When you don't look at the price and the MBA wins

[asiga]

Anyway, you'll see a new Pro design around 2020, which should be a little lighter than the one day if it's too heavy for you.

I realized I wrote my last post in the wrong thread, because it was meant to be in another thread I started about a 14-inch MacBook (not MBP) petition I wrote to Apple. My hopes about a 14 or 15 inch MacBook below 1kg belong obviously in the MB field, not the MBP field.

My next Mac laptop must be either a MBP with NVIDIA GPU (ie: not ultralight), or a MB with an screen larger that 12 inch. No other Mac laptop offering is going to look attractive to me. So, if it's heavier than my MBA, it must carry an NVIDIA inside. If not, it must be lighter than my MBA but with a larger screen.

I'm going to repost the mistakenly placed text in the right thread.

 

[PBG4 Dude]

I don't get how any model of Mac beyond the late 2010 MBA will suffice if you need an nVidia chip inside. That's the last year I know of any Apple laptop having nVidia inside. Everything else is iGPU / AMD.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

I don't get how any model of Mac beyond the late 2010 MBA will suffice if you need an nVidia chip inside. That's the last year I know of any Apple laptop having nVidia inside. Everything else is iGPU / AMD.

I think the reason we don't see nVidea chips in Macs these days are due to anti-competition laws. One would imagine a large vendor is bound to treat manufacturers fairly, which is why they use Intel CPU's and AMD GPU's. They also probably can work closer with AMD to get better optimisation than nVidea. So my theory is that if they want to put nVidea GPU's, they'd have to start using AMD CPU's... Or they could make their own which could happen one day.

 

[asiga]

I think the reason we don't see nVidea chips in Macs these days are due to anti-competition laws. One would imagine a large vendor is bound to treat manufacturers fairly, which is why they use Intel CPU's and AMD GPU's. They also probably can work closer with AMD to get better optimisation than nVidea. So my theory is that if they want to put nVidea GPU's, they'd have to start using AMD CPU's... Or they could make their own which could happen one day.

Yes, I'd be happily surprised if they bring NVIDIA GPUs back again on Macs (that is, apart from eGPU, I mean). That said, I really prefer to have an NVIDIA GPU, for development reasons. So, in the desktop I really look forward to the promised "modular Mac Pro", which I hope will allow to install NVIDIA cards on it (if it's "modular", it should allow that). In the meantime, I have a hackintosh with an NVIDIA Titan X, which is great for my development purposes.

Regarding MacBooks, I (sadly) believe it's highly unlikely we'll see NVIDIA GPUs again. That's the reason why I prefer ultralight MacBooks instead of MBPs: If I'm not going to have the GPU I wish for development, at least let me have a really ultralight but with a big display (14/15 inch), and I'll do all my NVIDIA-related work with either my hackintosh or future modular Mac Pro, and/or as an eGPU if they bring TB3 support to the MacBook at some point in the future.

In this moment, what I really wish is a (fanless) 14/15 inch MacBook below 1.30 Kg and with at least 2 ports. That would be a worthy successor to my Late 2010 MBA.

 

[chrfr]

I don't get how any model of Mac beyond the late 2010 MBA will suffice if you need an nVidia chip inside. That's the last year I know of any Apple laptop having nVidia inside. Everything else is iGPU / AMD.

The 15" Retina MacBook Pro used Nvidia GPUs all the way through 2014.
[doublepost=1498563181][/doublepost]

My next Mac laptop must be either a MBP with NVIDIA GPU (ie: not ultralight), or a MB with an screen larger that 12 inch. No other Mac laptop offering is going to look attractive to me. So, if it's heavier than my MBA, it must carry an NVIDIA inside. If not, it must be lighter than my MBA but with a larger screen.

You'll most likely need to buy used if you truly need a Mac with Nvidia graphics. Apple isn't likely to offer either of the sorts of computers you want.
[doublepost=1498563336][/doublepost]

I think the reason we don't see nVidea chips in Macs these days are due to anti-competition laws. One would imagine a large vendor is bound to treat manufacturers fairly, which is why they use Intel CPU's and AMD GPU's. They also probably can work closer with AMD to get better optimisation than nVidea. So my theory is that if they want to put nVidea GPU's, they'd have to start using AMD CPU's... Or they could make their own which could happen one day.

