Would you buy a rMBP without a dedicated GPU?

[Stetrain]

Irrelevant, that is not how the categorized it. True Pro products tend to be more powerful, but it is not the power behind them as much as the dedicated hardware that moves the software. What good is it to have a powerful Pro class CPU, if the iGPU is crap?

Who determines what is a True Pro product and what isn't? Pro means professional. There are a lot of people who use their computer professionally who do not necessarily need gaming-class GPU performance. The Iris Pro chips do however have some advantages for certain "Pro" use cases, mostly in the fact that they have a gigantic L4 cache.


The whole "but I'm a real Pro and I need _____" just seems silly to me. I use my computers professionally. That involves mostly software development with a bit of 2D design work on occasion. What I need out of a laptop is a good screen, a good keyboard, a nice portable form factor, and a processor/GPU good enough to handle those tasks. Is that not Pro enough?

 

[john123]

Which is why it was called the MacBook, Apple later, to try and sell more rebranded it MacBook Pro.

Know your history. This all started with the nVidia 9400M chipset. True it was far superior to any iGPU at the time, but it was no dGPU. nVidia just happened to apply Intel's current layout by removing the Northbridge and making it a ICH, GPU and Memory controller, while the CPU was still fed by the ancient FSB.

I still call that a MacBook. Better yet, a 15" MacBook. Many people referred to it as that as well due to the iGPU. Goes to show how much of a naming difference an iGPU o dGPU can have.

1. My "history" was correct. Try reading someone's post first before you go off half-cocked.
2. Everything else you said about it being "no dGPU" confirmed exactly what I said in my post.
3. It was not called a MacBook. It was called a MacBook Pro. It was printed in black and white on the them.
4. Respectfully, how on earth does it matter what you decide to call it? It was a MacBook Pro with a cruddy 9400M stuck on, which allowed them to lower price. Your original statement, "That is why Pro products always carry a performance GPU, to match the CPU," (emphasis added)was clearly inaccurate and flawed. Stop trying to defend it. Admit your mistake with respect to the history and move on.

 

[dusk007]

Pro means aluminum were Apple is concerned. Plastic was just a MacBook. Every notebook with metal (until the Air and the new iMacs) got called Pro regardless of its hardware ingredients.
Never had anything to do with performance. The higher priced stuff is called pro so the people that buy the stuff can feel better about themselves. 😉

 

[sholzer]

Pro means aluminum were Apple is concerned. Plastic was just a MacBook. Every notebook with metal (until the Air and the new iMacs) got called Pro regardless of its hardware ingredients.
Never had anything to do with performance. The higher priced stuff is called pro so the people that buy the stuff can feel better about themselves. 😉

There was an aluminum unibody 13" Macbook around 2009-2010

 

[Stetrain]

4. Respectfully, how on earth does it matter what you decide to call it? It was a MacBook Pro with a cruddy 9400M stuck on, which allowed them to lower price. Your original statement, "That is why Pro products always carry a performance GPU, to match the CPU," (emphasis added)was clearly inaccurate and flawed. Stop trying to defend it. Admit your mistake with respect to the history and move on.

I think this is similar to the No True Scottsman fallacy. Any example of a professional notebook or professional user that doesn't fit their idea of what a True Pro is doesn't count for some reason or another.

 

[john123]

I think this is similar to the No True Scottsman fallacy. Any example of a professional notebook or professional user that doesn't fit their idea of what a True Pro is doesn't count for some reason or another.

You literally just made me smile. I hadn't heard of that, and I love stuff related logic and reasoning. That is a very cool concept and phrase to add to my quiver.

Thank you!

 

[bill-p]

Who determines what is a True Pro product and what isn't? Pro means professional. There are a lot of people who use their computer professionally who do not necessarily need gaming-class GPU performance. The Iris Pro chips do however have some advantages for certain "Pro" use cases, mostly in the fact that they have a gigantic L4 cache.

The whole "but I'm a real Pro and I need _____" just seems silly to me. I use my computers professionally. That involves mostly software development with a bit of 2D design work on occasion. What I need out of a laptop is a good screen, a good keyboard, a nice portable form factor, and a processor/GPU good enough to handle those tasks. Is that not Pro enough?

The L4 cache alone doesn't help much, though, as benchmarks have shown.

What it actually helps with is interaction between CPU and GPU (L4 is shared as cache for CPU and video RAM for HD 5200) for improved OpenCL performance. That's also clearly evident on benchmarks.

