Why do we still not have a 13" mbp with graphics?

[Project Alice]

It baffles me why the 13" mbp has never had anything other than crappy intel integrated graphics. Yeah yeah, battery life. That's one thing that I could care less about, I've never even owned a laptop that lasted longer than 2 hours on a ful charge.
My point is if you buy a "Pro" model MacBook it should have pro graphics. Instead you have to buy the bigger 15" model.
The old powerbook line always had a pretty good difference in speed and graphics performance.
Even old games from around 2007 don't work very well at all with new intel graphics vs even an old GT 740.
I don't play a whole lot of games, but occasionally I do, when that does happen intel integrated is unacceptable. Im not a video editor either, but I'm sure people that are would probably agree with me. I would have bought a 13" mbp years ago if it had any type of graphics chip other than Intel.

I basically don't understand Apple's computer line lately. They dropped the MacBook, and replaced it with the mbp 13" and MacBook Air. Now we have MacBooks that are smaller and lighter than the Air? What? That doesn't make sense. I know some people don't care, and that's great for them. But I can't be the only one who thinks this. Thoughts?

 

[OriginalAppleGuy]

Because people who care about graphics don't buy laptops with small screens? I've had my MBP last 8 hours and still had more to go on battery. I've had microsoft based systems that may last 2- 4 hours.
[doublepost=1515377087][/doublepost]I should add the size of the case matters too, not just battery life. You have to have space to add the daughter card.

 

[alvindarkness]

It baffles me why the 13" mbp has never had anything other than crappy intel integrated graphics. Yeah yeah, battery life. That's one thing that I could care less about, I've never even owned a laptop that lasted longer than 2 hours on a ful charge.
My point is if you buy a "Pro" model MacBook it should have pro graphics. Instead you have to buy the bigger 15" model.
The old powerbook line always had a pretty good difference in speed and graphics performance.
Even old games from around 2007 don't work very well at all with new intel graphics vs even an old GT 740.
I don't play a whole lot of games, but occasionally I do, when that does happen intel integrated is unacceptable. Im not a video editor either, but I'm sure people that are would probably agree with me. I would have bought a 13" mbp years ago if it had any type of graphics chip other than Intel.

I basically don't understand Apple's computer line lately. They dropped the MacBook, and replaced it with the mbp 13" and MacBook Air. Now we have MacBooks that are smaller and lighter than the Air? What? That doesn't make sense. I know some people don't care, and that's great for them. But I can't be the only one who thinks this. Thoughts?

I'm guessing its due to heat dissipation issues. Dont know about the newer MBPs, but pre-2016 the 13in MBPs had a small finned heatsink behind a single fan carrying heat away from the processor with a single heatpipe connecting the CPU via a copper pad. 15in MBPs had two fans, behind two heatsinks, and a loop of pipe connecting either a single CPU or CPU+dGPU.

If you consider that a 15in MBP can already run ridiculously hot, and the sum TDP of a CPU + dGPU is substantially higher than a just a CPU, youd have to conclude doing so in the 13in design would be a disaster. Unless they could engineer a sufficient cooling solution, but considering they want each generation of MBP to be more thin, I doubt its going to happen.

I know where you are coming from, but as someone who owns a 15in with dedicated graphics. I'm planning to go without if I ever purchase MBP again. The extra heat and Apples track record of unreliability with dedicated graphics has put me off entirely (had multiple replaced boards on mine, good old radeongate). Maybe with the new mobile Intel CPU range that have Vega built in (as revealed the other day) we might get a better scenario in the future?

 

[satinsilverem2]

Most of the people who buy the 13 inch models aren't power users. They are more concerned about battery life and portability but want a little more than what a MacBook or MBA has to offer. Also since the 2016 and up models with TB3 and High Sierra, you now have the option on getting a external GPU that would blow even the highest end 15 inch dGPU out of the water. Yes, its more expensive but if power is something that you are concerned about then don't buy a 13. That being said I use a maxed out 2016 13" and use FCPX to edit multi cam 4k several times a week and not once have I been wishing for more GPU power. The Intel graphics nowadays are pretty potent and can do things that GPUs from even a couple of years ago could even dream of doing. Also the 13" has until the 2016 models had a lot of issues exceeding the thermal envelope. My old 2011 13" used to scream like a banshee if I even thought about editing 4k or even watching 1080p youtube. The newer machines are a lot cooler running and most of the time when Im editing the fans are idling and the temps are in the 70s maybe the 80s if im exporting in HEVC or ProRes 422HQ.

