That's what we hope for.
12, 14 and 16. Standard, Air and Pro. One size one laptop.
12, 13 and 15 are pretty awkward.
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.
Waiting for Skylake MBP thread
- Thread starter adildacoolset
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
12, 14 and 16. Standard, Air and Pro. One size one laptop.
12, 13 and 15 are pretty awkward.
If the re-designed pros are rumored for WWDC, I hope they give the current one a spec bump. I doubt Apple would wait 16 months between updates
The XPS 15 has an i7-6700HQ as the highest end chip in use. The touch versions have an i7-6300HQ . These both contain Intel HD 530 graphics. It does not have either Iris 540/550 or Iris Pro 580. It also has the GeForce GTX 960M, not the much faster 960. The XPS 13 has an i5-6500U as the highest end processor, and uses HD 520 graphics.
Here are G3D PassMark figures:
HD 520: 843
Iris 6100: 967
HD 530: 1102
Iris Pro 5200: 1178
Iris 540: 1483
NVidia GeForce GTX 960M: 1614
AMD Radeon R9 M370X: 1985
Iris Pro 580 (projected): 2020
The current MBP 15 has a Haswell with Iris Pro 5200 and optionally AMD Radeon R9 M370X dGPU. The current 13" MBP has Iris 6100 .
In other words:
13" Laptops:
XPS 13 uses HD 520 vs MBP 13" with Iris 6100, where MBP 13 has a superior GPU and CPU.
15" Laptops:
XPS 15 uses HD 530 plus GTX 960M vs MBP 15" with Iris Pro 5200 and AMD Radeon R9 M370X . Again MBP 15" has superior graphics capabilities for both the iGPU and dGPU.
Apple is holding out for the next high end Skylake HQ chip with Iris Pro 580, whose performance will probably exceed even the current AMD dGPU
Here are G3D PassMark figures:
HD 520: 843
Iris 6100: 967
HD 530: 1102
Iris Pro 5200: 1178
Iris 540: 1483
NVidia GeForce GTX 960M: 1614
AMD Radeon R9 M370X: 1985
Iris Pro 580 (projected): 2020
The current MBP 15 has a Haswell with Iris Pro 5200 and optionally AMD Radeon R9 M370X dGPU. The current 13" MBP has Iris 6100 .
In other words:
13" Laptops:
XPS 13 uses HD 520 vs MBP 13" with Iris 6100, where MBP 13 has a superior GPU and CPU.
15" Laptops:
XPS 15 uses HD 530 plus GTX 960M vs MBP 15" with Iris Pro 5200 and AMD Radeon R9 M370X . Again MBP 15" has superior graphics capabilities for both the iGPU and dGPU.
Apple is holding out for the next high end Skylake HQ chip with Iris Pro 580, whose performance will probably exceed even the current AMD dGPU
Oh AMD...
Too sad to mention.
First Zen will released in Q4 2016 at best, when Kaby Lake it's out for public...
Where did you read that ? I hope you are true but that seems strange ... an iGPU (Iris pro 580) better than the latest mobile GPU ( GTX 960M) ...
It could be very cool to have the cheaper 15" rmbp with good graphics perf and lot of battery . (Iris pro 580 consumption will be about half or a third of the GTX 960M consumption)
Wow. Does that mean the MacBook Pro 13" (projected to have Iris 540) will have gpu capabilities that rival the NVidia GeForce GTX 960M?
As the videocardbenchmark data shows, the 960M is not a high performing GPU even though it's new. The 970M and 980M are undoubtedly vastly superior, as is the 965M, but they also have TDPs of 100+ . The GTX 880M has a specified TDP of 122W, and 980M from what I read, is comparable.
The 965M has a TDP north of 50W, and it gets a PassMark score of 2872. The 960M on the other hand gets 1614, which is lower than that of the AMD dGPU in the current 15".
I don't think there's any magic bullet in the XPS value proposition. They are good specs and you get what you pay for it too. Apple chooses to wait and only use the highest end chips that fit within its power budget. Their history is fairly consistent in this regard for MBPs.
The 965M has a TDP north of 50W, and it gets a PassMark score of 2872. The 960M on the other hand gets 1614, which is lower than that of the AMD dGPU in the current 15".
I don't think there's any magic bullet in the XPS value proposition. They are good specs and you get what you pay for it too. Apple chooses to wait and only use the highest end chips that fit within its power budget. Their history is fairly consistent in this regard for MBPs.
So I will said my predictions here based on what I like
An unibody constructed all-metal, 16in MacBook Pro. With USB-C, SDXC and ThunderBolt stuffs. The thickness down to 13.5-16mm straight forward (which I don't know it's going to be enough for a USB-3, so if it's going to be thinner, USB-3 might be vanished in the MacBooks. We will hear something like "they are not ambidextrous, slow and HUGE", although I agree. Also it means we gotta buy adapters for old flash drives now lol.)
Larger Trackpad with enhanced Force Touch (like 3D Touch this year), possibly a keyboard with bigger keys but not necessarily the butterfly. speakers still on the sides, if they add one on the top but..I don't think so.
It comes three or four color includes gold, silver, and space gray. No more glowing Apple logo on the back (due to screen thickness down and it's awkward to have a gold case with a white light..).
An unibody constructed all-metal, 16in MacBook Pro. With USB-C, SDXC and ThunderBolt stuffs. The thickness down to 13.5-16mm straight forward (which I don't know it's going to be enough for a USB-3, so if it's going to be thinner, USB-3 might be vanished in the MacBooks. We will hear something like "they are not ambidextrous, slow and HUGE", although I agree. Also it means we gotta buy adapters for old flash drives now lol.)