The problem is that only a handful of applications on OSX make use of OpenCL... and only for very specific features (for instance, in Photoshop, it's only used for a total of something like 5 filters). It can potentially speed things up, but it's barely used right now and Apple isn't pushing developers to implement it.

Meanwhile, the impact to OpenGL performance would affect the workflow of professionals who have to deal with 3D graphics on a regular basis.

Granted, no one would want to run AutoCAD or Maya on a laptop as a regular tool, but in a pinch, it is still useful to have the ability to pull up a complex scene or model and fix it on the fly at decent performance... without having to drop screen resolution, among other things.

And while gaming is not a high priority, it's still good that occasionally I can pull something up on my top of the line MacBook and enjoy the screen (and its resolution).

It's silly to drop $2K+ on a laptop and only expecting to be able to see beautiful texts on it.

 

[jav6454]

1. My "history" was correct. Try reading someone's post first before you go off half-cocked.
2. Everything else you said about it being "no dGPU" confirmed exactly what I said in my post.
3. It was not called a MacBook. It was called a MacBook Pro. It was printed in black and white on the them.
4. Respectfully, how on earth does it matter what you decide to call it? It was a MacBook Pro with a cruddy 9400M stuck on, which allowed them to lower price. Your original statement, "That is why Pro products always carry a performance GPU, to match the CPU," (emphasis added)was clearly inaccurate and flawed. Stop trying to defend it. Admit your mistake with respect to the history and move on.

1. The best example of human defense on the internet.

2. People refered it as a MacBook, read again what I stated. Just because it had the "Pro" on it, didn't mean people thought of it as that.

3. It is not a wrong statement. You just happened to be misunderstanding history. Apple marketed it as a Pro product, but that didn't make it one. That 15" was nothing more than a bid to sell more under the iconic "Pro" branding which. In fact, many believe it was at that point in time when Apple ruined the whole "Pro" deal on the MacBook line.

I don't deem it so, no. While I may in fact be one, the rest of the community who uses Pro products also agrees. The 13" MacBook Pro has nothing of Pro in it. Nothing.

Who determines what is a True Pro product and what isn't? Pro means professional. There are a lot of people who use their computer professionally who do not necessarily need gaming-class GPU performance. The Iris Pro chips do however have some advantages for certain "Pro" use cases, mostly in the fact that they have a gigantic L4 cache.


The whole "but I'm a real Pro and I need _____" just seems silly to me. I use my computers professionally. That involves mostly software development with a bit of 2D design work on occasion. What I need out of a laptop is a good screen, a good keyboard, a nice portable form factor, and a processor/GPU good enough to handle those tasks. Is that not Pro enough?

No one has stated "I need a gaming GPU to make it a Pro product". It is a common misconception that has haunted the Pro market.

Iris is not marketed as a Pro GPU, it is marketed as a good consumer GPU. Trying to sell me consumer as Pro is deceitful at best.

If you want to sell a Pro oriented product, you damn be sure I better see Pro class hardware in there. That is not something I came up with, it is common sense and very widespread in industry.

Apple just likes to brand the MacBooks as Pro to sell more. Simple.

What is Pro enough? When a machine is not built on with consumer parts. This is not rocket science. Want a Pro desktop? Get a Mac Pro or a X79 class PC. That is Pro. Want a laptop in the Pro market? A 15" MacBook Pro is good. 13"? stay away.

 

[dusk007]

There was an aluminum unibody 13" Macbook around 2009-2010

You are right, I stand corrected. I just checked. It was before 2009 though and the only difference to the later Pro versions of that same notebook seem to be the removable battery and the worse display.
The GPU and CPU were pretty much the same. So speed was definitely not what made the Pro worthy of its label.

The problem is that only a handful of applications on OSX make use of OpenCL... and only for very specific features (for instance, in Photoshop, it's only used for a total of something like 5 filters). It can potentially speed things up, but it's barely used right now and Apple isn't pushing developers to implement it.