 

[Project Alice]

I'm guessing its due to heat dissipation issues. Dont know about the newer MBPs, but pre-2016 the 13in MBPs had a small finned heatsink behind a single fan carrying heat away from the processor with a single heatpipe connecting the CPU via a copper pad. 15in MBPs had two fans, behind two heatsinks, and a loop of pipe connecting either a single CPU or CPU+dGPU.

If you consider that a 15in MBP can already run ridiculously hot, and the sum TDP of a CPU + dGPU is substantially higher than a just a CPU, youd have to conclude doing so in the 13in design would be a disaster. Unless they could engineer a sufficient cooling solution, but considering they want each generation of MBP to be more thin, I doubt its going to happen.

I know where you are coming from, but as someone who owns a 15in with dedicated graphics. I'm planning to go without if I ever purchase MBP again. The extra heat and Apples track record of unreliability with dedicated graphics has put me off entirely (had multiple replaced boards on mine, good old radeongate). Maybe with the new mobile Intel CPU range that have Vega built in (as revealed the other day) we might get a better scenario in the future?

I see how that could be a problem, I guess my mind still thinks of the powerbook g4s and silver 1st gen MBPs. I've never really cared how thin my laptop is either. And Apple has been obsessed with making them thinner in each revision.
I have a black MacBook and a surface pro for portability. And a large, loud, 16" Sony vaio with an i7 and a nvidia dGPU for everything else.
I look at the way Apple started out and how they did build their older computers, if they wanted to do something that hasn't been done because of those limitations they'd always figured out a way to do it.
Hopefully we will see something now that the Intel/Vega chips exist. Which btw just blows me away. Before that, I kept hoping they'd dump intel all together and use AMD for everything. Especially after the ryzen came out. AMDs integrated GPUs are miles better than Intel's and have great driver support (I guess if you're running in bootcamp).

I didn't realize they were having a lot of problems with dGPUs after the whole nvidia fiasco of 2010. I just googled Radeongate and wow. That kinda can go along with what I said above about them figuring out a way to do it. It's like they're not putting the work anymore to do a good job... Now we have the iMac Pro, and that seems like it'll be great. Why can't they put that kind of engineering into a MacBook Pro? Make it a "real pro". Thicker, with fans that can handle it. That doesn't mean it has to way 8lbs and sound like a jet plane like my vaio, but it's a MacBook Pro not an iPad it doesn't have to be THAT small.

 

[dogslobber]

My point is if you buy a "Pro" model MacBook it should have pro graphics. Instead you have to buy the bigger 15" model.
The old powerbook line always had a pretty good difference in speed and graphics performance.

Apple has diluted the meaning of a "Pro" machine by incorrectly referring to the Intel GFX version as a Pro machine. It's not a Pro machine. Then there's the 2 port version of the 2017 Macbook Pro. Apple is taking the p!55 out of us with that pathetic excuse for a machine. Apple used to value the Pro users but they are joke machines nowadays.

 

[Project Alice]

Apple has diluted the meaning of a "Pro" machine by incorrectly referring to the Intel GFX version as a Pro machine. It's not a Pro machine. Then there's the 2 port version of the 2017 Macbook Pro. Apple is taking the p!55 out of us with that pathetic excuse for a machine. Apple used to value the Pro users but they are joke machines nowadays.

Yeah, I agree. I used to have a 2007 MBP 15" back in high school, with the ATI X1300. It had ports galore even a full DVI port. I miss that, I would hate having to have a damn dongle for everything.

 

[leman]

I see how that could be a problem, I guess my mind still thinks of the powerbook g4s and silver 1st gen MBPs. I've never really cared how thin my laptop is either. And Apple has been obsessed with making them thinner in each revision.

Apple never had a 13" model with a powerful graphics? The 13" is a business laptop with strong CPU performance (its one of the very few, if not the only one, laptop in its class that uses mid-power CPUs), which makes is a great tool for a wide bunch of people who don't necessarily need to edit videos on the go but could benefit from stronger than average CPU (scientists, developers etc.). And its integrated graphics is not half bad actually, low end chips like MX150 might be twice as fast, but their TDP is also significantly higher. Right now its a bit in a awkward situation, given that Intel has released quad-core low-powered CPUs, but not the mid-powered ones. So at this point, its inferior performance-wise to the competition, even though it uses a higher-powered CPU (then again, its graphics is much better than the current 15W quad-core CPUs).

