Would you buy a rMBP without a dedicated GPU?

[iPoopeh]

I'm hoping that the rumor about the 15'' rMBP not having a dGPU isn't true. Otherwise I'm not buying it if it came out during the summer. I know Mac's are not used for gaming, but I would be playing some games on there, and would like that extra GPU power for Adobe Programs.

 

[Apple Mac Daz]

Yes and i will buy the next rmbp only if it does not have a dgpu.
If your waiting for apple to release another MacBook with dedicated graphics you are gonna be waiting a long time!

Apple has 2 choices.
Announce a 15 inch which is basically 10% faster then the current model on graphics and CPU. About the same battery life.

Or release an iris pro version which is only slower on gaming (Opencl may well be faster on iris) , still gains like 5% in CPU but then they can claim all their MacBooks have all day battery life. Because of the energy savings and the bigger battery.( smaller PCB = bigger battery)

Not hard to predict which way apple is going IMHO. Especially because we have seen the geekbench score for such a machine already.

And for people suggesting a 765m please stop. Those razers get extremely hot even with an energy efficient cheap tn panel. Which is maybe acceptable in a gamers laptop but not for one aimed at pro's.

Wether you agree or disagree regarding iGPU a laptop in excess of £2000 shouldn't have just a iGPU especially a Pro line machine

 

[Count Blah]

Wether you agree or disagree regarding iGPU a laptop in excess of £2000 shouldn't have just a iGPU especially a Pro line machine

True. Here's to hoping Apple graces us with a default 1 Gigs of RAM. Heck windows laptops WITH dGPU have been sporting 2 Gigs pretty much standard for a while now.

 

[nihilisticmonk]

Its not an excuse - just plain fact actually. Despite Apple trying to sell the Mac for games, its never come close to decent for anyone that understands the true gaming potential on computers... and for that matter, all laptops even purpose built PC gaming laptops are still quite a compromise.

Using a Mac for gaming is a bad excuse for not having proper gaming hardware.

Total poppycock. Not everyone wants a "rig" bro. Not everyone games like you do. You're making a presumption on something you have never tried to live with. I have.

"Proper gaming hardware" never heard such ball bags. This is what "gamers" always say. Even a 2011 17" with a 6750 can run a decent amount of games at a decent res. played Bioshock infinite at 720p alright & looked better than the 360 version. Sleeping dogs as well. Games have detail sliders for a reason. Some people like the gameplay not just the "pretty" as well.

I have an X51 for your narrow view of what playing games is, but my diablo, a quick game of counter-strike etc, I do use my Mac. My main machine.

I don't want an intel with all the ****** compatibility and bad ports it could bring.

 

[Livewings]

Charging a machine with iGPU only for $2000 is ridiculous.
NO DGPU, NO SALE.

 

[tmiw]

I don't want an intel with all the ****** compatibility and bad ports it could bring.

Wouldn't it be Apple's fault for any driver issues anyway? At least if you're on OSX.

 

[jcpb]

True. Here's to hoping Apple graces us with a default 1 Gigs of RAM. Heck windows laptops WITH dGPU have been sporting 2 Gigs pretty much standard for a while now.

Lots of PC laptops pair 2GB VRAM with their dGPUs. Problem with that is a lot of those dGPUs are slow and thus would choke before they get to use all of that VRAM.

 

[bill-p]

Somehow I have my doubts that people that are really serious about AutoCAD and Maya rendering stuff are all that much into Apple notebooks. It is probably a very very small amount of customers and Apple traditionally cares about the majority.
Most of these people use workstation graphics on Windows. I cannot even find any sort of information of how those applications perform in OSX.

They do advertise their notebooks as being capable of running those applications.

And if you have ever tried them, you'd know that lack of a dedicated GPU really hurts performance. A lot. For daily use, they're not even feasible.

Apple would be backtracking on this page if they decide to hamper GPU performance:
http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/performance-retina/

For one use case where the dGPU might be necessary: there are people who view AutoCAD models while on the go. Or maybe someone wants to show their client how a design looks like at a meeting. I'm sure workstations can't be brought into most meetings due to their size and weight (and constraints like external display, power supply, etc...)