Now but think about the future. With AMD's HSA coming up, PS4, Xbox 360, the extensions to both DirectX and newest OpenGL concerning shared memory, there will be quite a bit of actual GPGPU coding coming. Today you really need a workload that is perfect for the GPU because it has to basically work a little while on its own or it isn't really worth it, with all the initialization and expensive memory copy (to and from slow memory) all the time. With this whole new shift code that actually uses GPUs strengths much more often will become quite ubiquitous.
With a nvidia GPU you get today some more gaming and some more open GL performance. If you intend to keep your notebook for a while, there is much more potential in a 4950hq. A Nvidia will stay where it is at and with Apple not really get any new drivers very often. That new breed of iGPUs might deliver more utility as time goes on and code catches up.
In three years an Iris Pro model would most likely yield you a higher resale value than a 750M one.

Already nividia sucks at WebGL compared to any sort of APU and the task that is most demanding for mainstream users, reencoding movies for storage or mobile use, is nowhere as fast as on a 4950hq. In many for the mainstream interesting areas I suspect that an Iris Pro will serve very well and better than most.

 

[blueTattoo]

If you want to sell a Pro oriented product, you damn be sure I better see Pro class hardware in there. That is not something I came up with, it is common sense and very widespread in industry.

What Intel's and AMD's integrated solutions will bring to the table may not appeal to the current generation of programs, but it's a game changer for software engineers, the ones that are responsible for great apps, so professionals may, or may not (that's up to them) make money with their work.

What is Pro enough? When a machine is not built on with consumer parts.

So, how is GT 650m not a "consumer part"?

Now but think about the future. With AMD's HSA coming up, PS4, Xbox 360, the extensions to both DirectX and newest OpenGL concerning shared memory, there will be quite a bit of actual GPGPU coding coming.

And that will put macbooks right to the next-gen consoles as a great platform for that kind of development.

BTW, as dusk007 pointed out, since our discussion is rolling, Khronos group tape out new OpenGL and OpenCL standards- It turns out that C++ support is on the roadmap, which was the biggest selling point of HSA initiative (use of general-purpose, higher level languages):

Ryan Smith, from AnandTech: Khronos @ SIGGRAPH 2013: OpenGL 4.4, OpenCL 2.0, & OpenCL 1.2 SPIR Announced

As an added bonus, much like NVIDIA and their use of LLVM for CUDA, by moving to LLVM Khronos gains the ability to quickly and efficiently add support for new high level languages to OpenCL. The separation of backend from the frontend means that Clang merely needs to be extended or replaced to add new languages, and as it stands Clang offers Khronos a very clear path towards enabling C++ in future versions of OpenCL, something that developers have been asking about for quite some time now.

New OpenGL goodies too:

The biggest feature hitting the OpenGL core specification in 4.4 is buffer storage (ARB_buffer_storage). Buffer storage is directly targeted at APUs, SoCs, and other GPU/CPU integrated devices where the two processors share memory pools, address space, and other resources.

In three years an Iris Pro model would most likely yield you a higher resale value than a 750M one.

+++

And it turns out that Iris has some cool stuff to show, graphics wise:

Did you see the preview of Codemasters’ GRID2 running on Intel 4th Gen Core?

From the video:

We bring DX extensions which actually solve problems which games programmers have been trying to address for significant handful of years.

The new DX extensions from Intel are the opportunity for us to go beyond what DirectX in isolation can provide. It's an opportunity for us to put features in to the game that really, really push what DX, and what the hardware itself is capable off.

From the article:

This demo showcased Codemasters’ utilization of the new PixelSync technology found exclusively on 4th Gen Core. PixelSync provides access to underlying hardware that enables programmers to properly composite partially transparent pixels without the need for unbound memory usage and with less expensive sorting operation. This provides an efficient and workable solution to a key problem in computer graphics. Now, game developers have the capability to realistically render smoke, hair*, windows, foliage, fences, and other complex geometry and natural phenomena.

*AMD's TressFX, anyone?

And yes, it is marketing, but a good one, build on features that are worthwhile.

And Beyond3D topic on that matter:

Grid 2 has exclusive Haswell GPU features

My point- not so black and white, I guess.

 

[mr.bee]

Here is what I think Apple's roadmap and strategy for its future products:

* For surfing the net, watching movies, and light gaming, get a MBA...

* For something still portable and better than MBA CPU, iGPU, and display, get a 13" rMBP...

* For something more powerful than the 13", with a bigger screen, a better CPU, iGPU, and finally 16 GB of RAM!!!, get the 15" rMBP...

* For 3D rendering or gaming, get a MacPro...

* For hard gaming, get iPlay, iGames, you name it, the future Apple's XBOX, PSP3 competitor...