 

[BenTrovato]

Apple has gone away from what Pro meant a longtime ago. Now it’s all PROfit. Just buy Apple stock, you’ll be baffled a lot less, trust me.

 

[Project Alice]

Most of the people who buy the 13 inch models aren't power users. They are more concerned about battery life and portability but want a little more than what a MacBook or MBA has to offer. Also since the 2016 and up models with TB3 and High Sierra, you now have the option on getting a external GPU that would blow even the highest end 15 inch dGPU out of the water. Yes, its more expensive but if power is something that you are concerned about then don't buy a 13. That being said I use a maxed out 2016 13" and use FCPX to edit multi cam 4k several times a week and not once have I been wishing for more GPU power. The Intel graphics nowadays are pretty potent and can do things that GPUs from even a couple of years ago could even dream of doing. Also the 13" has until the 2016 models had a lot of issues exceeding the thermal envelope. My old 2011 13" used to scream like a banshee if I even thought about editing 4k or even watching 1080p youtube. The newer machines are a lot cooler running and most of the time when Im editing the fans are idling and the temps are in the 70s maybe the 80s if im exporting in HEVC or ProRes 422HQ.

I know the intel graphics have improved. And I think they are aimed more for what you do. The last time I dealt with intel graphics I had more issues with certain applications not running properly just because of the drivers. That was a few years ago now. But I look at the benchmarks for the best Intel iGPU and it still doesn't come close to an entry level Nvidia, or even an AMD APU for that matter.

As an owner of a 13" and a power user, do you care how thin or loud it is? Would you like it to continue being thinner and quieter for the sake of performance? Or are you like me and don't mind a little thickness and a little noise for a true power users machine?
[doublepost=1515383805][/doublepost]

Apple never had a 13" model with a powerful graphics? The 13" is a business laptop with strong CPU performance (its one of the very few, if not the only one, laptop in its class that uses mid-power CPUs), which makes is a great tool for a wide bunch of people who don't necessarily need to edit videos on the go but could benefit from stronger than average CPU (scientists, developers etc.). And its integrated graphics is not half bad actually, low end chips like MX150 might be twice as fast, but their TDP is also significantly higher. Right now its a bit in a awkward situation, given that Intel has released quad-core low-powered CPUs, but not the mid-powered ones. So at this point, its inferior performance-wise to the competition, even though it uses a higher-powered CPU (then again, its graphics is much better than the current 15W quad-core CPUs).

They have, sort of. The Powerbook G4 12" had decent graphics for the time, At least in comparison to any other laptop of that era of that size. And it was dedicated too. I think the most powerful one had 64mb of vram. This was in 2005, thats pretty good in a small laptop.

If the 13" isn't made for that, then it should just be called "MacBook". That was the whole point of the MacBook line. For people who don't need that much performance. A power user shouldn't be as concerned with TDP, how often do they actually use the battery? And if they do is it THAT much of an inconvenience to plug it in after 3 hours?
Hopefully this year we'll get something better, now that intel has finally stepped it up like you said.

 

[Brookzy]

Totally agree. A quad core 13” MacBook Pro with discrete graphics would be killer.

And I’m sure we’ll see one eventually.

 

[leman]

But I look at the benchmarks for the best Intel iGPU and it still doesn't come close to an entry level Nvidia, or even an AMD APU for that matter.

Entry level Nvidia is what, MX130? To which Iris Pro compares rather favourably

As an owner of a 13" and a power user, do you care how thin or loud it is?

I do not use a 13", my performance needs are different.

Would you like it to continue being thinner and quieter for the sake of performance? Or are you like me and don't mind a little thickness and a little noise for a true power users machine?

Well, the performance of the 13" MBP is as good (in relative terms) as it always was. Actually, its substantially higher now than just a few years ago. Earlier in the day, playing any kind of games for example was completely impossible on a 13" Apple laptop. Now it can handle most of contemporary games, once you crank the resolution down a bit. Imagine that with a 9400M or a HD3000

Same goes for the 15" model. Still comes with fastest CPUs available and mid-range limited-TDP GPU (as it always did). Sustained CPU performance is best in class (if not in the market).

They have, sort of. The Powerbook G4 12" had decent graphics for the time, At least in comparison to any other laptop of that era of that size. And it was dedicated too. I think the most powerful one had 64mb of vram. This was in 2005, thats pretty good in a small laptop.

