puussy Charlie could remove that hood..
Didn't we think, that thing on the table didn't have a trackpad?like i said it is a prototype for the already announce 12" macbook
they already told to Charlie that they build many screen dimensions prototypes until they settle to one or two( iphones etc)
Do you Think it's a prototype or do you Know it's a prototype?like i said it is a prototype for the already announce 12" macbook
they already told to Charlie that they build many screen dimensions prototypes until they settle to one or two( iphones etc)
we can't see for sure that it has or not a trackpadDidn't we think, that thing on the table didn't have a trackpad?
They're not dumb enough just to put a super secret devices in front of the cameras right? Who would want to do that...Do you Think it's a prototype or do you Know it's a prototype?![]()
Or maybe they're laying down the iMacs.but still, that hood say one thing for sure, there were no new imacs or thunderbolt displays since there are no tall objects
Oh well.
I thought he was saying that they're not using the highest-end graphics chip and they should..
First thing is, many of the 2000 dollars, are the combination of the build quality with the performances they put in, a better graphics chip won't be cheaper.Please don't lie: I never said a a "highest end" card, but at least an acceptable mid-range card such as, for instance, an Nvidia 960m, which is cooler and faster than the chosen Radeon m370x.
At the end of the day, this is a $2,500+ machine... shouldn't it sport, at least, a mid-range GPU? I repeat: NOT a high-end GPU, but at least an adequate mid-range GPU... You know, how would you feel to pay premium money for a 3-year old SSD or screen technology? well, that's what Apple does with GPU.
The GPU has always been the most questionable point (along with price) of 15" MBPs. That, as well as poor graphic card choices from Apple: there's absolutely no reason for Apple to have chosen the Radeon m370x over the Nvidia 960m, which runs faster, cooler and moreless at the same price level.
Why, Apple, why?! It makes no sense whatever! Did you have any conflict with Nvidia at a corporate level?
I've been an Apple advocate and an avid Mac user for years because I very much prefer OSX over Windows, but if they don't give us a 15" MBP 2016 update with an adequate GPU, I'm seriously considering going back to PC now that Windows 10 has finally delivered a very solid OS... You know, I'd like to play a decent game on my computer here and there too, for Pete's sake!
Please don't lie: I never said a a "highest end" card, but at least an acceptable mid-range card such as, for instance, an Nvidia 960m, which is cooler and faster than the chosen Radeon m370x.
At the end of the day, this is a $2,500+ machine... shouldn't it sport, at least, a mid-range GPU? I repeat: NOT a high-end GPU, but at least an adequate mid-range GPU... You know, how would you feel to pay premium money for a 3-year old SSD or screen technology? well, that's what Apple does with GPU.
AMD’s GPU handily bests Nvidia’s when it comes to OpenCL-accelerated tasks—even the Iris Pro comes close or beats Nvidia’s performance in some of these benchmarks. It’s also worth noting that Apple’s own professional apps—Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, and Compressor 4—use OpenCL rather than Nvidia’s proprietary CUDA platform. It’s a trade-off. You’ll get better performance in Apple’s apps and in anything that’s OpenCL-accelerated, but you can’t use CUDA at all on an AMD GPU.
Pretty sure they went AMD because the AMD card outperformed Nvidia in OpenCL. OpenCL is used in all of Apple's professional apps. So they went AMD this time.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/0...e-2015-15-inch-retina-macbook-pro-reviewed/2/
M370X is mid-range GPU from AMD. New compiler from AMD will allow CUDA code to be executed on AMD hardware. OpenCL performance is much higher on AMD GPUs, than on Nvidia. 4 year old Tahiti in Radeon R9 7970 is faster in OpenCL compute than GTX 980 Ti from Nvidia.
http://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/diagram/10130?key=6e3c39edaaa5f182742dac364baf5b54 Like here for example.
The same people loosing the iPhone prototype at the bar?They're not dumb enough just to put a super secret devices in front of the cameras right? Who would want to do that...
Is he in there?The same people loosing the iPhone prototype at the bar?
Choice is driven by TDP, not price. m370X = ~40W TDP. 960M = 60W TDP . They can downclock the 960M and get better TDP, but downclocking the dGPU means loss of performance. I have not seen anything that proves that Apple picked a worse chip despite the existence of another with comparable TDP and better performance.At the end of the day, this is a $2,500+ machine... shouldn't it sport, at least, a mid-range GPU? I repeat: NOT a high-end GPU, but at least an adequate mid-range GPU... You know, how would you feel to pay premium money for a 3-year old SSD or screen technology? well, that's what Apple does with GPU.
Just because of that, even you put a better performance graphics chips eventually it won't be optimized that the way it should.Choice is driven by TDP, not price. m370X = ~40W TDP. 960M = 60W TDP . They can downclock the 960M and get better TDP, but downclocking the dGPU means loss of performance. I have not seen anything that proves that Apple picked a worse chip despite the existence of another with comparable TDP and better performance. The MBP is a heavily TDP constrained device, with a history of GPU failures due to both Nvidia and AMD dGPUs, all pointing to just how hard it is to make it work within that tiny enclosure. The MBP problems are even more prominent because Macs themselves tend to last longer than PCs, and Macs have a greater reputation for reliability and longevity.
apple always put the x50M model from nvidia
so here is not 960M to be compared but 950M