Granted, I agree that that's a very small niche market, but they are still there, nonetheless, and the last rMBP delivered to a certain point.

I agree with that. It is certainly not a breakthrough in GPU performance, only in iGPU performance. It is close enough for Apple not to care for the difference and many things will come down to drivers. As far as OpenGL goes Intel's GPUs seem to be better under OSX than under Windows. Since Apple could never keep up with Nvidia's Windows drivers under OSX the Intel GPU with some Apple driver department help might be even closer than comparable benchmarks in Windows suggest.
Even the Intel HD 3000 vs Nvidia 320M comparison looked not as bad for Intel in OSX than it it did under Windows.

The 320M was a special case, because it was custom-made specifically for Apple computers. Apple would not have been able to keep up with nVidia's drivers under Windows... since not a lot of those drivers actually supported the 320M to begin with. The end result was that the 320M wasn't even that much faster than the 9400M even though its raw specs should be better.

But with the 650M, things have changed. The difference between Windows and OSX is actually pretty minimal, and Apple has been on top of drivers for a good while. Version is still behind Windows, but performance is not. I find no difference between playing Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2 under Windows or OSX. Same for AutoCAD. And seeing as AutoCAD under Mac has finally caught up to Windows version somewhat (some very specific features are missing but I can do those in VM), I've deleted my Bootcamp partition recently.

And no matter how you spin it, Iris Pro could never keep up at higher resolutions because of its bandwidth constraints. That's a hardware limitation, not software.

The benchmarked resolutions for Iris Pro were actually lower than what the Retina Display is, and if Apple brings out a 4K Thunderbolt Display, it'll just be more trouble.

 

[neteng101]

I don't want an intel with all the ****** compatibility and bad ports it could bring.

Explain what you mean? There's really no difference here, the Iris Pro will be a lesser 650M and perform at a GT 640 level, which if you want to do your "compromised" soft of gaming on, you can still do it with the Iris Pro.

Mac ports in themselves are another thing, they're just bad and none of them simply perform as well as they would same game running under Windows Bootcamp. All you're relying on is the dGPU to make up a bit of the performance loss form these bad ports.

If you're already ok with compromised gaming, then the 750M vs. Iris Pro isn't much to worry about.

If Apple was serious about dGPU and gaming performance to an extent, the least they'd do is use a 765M (higher clocked 760M)... both of these will never fit into the power profile of the rMBP though. Anything less than a 765M I feel isn't worthwhile having a seperate dGPU on the rMBP... the HD4000 struggled in OSX itself on retina displays, as long as Iris Pro rectifies that, its perfectly fine having an rMBP without a dGPU.

 

[Quu]

If you read my post, you'd see I didn't leave that out. You show no sign of having any real understanding of how Photoshop uses the GPU and which processing resources affect performance for when it does. Hint: If the GPU is full engaged in a 750M like GPU accelerated filter comparison, the left over CPU speed doesn't matter, unless you encode with handbrake in the background.

When using Photoshop in my workflow I am also using many CPU intensive applications. I'm not just using Photoshop. I have my Mac hooked up to an external 30" display and using both that and the main notebook display for my workflow and thus need all the power there is.

Again you don't understand other peoples workflows so you can't use a one size fits all approach to this. Base clock matters to those of us that actually use the capabilities of the machine we are buying.

 

[Laucian Nailor]

Can't bring myself to write the many reasons so will instead go to the:

TLDR

No, just no!

 

[neteng101]

When using Photoshop in my workflow I am also using many CPU intensive applications.

You still don't understand how Photoshop uses the GPU period. All that matters here is OpenCL performance, which the Iris Pro has plenty of and exceeds the 650M too.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/17

Adobe doesn't use CUDA in CS6 so there's nothing to be gained from the Nvidia GPU at all. Iris Pro is actually going to make things better, not worse.