True, but that was so early in the GPU era, that most powerful of them had TDPs comparable to the entry/mid-range mobile GPUs of today. For example, the ATI Radeon 9000 had the TDP of around 30Watts (thats less than the TDP of the GPUs Apple uses now!) and could be cooled by a cute litte toy fan. In 2017, powerful GPUs have TDPs of 200 Watts and more and require massive heatsinks and slot-filling fans to remove the excess heat. So yes, around 2000 Apple could totally afford (engineering-wise) to pack an undercooked state-of-the art desktop GPU into a small and thin laptop. Now, not so much. Anyway, the GPUs they use now use more power than the GPUs of that time, so there is a definite improvement, even if it might feel like a regression to you.
[doublepost=1515385597][/doublepost]

Totally agree. A quad core 13” MacBook Pro with discrete graphics would be killer. And I’m sure we’ll see one eventually.

To accommodate a discrete GPU, Apple would need to increase the size of the 13" machine to the levels of the 15". Which would be a bit pointless, given the fact that the 15" model already exists. Don't forget that most 13" on the market that ships with a dGPU is closer in size to the 15" MBP than to the 13" one.

 

[satinsilverem2]

I know the intel graphics have improved. And I think they are aimed more for what you do. The last time I dealt with intel graphics I had more issues with certain applications not running properly just because of the drivers. That was a few years ago now. But I look at the benchmarks for the best Intel iGPU and it still doesn't come close to an entry level Nvidia, or even an AMD APU for that matter.

As an owner of a 13" and a power user, do you care how thin or loud it is? Would you like it to continue being thinner and quieter for the sake of performance? Or are you like me and don't mind a little thickness and a little noise for a true power users machine?
[doublepost=1515383805][/doublepost]

Yes and no, most of the time when im editing or doing other intensive things I have headphones on and the fans wouldn't bother me but there are a lot of times when im in a silent place like a coffee shop or even a library (student) and dont want the loudness to bother me or other people. I wouldn't mind the machine being a little thicker if it meant better cooling and more battery crammed in there. I haven't once regretted my decision of buying my 2016. I think the only thing I regret is not waiting until those Coffee Lake quad core chips come out in the 13" models.

 

[alvindarkness]

It'll be interesting to see if Apple pick up on the new "Intel with Vega built in" range of CPU's. Seems they are covering low power ultra-thin laptops, all the way up to 100W TDP parts. If Apple choose to use them, we could see 13in MBPs with half decent AMD graphics in the future. Intel have already unveiled VR capable NUC's in the past 24 hours, future might bright.

EDIT: Looks like the lowest TDP is 65W? Surely too high for 13in MBP, ah well

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

Pretty sure the earlier Apple laptops had dGPU's because there was no other option... CPU/GPU on the same die didn't exist after all. All the GPU is for and has always been for on the more portable option was to output video, so with the inclusion of an iGPU you can obtain that whilst reducing the size.

People buy the 13" as a more affordable option for when you need MacOS, or if you have a more powerful desktop at the office and need something on the go. There's no need to put a powerful GPU in it as it would increase the size of the device, and reduce the point of it. Also who spends $2500 on a laptop for gaming when it's designed for professional use, and so pretty lacklustre in the gaming department? Buy a gaming laptop instead if that's the primary purpose.

The only way you'll see a dGPU (Of any meaningful power) on a 13" would be to change the form factor, increase the price, and compromise on battery life. Or just make a slightly larger laptop i.e. the 15".

Lastly not all pro users require a powerful GPU, why should they pay for it? Sure it's nice to have to play the odd game, but it's sold as a professional device, not a toy. Obviously people use them in all manner of ways, but that's what you're buying. If a company buys a lot of these devices for their software department, why should they have their costs increased by the inclusion of a GPU for their staff to 'play games on'? Wouldn't go over well. Also the same reason the 15" doesn't include a 1060Ti or other gaming class card, because it's meant as a professional device...

 

[Strelok]

Sandy Bridge was the first intel CPU with integrated graphics that was used in laptops IIRC. Before that you had to have a dGPU to even get an output. If you are willing to lug around a thick, heavy 13" laptop, why not just get a 15" laptop?

 

[Poki]

I fail to understand all the iGPU hate. I'm a little disappointed too that the Intel integrated graphics didn't improve at all since the Iris Plus 550 in 2016, but it's still a very capable iGPU. It even comes close to AMDs new Vega 10 iGPUs in their new Ryzen Mobile chips. It's also more than sufficient for casual games, you can even play Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 on ultra settings and still reach like 50 fps. I can't imagine there's a single game from 2007 that an Iris Plus couldn't handle perfectly fine, except for when the drivers you use are not compatible.

