This year's weak dGPU is just a rebrand. A Macbook Pro isn't a workstation or server, it's a laptop and real world battery life is a bigger selling point to pros/firms than gaming performance.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mac Hardware and Software |OT| - All things Macintosh
- Thread starter 3N16MA
- Start date
This year's weak dGPU is just a rebrand. A Macbook Pro isn't a workstation or server, it's a laptop and real world battery life is a bigger selling point to pros/firms than gaming performance.
Gorgon
Member
a) I'm talking about people who want horsepower in an easy to transport factor. Otherwise I could just say "buy the new Mac Pro" and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
b) Everything is just a matter of time, the point is if it is time yet. Regarding the Iris in particular, maybe you're right and it basically matches the dedicated GPU now present on the 15'' Macbook Pro. If that is the case, then maybe I would agree with you. On the other hand, if that is the case then maybe the GPU on the 15'' was far from the best option to begin with? Are people happy about the GPU power of the 15''?
All things that you can pay more to have on your Air for the same price as buying the Pro to begin with, if my memory serves me well (and depending on which country you buy). If you upgrade the processor to the max in both you do get a few more Ghz out of the Pro, bur maybe the problem here is what we understand the Pro to be. For gaming maybe the extra Ghz in a dual-core format are still preferable to a weaker speed per core in the quad, but I see the Pro as a working machine, not as a gaming machine. And for heavy duty processing tasks a quad core is what I'd want. Different perspectives, maybe, but then it's up to Apple to have a clear vision on what they want the Pro to be. Since Apple never cared a fuck about gaming, I suppose they see the Macbook Pro as something that should give you the best options for mobile work (as opposed to gaming). Again, either turn the 13'' into a real Pro machine or kill it.
What exactely is a "pro" to you? I need a notebook for my work that gives me a combination of horsepower and portability as my main computer and like me there are many without dedicated desktops. If those firms are more concerned about battery than horsepower then maybe what they want is an Air, not the power of Pro to begin with? Battery life is fine but it's the least of my worries sice fortunately there are plenty of energy sockets around and I don't usually spend 12 hours straight every day doing heavy duty work in the middle of the desert. It's as if the only "professional" consumers amounted to video/photo editors who want to do some shit on a airplane. Battery life is fine and everyone wants more. But that is not what the pro should be about. But that's just my opinion.
For me it amounts to this: if you want a portable computer to send some emails, make presentation, surf the web, etc while you spend a huge amount of time on transportation than go for Air. But if you need to do heavier computing while being abble to lug your computer from place to place, then your concern is with more with power than having 12 hours of battery life. Do some work on the go for a few hours but plug your machine to the socket when you reach your destination. There has always to be some compromise based on your needs, you can't avoid it. That's the point of having the Airs and the Pros. The problem here is that Apple doesn't seem to be abble to decide what it wants the two lines of macbooks to be.
I hear you, but Macbook Pros have always been marketed towards the photo/video editor types. The entire rMPB presentation was about being able to edit full 1080p video in a small window and how many megapixels you can see in Aperture. That crowd would likely see the same performance at a substantially better real world battery life if Apple got rid of the dGPU.
I was skeptical about the Iris Pro as well, but the benchmarks posted in this thread really won me over.
There are notebooks out there for people who require more power, Apple just left that market when the 17" was discontinued.
I was skeptical about the Iris Pro as well, but the benchmarks posted in this thread really won me over.
There are notebooks out there for people who require more power, Apple just left that market when the 17" was discontinued.
Who's talking about gaming performance?
Who says the photo/video editors don't need more power? A dGPU is optimized for processing graphical tasks and that is especially relevant to photo/video editors.
Gorgon
Member
Yep, I believe you're right. It's just that for me it's a pitty that the term "professionals" means only photo/video editing in Apple's vocabulary. They'll be loosing some customers in the future, although they won't feel it financially (unfortunately).
There is no actual separate contrast adjustment, but consider checking accessibility options, because in there is an option to artificially increase contrast for visually impaired users. One time I inadvertently bumped it with a shortcut key and everything looked weird.
In other news, I pulled the trigger on a new iMac. Preparing for shipment!
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Just get the best you can. I had a 2010 MBP and I got an SSD from Kingston and it worked magic. And that was 3 years ago. They're much better now. I also ordered a screwdriver to open the machine as well so I didn't end up searching all over for one. I got it from NewEgg and it came in a package deal that included an external case for the old HDD.
Gorgon
Member
That's impressive. Thanks for sharing. One of those things in a 13'' Macbook Pro together with a quad-core (I think they're in the same die) is all I could wish for (they could also make the Macbook Pro line all black aluminium to match the new Mac Pro; that would look sweet).