The only use for a dGPU that an Iris Pro can't match yet is gaming. And then I'll tell you as I've told everyone else, a Mac just ain't a great gaming platform to begin with, so you're not really losing much there.

 

[Quu]

You still don't understand how Photoshop uses the GPU period. All that matters here is OpenCL performance, which the Iris Pro has plenty of and exceeds the 650M too.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/17

Adobe doesn't use CUDA in CS6 so there's nothing to be gained from the Nvidia GPU at all. Iris Pro is actually going to make things better, not worse.

The only use for a dGPU that an Iris Pro can't match yet is gaming. And then I'll tell you as I've told everyone else, a Mac just ain't a great gaming platform to begin with, so you're not really losing much there.

I understand perfectly that when the GPU is loaded up the CPU will not reach its maximum boost clock due to its thermal design power reaching its maximum. Which means the CPU will remain at 2.4GHz when utilising the GPU and CPU to a high degree.

And if the old notebooks are anything to go by, just plugging in an external display to a MacBook Pro makes the GPU go to full clock speed and voltage which in itself will raise power consumption meaning the boost clock of 3.8GHz becomes unobtainable while hooked up to an external display.

Look at my signature, look at the hardware I'm running, I built those two computers myself and I know what I'm talking about. I am a software developer and I have worked with CUDA and OpenCL in my software in the past so to be told I don't know what I'm talking about is pretty hilarious to me. FYI NVIDIA supports OpenCL on all their cards and has done so for years.

 

[neteng101]

I understand perfectly that when the GPU is loaded up the CPU will not reach its maximum boost clock due to its thermal design power reaching its maximum. Which means the CPU will remain at 2.4GHz when utilising the GPU and CPU to a high degree.

Still not true... you may not reach max turbo boost if you get throttled thermally, but should still see some level of turbo boost.

But if you really need all that power as you seem to think you need per your signature, then no laptop is going to come close to what you can get on a workstation class desktop anyhow. In which case you should be looking at the Mac Pro refresh.

I bet the new Haswell without a dGPU will still outperform your 17" unibody in actual compute terms. You're far too caught up in numbers, higher clock rates doesn't equate to better compute power.

 

[Quu]

Still not true... you may not reach max turbo boost if you get throttled thermally, but should still see some level of turbo boost.

But if you really need all that power as you seem to think you need per your signature, then no laptop is going to come close to what you can get on a workstation class desktop anyhow. In which case you should be looking at the Mac Pro refresh.

I bet the new Haswell without a dGPU will still outperform your 17" unibody in actual compute terms. You're far too caught up in numbers, higher clock rates doesn't equate to better compute power.

To me the 2012 rMBP was a great machine. In 2012. I want Apple to surpass that this year with increased performance.

These geekbench scores show that the 2.4GHz chip is comparable to 2012's 2.7GHz Ivy Bridge chip. The 8MB Cache model. And it is a bit faster than this years 2.7GHz 6MB Cache model.

My point is, I didn't wait 14+ months to get a computer that performs the same as last year. I want them to put a 2.8GHz CPU in this that outperforms last years top end model, not matches it. And I want a faster Dedicated GPU. They put in an overclocked 650m last year, this year I want either a 750m or a 760m, not Iris Pro that barely .. BARELY meets the 650m of last year in OpenCL and is slower in 3D applications.

Last years MacBook Pro is really laggy I've tried one and it needs all the GPU power it can get, I'm not a believer in that the Iris Pro can handle that 2880x1800 screen with two 2560x1440/1600 displays like the current Retina MacBook Pro can.

Maybe in a year or two Intels integrated chips will be faster than Dedicated graphics processors but that isn't the case today.

 

[-LikesMac-]

See, the biggest reason why I think the rMBP is not that good is that it doesn't have a good enough GPU.
I find it insane that the rMBP 15 has the same kind of GPU as the MBP 15 and even more insane that the rMBP 13 has the exact same integrated GPU as the MBP 13.

Simply put, I would never buy a rMBP without a dedicated GPU.

If the non-retina MBPs were phased out though, that would be a different story, for there would be no choice.