It's always like this with Apple laptop lines. It's easy to see what they mean with the macbook air and the mac pro, but in the middle it's like 'if you need something more than web browsing' or 'for something still portable and better than mba cpu'.

The majority of people fall in between the air and the pro lines, and their current selling points extreme battery vs power and retina is nice but there isn't one laptop that fits just between them. the screen and bezel of the air is horrible, but the price and the power of the retina are too much for my needs.
there's nothing just in between.

 

[Crzyrio]

1. The best example of human defense on the internet.

2. People refered it as a MacBook, read again what I stated. Just because it had the "Pro" on it, didn't mean people thought of it as that.

3. It is not a wrong statement. You just happened to be misunderstanding history. Apple marketed it as a Pro product, but that didn't make it one. That 15" was nothing more than a bid to sell more under the iconic "Pro" branding which. In fact, many believe it was at that point in time when Apple ruined the whole "Pro" deal on the MacBook line.

I don't deem it so, no. While I may in fact be one, the rest of the community who uses Pro products also agrees. The 13" MacBook Pro has nothing of Pro in it. Nothing.




No one has stated "I need a gaming GPU to make it a Pro product". It is a common misconception that has haunted the Pro market.

Iris is not marketed as a Pro GPU, it is marketed as a good consumer GPU. Trying to sell me consumer as Pro is deceitful at best.

If you want to sell a Pro oriented product, you damn be sure I better see Pro class hardware in there. That is not something I came up with, it is common sense and very widespread in industry.

Apple just likes to brand the MacBooks as Pro to sell more. Simple.

What is Pro enough? When a machine is not built on with consumer parts. This is not rocket science. Want a Pro desktop? Get a Mac Pro or a X79 class PC. That is Pro. Want a laptop in the Pro market? A 15" MacBook Pro is good. 13"? stay away.

So it something is not marketed as Pro means it isnt pro?

 

[jdevenberg]

For me, it depends on what iGPU and what dGPU we are talking about. I'd rather have Iris Pro 5200 graphics than GT 750m graphics because gaming isn't my primary use for a laptop and that is the only area where the GT 750m is ahead of Iris Pro. In all computational benchmarks (which more accurately reflects my usage) the Iris Pro is either about even with or very far ahead of the 750m. If we start talking about Iris 5100, the advantage is less, but I still think I'd rather have the Iris. Now once we get down to HD 4400 or HD 4600, no I wouldn't buy a MBP with either of those. I do game, and even though it isn't my primary use, it is a consideration and the 4400 and 4600 aren't quite up to the minimum standard I want for gaming. I'm really hoping Apple uses the 5100 or shocks us all and offers an option to upgrade to a quad core with the 5200 in the 13" MBP.

 

[blueTattoo]

So it something is not marketed as Pro means it isnt pro?

HD 5200 is marketed as "Iris Pro", but Nvidia and AMD marketing is obviously more appealing than Intel's one. 😕 😀

 

[john123]

1. The best example of human defense on the internet.

2. People refered it as a MacBook, read again what I stated. Just because it had the "Pro" on it, didn't mean people thought of it as that.

3. It is not a wrong statement. You just happened to be misunderstanding history. Apple marketed it as a Pro product, but that didn't make it one. That 15" was nothing more than a bid to sell more under the iconic "Pro" branding which. In fact, many believe it was at that point in time when Apple ruined the whole "Pro" deal on the MacBook line.

I don't deem it so, no. While I may in fact be one, the rest of the community who uses Pro products also agrees. The 13" MacBook Pro has nothing of Pro in it. Nothing.

And now you purport to speak for the entire user base, and consider yourself an expert on history. Oh brother. People like you really scare me. It was a MacBook Pro. People called it a MacBook Pro. Just like any other MacBook Pro. You are digging yourself a deeper hole. The fact that others have already chimed in to agree with me is evidence of this.

 

[bill-p]

Now but think about the future. With AMD's HSA coming up, PS4, Xbox 360, the extensions to both DirectX and newest OpenGL concerning shared memory, there will be quite a bit of actual GPGPU coding coming. Today you really need a workload that is perfect for the GPU because it has to basically work a little while on its own or it isn't really worth it, with all the initialization and expensive memory copy (to and from slow memory) all the time. With this whole new shift code that actually uses GPUs strengths much more often will become quite ubiquitous.
With a nvidia GPU you get today some more gaming and some more open GL performance. If you intend to keep your notebook for a while, there is much more potential in a 4950hq. A Nvidia will stay where it is at and with Apple not really get any new drivers very often. That new breed of iGPUs might deliver more utility as time goes on and code catches up.
In three years an Iris Pro model would most likely yield you a higher resale value than a 750M one.