GPU acceleration is still disappointing in many applications. Take InDesign, for example. The working preview looks better when you use the GPU accelerated preview, but it's also slower to work with, even using an iMac with a Radeon Pro 580. Photo editing software which supports GPU acceleration for more than a handful tasks is rare too. Photoshop, for example, can only accelerate certain actions, and it can do so only in certain colorspaces - you want to use your GPU to accelerate a transformation of a CMYK image? Not gonna happen.

That's why I honestly believe going for as much CPU power as possible is a great choice for a notebook that's intended for work instead of gaming. If you want to game on it, or do complex 3D renderings, or something in that league, you'd need an external GPU anyway. There's simply no way to fit a GTX1080 Ti in a 13" notebook without making it extremely thick and heavy.

 

[leman]

Sandy Bridge was the first intel CPU with integrated graphics that was used in laptops IIRC. Before that you had to have a dGPU to even get an output.

Apple was using IGPs way before that (Intel GMA 950, Intel GMA X1300, Nvidia 9400M). But yes, Sandy Bridge was the first Intel IGP that could be used for things other then simply video output

 

[Poki]

Apple was using IGPs way before that (Intel GMA 950, Intel GMA X1300, Nvidia 9400M). But yes, Sandy Bridge was the first Intel IGP that could be used for things other then simply video output

Except that the GMA 950 wasn't even capable of video output.

 

[leman]

Except that the GMA 950 wasn't even capable of video output.

Of course it was... My first MacBook was equipped with a GMA 950 which didn't prevent me from using it to give presentations.

 

[Poki]

Of course it was... My first MacBook was equipped with a GMA 950 which didn't prevent me from using it to give presentations.

Depends on the definition of video output. Erm, the high definition I mean. Sorry for the bad pun, but I never had luck playing HD web videos stutter free using any device using a GMA 950.

 

[leman]

Depends on the definition of video output. Erm, the high definition I mean. Sorry for the bad pun, but I never had luck playing HD web videos stutter free using any device using a GMA 950.

Ah, I don't remember what the max supported resolution was. It worked fine with the standard office beamers back then, but I don't think I ever plugged it into an external monitor.

 

[Project Alice]

Except that the GMA 950 wasn't even capable of video output.

True. I've had a few laptops with the 950. A couple Dell's, and some HPs I think. It was dreadful. The x3100 or GMA 965 in the PC world wasn't any better for me. I swapped my black book logic board for a mid 2009 with a 9400m because of that. Even though I It shares the ram it functions like an actual GPU. I have a 2009 mini with the 9400 that is my media PC, it plays 1080P video all day without a stutter. If it had any Intel GMA I wouldn't even try.
[doublepost=1515439730][/doublepost]

I fail to understand all the iGPU hate. I'm a little disappointed too that the Intel integrated graphics didn't improve at all since the Iris Plus 550 in 2016, but it's still a very capable iGPU. It even comes close to AMDs new Vega 10 iGPUs in their new Ryzen Mobile chips. It's also more than sufficient for casual games, you can even play Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 on ultra settings and still reach like 50 fps. I can't imagine there's a single game from 2007 that an Iris Plus couldn't handle perfectly fine, except for when the drivers you use are not compatible.

GPU acceleration is still disappointing in many applications. Take InDesign, for example. The working preview looks better when you use the GPU accelerated preview, but it's also slower to work with, even using an iMac with a Radeon Pro 580. Photo editing software which supports GPU acceleration for more than a handful tasks is rare too. Photoshop, for example, can only accelerate certain actions, and it can do so only in certain colorspaces - you want to use your GPU to accelerate a transformation of a CMYK image? Not gonna happen.

That's why I honestly believe going for as much CPU power as possible is a great choice for a notebook that's intended for work instead of gaming. If you want to game on it, or do complex 3D renderings, or something in that league, you'd need an external GPU anyway. There's simply no way to fit a GTX1080 Ti in a 13" notebook without making it extremely thick and heavy.

I've never personally owned a computer with iris Pro, so I can't really comment on that. But Intel's previous track record on iGPUs scared me off. But I definitely see what you're talking about. I know they're not gaming laptops. I just feel like they don't need to be as thin as an iPad, either.

 

[jerryk]

I just feel like they don't need to be as thin as an iPad, either.

Unfortunately, you and Johnny Ives disagree. And only his vote counts.