Where did you get these results?
http://www.notebookcheck.net/MSI-PE60-6QE-Prestige-iBuyPower-Edition-Notebook-Review.165151.0.htmlj 960m get 30fps on high in rise of tomb rider and 970m is much faster.
970m
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-970M.126694.0.html 1920x1080 ultra >30fps in The Division, Rise of Tomb Raider, Far Cry Primal. You probably misspell while writing
I was looking at the same site you linked.
Those games on high settings averaged below 60fps. On 970m. Like they were around 40 or so. And if the avg is at 40 then it will probably fluctuate +- 20fps. Which is not ideal for playing, I know some people tolerate it though. I assumed the settings Intel posted were to play the game at a constant a high frame rate. But I guess they didn't specify.
Either way of course the 970m is going to be more powerful. But it won't be worth the trade offs for the majority of their buyers. So it would be stupid of Apple to put make their product worse for most, and better for few.
The more I think about it, the more I doubt apple will include a dgpu. I wouldn't if I was them. Even though I am an avid gamer, and like to play the latest games as high as possible.
There is almost 0 chance Apple would but a higher watt GPU like a 970m or equivalent. Even with the current form factor would lead to over heating, loud fans, and worse battery life, and Apple would have to redesign their cooling system. For a very small amount of their buyers. Which doesn't make sense. And with the 2016 MBP having an even thinner form factor, it would be even more difficult and those issues would be worse.
They could continue to use a ~50W GPU. But what's the point, nvidias current offerings are not any more powerful than iris 580 pro. And Polaris might be a little, but only a little. And it would make the system more expensive, worse battery life, etc. especially with their thinner design they are going to want all the space as possible for battery.
This year we see Intel advertising their iGPU pro more now than ever. Apple and Intel have probably been planning this for quite some time now.
It looks like in fullHD with everything maxed out they are averaging between 15 and 20 FPS.
That's pretty impressive, considering all the detail in that game, and the energy efficiency.
I can understand that a few people might use a MBP as a gaming machine, but I've never met anyone in real life who does this (not on any kind of Macbook, for that matter). It just doesn't make much sense when you can build a gaming PC which is so much better and cheaper and has a lot more choice of games.
So it seems that there's a very small proportion of potential MBP customers who seriously expect Apple to use an expensive dGPU for such a few users, and make the MBP more expensive for everyone. Doesn't make much business sense.
Mobile video editing is a bit more understandable, but isn't the intensive work CPU-related here (rendering movie files), and not GPU related?
I really wouldn't be upset if the new MBP used inegrated graphics, as long as it can handle smooth 4K video playback. It would make the machine cheaper, lighter, smaller, and less power hungry.
Maybe the best compromise is an optional dGPU.
I agree with you.
Actually Razer Core. The Razer Stealth is an ultrabook.
The racer core us by shipping yet, I have been checking their site every single day for the past few months
But not Mac compatible, at least at this point, no?
You would probably have to boot camp.