Already nividia sucks at WebGL compared to any sort of APU and the task that is most demanding for mainstream users, reencoding movies for storage or mobile use, is nowhere as fast as on a 4950hq. In many for the mainstream interesting areas I suspect that an Iris Pro will serve very well and better than most.

The problem is that nVidia somehow screwed up on OpenCL performance with their Kepler GPUs. But specifically just OpenCL.

DirectCompute is still up to par or better than other comparable GPUs on the market. And obviously better than Iris Pro. Though this is Windows-only.

And CUDA is non-withstanding. It's an nVidia-only technology. It's available on multiple platforms, and there are a lot of applications under Windows that make use of it.

Out of 3 GPGPU tech, nVidia is leading in 2, I think that's enough.

nVidia sucks at WebGL? I beg to differ.
https://www.scirra.com/blog/102/html5-games-faster-than-native

It's actually the other way around. They are unusually better than everyone else at WebGL.

I've been upgrading my PC this week in the Scirra office. Now I'm on Windows 8 with a new nVidia GeForce GTX 660 graphics card. I actually bought it based on some reports from the forum of some unusually high performance results with our WebGL performance test with top-end nVidia cards. So once everything was all set up, I ran the performance test once more.

The result blew my mind. I am not sure if something has gone wrong, or if the test is somehow incorrect. But with this setup and running in Chrome 25, Construct 2's WebGL renderer is faster than our previous native C++ DirectX 9 based engine - the one we developed for Construct Classic.

OpenGL (which WebGL is based on) has always been nVidia's strong suit. No one has been able to dethrone them for a long time. AMD/ATI has come pretty far, but still no dice. And Intel has been a distant third for a long time.

And if you're hoping Mavericks will change the trend... well, sorry to disappoint:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=osx_109_mavericksgl&num=1

But it looks like even on the same Intel GPU, Linux does a far better job at OpenGL than its OSX counterpart. Intel has been so bad in OpenGL performance that it's maddening. That's why people try to avoid Intel GPUs even though you may think they are up to snuff.

Now, if you meant WebCL... well, no browser supports that stuff yet, so naturally, it's not used for anything at all.

Now... I admit Haswell may be faster at encoding videos and such (because of QuickSync, not because of OpenCL). But that's not something mainstream users do on a regular basis. And if you are a professional user, you'd know that you can connect dedicated hardware encoders/decoders via Thunderbolt to process at much faster performance.

But I'm sure your mainstream user would casually waltz into the App Store, purchase a video game, and fire it up on their spanking new Retina Macbook only to find that it runs slower than last-year model.

 

[blueTattoo]

nVidia sucks at WebGL? I beg to differ.

It's actually the other way around. They are unusually better than everyone else at WebGL.

OpenGL (which WebGL is based on) has always been nVidia's strong suit. No one has been able to dethrone them for a long time. AMD/ATI has come pretty far, but still no dice. And Intel has been a distant third for a long time.

Epic Citadel benchmark here, at the end of the article

Iris 5200 - 118
GT 750M -76,8

Yeah, Epic... for real 🙄

 

[bill-p]

Epic Citadel benchmark here, at the end of the article

Iris 5200 - 118
GT 750M -76,8

Yeah, Epic... for real 🙄

Yeah, those results are VERY reliable. For real. 🙄

MacBook Pro Retina mid-2012 model, Intel Core i7 2.3GHz + GeForce GT 650M...

Bootcamp Windows 7, Firefox 22 - 148fps (driver 320.49)
Mac OSX Mavericks 10.9 DP4, Firefox 22 - 104fps (driver 310.40)

Whoo! My 650M is 95% faster than 750M! Surely nothing is wrong with that.

Seriously? I thought someone already posted contradicting numbers to those benchmarks? I guess not.

Edit: added Mavericks DP4 numbers.

If that website was half serious, that means 650M with crippled drivers running under OSX is faster than 750M running under Windows 7 with proper drivers by 30%. And my rMBP is almost twice as fast as whatever else they put there.

But if you ask me, it looks like someone was paid to do Intel a favor...