 

[2IS]

Not made for gaming, huh?

Image

You think macbooks are made for gaming because of a marketing picture? lol

As to the original question, yes, I will buy one without a dGPU because I have a machine intended for gaming, and a macbook isn't it. Though I'm waiting for haswell and their improved IGP before jumping on an rMBP. At the resolutions we are talking about, the improvement in Haswell's IGP will be put to good use even for day to day usage.

 

[Quu]

You think macbooks are made for gaming because of a marketing picture? lol

Well people seem convinced that a 2.4GHz CPU with a 47 Watt TDP is higher end then a 2.8GHz CPU just because it has a higher product model number so I guess marketing works.

i7-4950HQ / 6MB Cache / 2.4GHz Base Clock / 3.6GHz Turbo / 47 Watts

Now compare that to the CPU that doesn't have Iris Pro

i7-4900MQ / 8MB Cache / 2.8GHz Base Clock / 3.8GHz Turbo / 47 Watts

Bold parts are the differences. As you can see the i7-4950HQ is a slower CPU but it has a higher model number to indicate it is faster. The only thing faster about it is the GPU, but people still think it is a high end processor.

The i7-4950HQ is actually the same base CPU performance as the i7-4700EQ which is a 2.4GHz / 6MB Cache Base clock CPU at $370 - Apparently the 4950HQ costs $657 so we are paying a $287 premium over a i7-4700EQ for the same performance but a bit of a boost in its Integrated graphics and of course we lose the dedicated graphics.

Awesome. /sarcasm

 

[tmiw]

Well people seem convinced that a 2.4GHz CPU with a 47 Watt TDP is higher end then a 2.8GHz CPU just because it has a higher product model number so I guess marketing works.

i7-4950HQ / 6MB Cache / 2.4GHz Base Clock / 3.8GHz Turbo / 47 Watts

Now compare that to the CPU that doesn't have Iris Pro

i7-4900MQ / 8MB Cache / 2.8GHz Base Clock / 3.8GHz Turbo / 47 Watts

Bold parts are the differences. As you can see the i7-4950HQ is a slower CPU but it has a higher model number to indicate it is faster. The only thing faster about it is the GPU, but people still think it is a high end processor.

The i7-4950HQ is actually the same base CPU performance as the i7-4700EQ which is a 2.4GHz / 6MB Cache Base clock CPU at $370 - Apparently the 4950HQ costs $657 so we are paying a $287 premium over a i7-4700EQ for the same performance but a bit of a boost in its Integrated graphics and of course we lose the dedicated graphics.

Awesome. /sarcasm

We really don't know what Apple's planning. There could be a BTO/higher end version that has the 4900MQ and a dedicated GPU for all we know. Let's save the anger until Apple actually announces something.

 

[neteng101]

Maybe in a year or two Intels integrated chips will be faster than Dedicated graphics processors but that isn't the case today.

Then wait another year or two?

Haswell is all about increasing power efficiency and not a performance intended upgrade at all. That's what Intel is aiming for even, not just Apple.

And you don't seem to understand about GPU compute which is where the Iris Pro does very well, and that's how a lower clock speed CPU is actually worth more than one without the OpenCL performance built into it.

In any case - you can do whatever you want, but I suspect you'll be waiting for Broadwell, which is likely an early 2015 option now that its been delayed. Why not just buy a 2012 rMBP at a steep discount right now - in any case either of these options will totally blow away your aging 17".

Anyone expecting a dGPU with the refresh is going to be disappointed. And Apple has done a GPU performance drop in the past before... 2011 MBA had the HD3000 which was a downgrade from the 320M, yet that sold just fine anyways.

 

[LoMonkey]

You think macbooks are made for gaming because of a marketing picture? lol

As to the original question, yes, I will buy one without a dGPU because I have a machine intended for gaming, and a macbook isn't it. Though I'm waiting for haswell and their improved IGP before jumping on an rMBP. At the resolutions we are talking about, the improvement in Haswell's IGP will be put to good use even for day to day usage.