Anti-competition laws don't have any relationship to what GPUs Apple puts in its computers. There's no functional difference between using AMD or Nvidia with an Intel CPU from a competition standpoint.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

Anti-competition laws don't have any relationship to what GPUs Apple puts in its computers. There's no functional difference between using AMD or Nvidia with an Intel CPU from a competition standpoint.

Oh really? I'm only basing that speculation on comments. I remember when I used to work in sales Intel were always stepping very close to dominating AMD, and on a few occasions had to share information or bail them out. So I assume that as Apple (Unlike other vendors) solely use Intel chips, they would be bound to some kind of law requiring them to give a percentage of sales to AMD. As the companies not particular products.

Who knows really! I just wish nVidea would make CUDA open, or use OpenCL or something. Then it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[chrfr]

So I assume that as Apple (Unlike other vendors) solely use Intel chips, they would be bound to some kind of law requiring them to give a percentage of sales to AMD. As the companies not particular products.

No, that's not how anti-competition laws work.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

No, that's not how anti-competition laws work.

It seems to be how antimonopoly laws work, would you care to elaborate? I'm no expert so may have mixed the two together, but further reading suggests that if AMD went bust, Intel and nVidea would be required to split their companies. Hence I thought there must be something going on.

 

[chrfr]

It seems to be how antimonopoly laws work, would you care to elaborate? I'm no expert so may have mixed the two together, but further reading suggests that if AMD went bust, Intel and nVidea would be required to split their companies. Hence I thought there must be something going on.

Intel and Nvidia are not the same companies.
There's no requirement that any one business has a competitor in a given field.
Regardless, Apple is not forced to buy AMD GPUs because of any legal reason.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

Intel and Nvidia are not the same companies.
There's no requirement that any one business has a competitor in a given field.
Regardless, Apple is not forced to buy AMD GPUs because of any legal reason.

No of course I never suggested they were the same company, AMD is the only major competitor to both companies. As I said, it was speculation. Given anti-monopoly laws (And there's plenty of legal history between AMD and Intel), it would appear that if Apple wanted to stop using AMD (Intel's only major competitor) and switch to nVidea, then AMD would be at a significant loss and accuse Apple / Intel of further exclusivity agreements (Given that Apple solely use Intel for their processors). That's why I suggested that Apple would not be able to fully cut AMD out entirely as a large single vendor without some kind of legal repercussion.

Absolutely no way to know for sure either way, which is why all this is speculation. That's all.

 

[chrfr]

That's why I suggested that Apple would not be able to fully cut AMD out entirely as a large single vendor without some kind of legal repercussion.

That makes no sense. Apple is not the only computer vendor; Apple isn't even a major player in computer sales, selling about 7-8% of computers sold in 2016. There is no monopoly and thus no regulation of whose video card they can use.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

That makes no sense. Apple is not the only computer vendor; Apple isn't even a major player in computer sales, selling about 7-8% of computers sold in 2016. There is no monopoly and thus no regulation of whose video card they can use.

They're the 5th largest sole PC vendor, and the only one to exclusively use Intel processors.

 

[chrfr]

They're the 5th largest sole PC vendor, and the only one to exclusively use Intel processors.

It doesn't matter; there are other options in the computer market.

 

[Ma2k5]

They're the 5th largest sole PC vendor, and the only one to exclusively use Intel processors.

The reason they use AMD GPU's is down to them getting a very good deal with them - nothing to do with them thinking Nvidia getting some monopoly or anything.

Look at Dell, they rolling with those Nvidia GPU's without issues and they produce far far more computers than Apple.

I wish Apple did go over to the green side but meh.

 

[ls1dreams]

The horrible screen on the MBA is a deal breaker enough for me.

 

[Aditya_S]

I realized I wrote my last post in the wrong thread, because it was meant to be in another thread I started about a 14-inch MacBook (not MBP) petition I wrote to Apple. My hopes about a 14 or 15 inch MacBook below 1kg belong obviously in the MB field, not the MBP field.

My next Mac laptop must be either a MBP with NVIDIA GPU (ie: not ultralight), or a MB with an screen larger that 12 inch. No other Mac laptop offering is going to look attractive to me. So, if it's heavier than my MBA, it must carry an NVIDIA inside. If not, it must be lighter than my MBA but with a larger screen.

I'm going to repost the mistakenly placed text in the right thread.

The 2014 15" MacBook Pro is the most recent MacBook you can get with an Nvidia GPU inside. If you really need an Nvidia GPU than get that as it's the most powerful MacBook they ever made with Nvidia graphics.