 

[applepie555]

Yeah, those results are VERY reliable. For real. 🙄

MacBook Pro Retina mid-2012 model, Intel Core i7 2.3GHz + GeForce GT 650M...

Bootcamp Windows 7, Firefox 22 - 148fps
Mac OSX Mavericks 10.9, Firefox 22 - testing...

Whoo! My 650M is 95% faster than 750M! Surely nothing is wrong with that.

Seriously? I thought someone already posted contradicting numbers to those benchmarks? I guess not.

How is the 650m 95% faster

 

[bill-p]

How is the 650m 95% faster

Same benchmark (Epic Citadel HTML5), same platform (Windows 7)

GT 750M (according to that website) - 76.8fps
GT 650M (my own benchmark) - 148fps

Now apply arithmetic...

In case you haven't caught the sarcasm yet, though, I'm sure someone over there ran the Epic Citadel benchmark on the iGPU instead of the dGPU on the 750M machine, but they didn't bother checking, and they went and posted the results instead.

750M should have decimated Iris Pro (HD 5200) in any random WebGL test.

 

[blueTattoo]

MacBook Pro Retina mid-2012 model, Intel Core i7 2.3GHz + GeForce GT 650M...

Bootcamp Windows 7, Firefox 22 - 148fps (driver 320.49)
Mac OSX Mavericks 10.9 DP4, Firefox 22 - 104fps (driver 310.40)

And settings?

I'm sure someone over there ran the Epic Citadel benchmark on the iGPU instead of the dGPU on the 750M machine, but they didn't bother checking, and they went and posted the results instead.

Oh, well and considering the integrated should be hd 4600 in that case, how is that pointing to:

750M should have decimated Iris Pro (HD 5200) in any random WebGL test.

😕

 

[bill-p]

And settings?

What settings? The benchmark...

http://www.unrealengine.com/html5/

Doesn't give you anything other than a "benchmark" button. It's universal.

If anything, I'm running on a Retina Display so the resolution is higher than most other displays.

Oh, well and considering the integrated should be hd 4600 in that case, how is that pointing to:

😕

Because 650M on the Retina MacBook is 25% faster than Iris Pro in that benchmark even considering the higher resolution. And 750M should be faster than 650M.

Also the number (76.8fps) is more in line with the HD 4600 in the same machine (73.2fps), unless you're saying 750M is only 3fps better than HD 4600. That 750M result was obviously running on the iGPU (HD 4600) rather than the 750M.

 

[LiveinRiot]

Guys remember that review is about 750m DDR3 version, and not 750m GDDR5 version. Apple will put GDDR5 version, if you leaving in consideration that 650m in rMBP is the best one on market.

 

[jav6454]

What Intel's and AMD's integrated solutions will bring to the table may not appeal to the current generation of programs, but it's a game changer for software engineers, the ones that are responsible for great apps, so professionals may, or may not (that's up to them) make money with their work.

True, AMD's APUs are great for software developers, but in the light/mobile segment of the market. Not Pro segment. nVidia has been pushing Tegra, but hasn't been able to get a good computing power out of it.

So, how is GT 650m not a "consumer part"?

According to Anandtech's analysis, the GeForce GT 650M, uses a Kelper 107K GPU core at 28nm process. That puts it in direct competition with nVidia's own GT 660M, the difference being the 650M can use either dGDDR5 o sDDR3 memory, while the 660M is dGDDR5 only. So you can theoretically label it a Pro part, even Anandtech says so.

I have never been to keen on the 650M part, I've always stated Apple should have used the GT 660M part. You can easily check this by doing a simple MR search. However, that takes no merit out of the 650M.

However, the 13" lacks any dGPU. Argue that one?

And now you purport to speak for the entire user base, and consider yourself an expert on history. Oh brother. People like you really scare me. It was a MacBook Pro. People called it a MacBook Pro. Just like any other MacBook Pro. You are digging yourself a deeper hole. The fact that others have already chimed in to agree with me is evidence of this.

Your arguments are done, you keep self repeating fallacies over and over. The people who you refer to are nothing but average Joe users who don't know much of hardware. Yes, of course they'll call it a MacBook Pro, and yes, that is the vast majority of them; unluckily. But for those few who see hardware and have passion about it, know that the 13" is nothing but a MacBook with a mislabled "Pro" moniker.

 

[thundersteele]

Pro is just a marketing label. These are all consumer notebooks. Both the 650M and the 660M are mid-range GPUs, nothing more.

My 2ct