He was saying Apple is making a statement that MBPs are not made for gaming by not including a dGPU. I pointed out, that Apple is advertising their MBPs as gaming machines as well.

Just because your definition of gaming probably means running Crysis 5 or whatever version they are on currently doesn't mean that is the only type of gaming that exists. I personally play Starcraft 2, Age of Empires, and older Counter Strike games that, while not extremely graphically intensive, will benefit from a dGPU. I don't have a dedicated gaming machine, nor do I want one. I want ONE machine that is portable, stylish, secure, will last me at least another 5 years, and has enough power to play some games. The awesome retina display is a plus as well.

Not everyone wants two (or more) computers, and that's why Macs are so great. They can do it all. When you can't do it on OS X, run Bootcamp.

That's what I got out of my MBP in '08, and that's what I want out of the next refresh. I want a dGPU, too.

 

[bill-p]

Well people seem convinced that a 2.4GHz CPU with a 47 Watt TDP is higher end then a 2.8GHz CPU just because it has a higher product model number so I guess marketing works.

i7-4950HQ / 6MB Cache / 2.4GHz Base Clock / 3.8GHz Turbo / 47 Watts

Now compare that to the CPU that doesn't have Iris Pro

i7-4900MQ / 8MB Cache / 2.8GHz Base Clock / 3.8GHz Turbo / 47 Watts

Bold parts are the differences. As you can see the i7-4950HQ is a slower CPU but it has a higher model number to indicate it is faster. The only thing faster about it is the GPU, but people still think it is a high end processor.

The i7-4950HQ is actually the same base CPU performance as the i7-4700EQ which is a 2.4GHz / 6MB Cache Base clock CPU at $370 - Apparently the 4950HQ costs $657 so we are paying a $287 premium over a i7-4700EQ for the same performance but a bit of a boost in its Integrated graphics and of course we lose the dedicated graphics.

Awesome. /sarcasm

Higher number does indicate higher-end part in Intel's inventory. That has been the rule since forever.

The 4950HQ has lower performance only because Iris Pro offsets the TDP and forces Intel to scale its performance back, but it does come with 128MB L4 cache as opposed to 6MB L3 cache like other processors.

That's what all Iris Pro-equipped CPUs have: 128MB of L4.

Theoretically, that should improve memory performance.

Realistically, we haven't seen much.

OpenCL gets a boost, though, because the CPU can interchange data with the GPU much easier since the cache is shared. Data interchangeability between CPU and GPU has always been that bottleneck for OpenCL and any GPGPU computing in general.

And technically, if you consider OpenCL performance, CPUs equipped with Iris Pro are indeed faster than those without. This means a nice boost to certain tasks in Photoshop. (by certain, I mean very specific tools like Liquify)

 

[Quu]

We really don't know what Apple's planning. There could be a BTO/higher end version that has the 4900MQ and a dedicated GPU for all we know. Let's save the anger until Apple actually announces something.

I'm not angry so I'm sorry if it came across that way. I just don't think Apple is going to dump the Dedicated card at this juncture.

 

[bill-p]

I'm not angry so I'm sorry if it came across that way. I just don't think Apple is going to dump the Dedicated card at this juncture.

They already showed that intention when they tried to push Intel to produce faster integrated GPU.

I'm as unhappy as the next guy about this move, but it seems inevitable.

Otherwise they wouldn't have let that benchmark result be found.

 

[Qaanol]

They already showed that intention when they tried to push Intel to produce faster integrated GPU.

I'm as unhappy as the next guy about this move, but it seems inevitable.

Otherwise they wouldn't have let that benchmark result be found.

Well, seeing as I am the “next guy”, I will reiterate that I am extremely happy about the 15.4″ rMBP moving entirely to onboard graphics.

The whole concept of jamming a dGPU into a laptop forces way too many compromises. It is almost as bad as an optical drive: something that is rarely used, takes up space that could go to more battery, requires extra complexity to include, and when it does get used it draws power and makes noise.

I expect to be thoroughly satisfied with the tremendous graphical prowess of HD 5200.