Larger Trackpad with enhanced Force Touch (like 3D Touch this year), possibly a keyboard with bigger keys but not necessarily the butterfly. speakers still on the sides, if they add one on the top but..I don't think so.
It comes three or four color includes gold, silver, and space gray. No more glowing Apple logo on the back (due to screen thickness down and it's awkward to have a gold case with a white light..).
Last edited:
Why not a wireless adapter?
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I think it should be really close to the actual AMD dGPU on rMBP 2015. But it may vary deppending on the use. Maybe on GPGPU not so close, but for other GPU usage, yes I would expect that.
Nvidia made fun of iPad Pro in social media, I doubt we will see any Nvidia GPU on a Mac in a long time, but if it were the case a GTX 970M will be a better option for efficiency, thermals and performance which is really close to the desktop version.
Guys, think about it for a second. HD550 has 64 MB of EDRAM, and 48 CUs. HD6200 has 128 MB of EDRAM and 48 CUs.
Difference? Thanks to higher RAM speed in Skylake chips HD550 will be slightly faster. If HD5200 was on par with GT750M, already, how much faster will be HD580 if it has 50% more cores than HD550? Remember that HD6200 is around 40% faster than Haswell Iris Pro. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Pro-Graphics-6200.125593.0.html Here you have benches for HD6200.
It will be faster than M370X and will be comparable to GTX960M. The same GPU that whole forum here wanted so badly.
Difference? Thanks to higher RAM speed in Skylake chips HD550 will be slightly faster. If HD5200 was on par with GT750M, already, how much faster will be HD580 if it has 50% more cores than HD550? Remember that HD6200 is around 40% faster than Haswell Iris Pro. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Pro-Graphics-6200.125593.0.html Here you have benches for HD6200.
It will be faster than M370X and will be comparable to GTX960M. The same GPU that whole forum here wanted so badly.
neeh, 970M already on par with current dgpu amd, and samsung copy and made fun of Apple long time with everything, and they still use them for manufacturing
so 980M or 990M will be better, the 970M is out of the question if they want an improvement, or they will opt for the next AMD but i wonder whats next from amd for dGPU range
i never felt that current HD 6200 is on par with 750M..in opengl is a difference
It's actually a better GPU with allmost the half of power consuption. And Apple like this low power TDP policy.
................ R9 M395X // GTX970M
Fire Strike 6.819 // 7.486
Cloud Gate 38.490 // 50.535
3DMark 11 8.656 // 9.962
TDP (power) 250 W // 100-120W
Sources:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-R9-M395.154266.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-970M.126694.0.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2742/radeon-r9-m395x.html
...
So maybe for the low-end iMac and a 980M option could work fine.
Last edited:
its GTX 970 or 970M ??
250W??? it must be a mistake, because the imac cant support 250W
and for me improvement means more than 30% in performance boost not that
now plz put what i say
M395X vs 980M plz because Apple always used best of nvidia dGPU like 680MX specially made for the imac and 780M so no need for the highest spec 27" imac to put only 970M
Apple knows that users that already have M295X or M395X will never upgrade for 970M only
Probably 970M will be (IF apple opts for nvidia) the middle spec 27" imac with BTO for 980M or i hope for that beast 990M
250W??? it must be a mistake, because the imac cant support 250W
and for me improvement means more than 30% in performance boost not that
now plz put what i say
M395X vs 980M plz because Apple always used best of nvidia dGPU like 680MX specially made for the imac and 780M so no need for the highest spec 27" imac to put only 970M
Apple knows that users that already have M295X or M395X will never upgrade for 970M only
Probably 970M will be (IF apple opts for nvidia) the middle spec 27" imac with BTO for 980M or i hope for that beast 990M
I missed the M sorry, the benchmarks are from the 970M according to notebookcheck. The AMD TDP seems to much, but I'm also aware of AMD going with higher TDPs to mach nvidia, so I don't know what to think, that's information from techpowerup in the mobile gpu section.
In order: AMD // 970m // 980m
Fire Strike => 6.819 // 7.486 // 9697
Cloud Gate => 38.490 // 50.535 // 65.993
3DMark 11 => 8.656 // 9.962 // 12.562
TDP (power) => ? // 100-120W // 120-130W
Y
Do you have a clue, that currently M395X has around 100W TDP? Because of the new process from TSMC and new memory from Samsung. Do you have a clue that GTX970M has higher core amount, and wider memory bus than desktop GTX960, therefore it cannot have lower TDP than that GPU without Throttling? It will maintain highest clocks for a second and then it will declock itself automatically to maintain within power limit. If you will look at graphs of performance over time, you will see that highest framerate in Nvidia GPUs is within few first minutes, than it goes down, when AMD GPUs stays all the time at similar levels. And for the last thing, AMD GPUs have much higher compute power in OpenCL, and in overall than Nvidia GPUs - that is the reason why Apple went for them instead of Nvidia.
Do you have a clue, that there is NO sing of Maxwell GPUs in OS X in any build? Do you have a clue that M395X does not have 250W of TDP? Do you have a clue, that 250W is higher TDP than the original TDP of the die it is based on(190W)?
Do you have a clue, that currently M395X has around 100W TDP? Because of the new process from TSMC and new memory from Samsung. Do you have a clue that GTX970M has higher core amount, and wider memory bus than desktop GTX960, therefore it cannot have lower TDP than that GPU without Throttling? It will maintain highest clocks for a second and then it will declock itself automatically to maintain within power limit. If you will look at graphs of performance over time, you will see that highest framerate in Nvidia GPUs is within few first minutes, than it goes down, when AMD GPUs stays all the time at similar levels. And for the last thing, AMD GPUs have much higher compute power in OpenCL, and in overall than Nvidia GPUs - that is the reason why Apple went for them instead of Nvidia.
- Status