According to who? All the Haswell chips wattage ratings went up by 2. (Source: Anandtech.) The only ones to go down (by 2) were the ULV parts. Either way, 45 is still high for the 13 incher.
Yes, Intel got their stuff squared away on OpenCL and good timing too with Adobe now fully supporting it. (AMD GPU's though rip through OpenCL.) However, those decodes can be misleading.. They still have their limits though as the software rendered is still the best. For quick transcodes like your tablet and phone it works wonders.
Jayayess1190
Member
ULV's went down by 5W:
And the 13 inchers could use the 37W quad core, but more likely a 28W with the 5100 or maybe some unannounced "M" series (all of which have the 4600)
Not sure where you're getting your numbers. Especially the 37 watt quad core (there isn't one in the article.)
Unless this is relative to the power savings with more being built into the die.
This is going by Anandtechs article on the dual core parts. (I like Anand's CPU articles.)
Thinking about quad cores in the 13" MBP; I only wanted one because when I consulted I ran Ubuntu and Win7/8 in VMware. (MBP SB i7 2.7 Ghz w/ 16GB) I was hurting for more cores since giving Fusion 2 cores chocked the MBP. (Though Win 8 alleviated that with better performance with 1 core.)
Why do some of you guys want quad cores in a 13" model? (I'm curious.) Win 8 + Fusion 5 work awesome can't think of a reason why I'd want a quad core over a nice high clocked dual core.
Jayayess1190
Member
Nice, wonder why those are so much lower than the rest of the line. They're the same wattage as the dual cores too. Wonder what's up with that.
CrudeDiatribe
Member
Use the built-in calibration-by-eyeball system in System Preferences > Display > Colour.
Gorgon
Member
For us working in bioinformatics, phylogenetic analysis, robust statistics/bayesian statistics, etc, quad-cores are desirable to do decent preliminary work, since the software is very suitable and highly scalable to increasing core number. Of course we do have computers at work, including computer clusters and supercomputers, but you also need a portable solution that you can lug with you when you go somewhere. Many of us use either Macbook Pros or Linux solutions (because we use the command line a lot and Bash Shell in Unix is what you want). Unix systems are also great when we do the real heavy work on servers/supercomputers, since the integration is seamless (both use Unix systems). A quad-core 13'' would strike a good balance between portabilty and work capacity.
Nice....maybe that will find it's way into the 13'' Pro?
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
I wish the next generation entry level 13" Retina would either A) gain an i7 at baseline or B) gain a 256GB Flash at base line so I don't have to spend $400 out of the gate on it. Flash would be nice. Can't believe prices are still so high in 2013. Also a Quad-Core option. And a Discrete graphics option. Oh and a 16GB RAM option. Basically let the 13" optionally be more like its 15" bigger brother. Though I picture such a machine would be more expensive than even the low-end 15". Still...
I have money. Just give me a new machine. Sooner than October if possible.
I have money. Just give me a new machine. Sooner than October if possible.
Gorgon
Member
There are two baseline 13'', and one of them does offer you 256GB as a baseline for less than 400USD difference from the 128GB 13''.
A discreet GPU on the 13'' won't happen. But Iris may happen, and it should. The quad-core should happen too, if Apple gets their act together.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
It ends up being the same price. But the higher baseline has a slightly better processor. It's an oddity that you can configure a lower end 13" with 256 and a 2.5GHz i5 or 2.9GHz i7, or a high end 13" with 256 but a 2.6GHz i5 or 3.0GHz i7. Why the 0.1GHz difference between the two models? They might as well just have one model because the second one is practically the same except that it has 256GB default. They end up being the same exact price in the end. But with the ONLY difference being the 0.1GHz extra.
What's Iris?
$400 extra over the baseline lower end is what I'd be paying to get the 256GB and i7. I just want them to make one or the other default on the baseline when the new models come out. I figure the 256GB Flash has a better chance of becoming the lowest amount over an i7 being the lowest processor. But I doubt either'd happen. 128 will probably still end up being the lowest end. And the prices will probably stay the same. They already came down $200 in February. So I am prepared to spend at least $1899 when the time comes. I just want as much as they can throw in there. 16GB RAM isn't even an option on the 13". I hope maybe that changes. Same with quad-core. It's time the 13" stopped being a second-class citizen to the 15" models. Let me spend a little more to get quad core and more RAM unless it's a technical issue. But maybe we'll be lucky and they've been able to cram even more in there and can give us those extra things they haven't been able to yet. But I'm not holding my breath.
Gorgon
Member
True, although the price difference in some countries is different and may pay off.
An integrated solution that is faster than what is found now on the 15'' model. It's what we can hope for the 13'' and probably will be part of the 15'' eventually, with different specs.
I believe that Apple is savy enough to come up with a solution for a Quad-core on a 13''. maybe even 16GB ram. The problem is that Apple is more obsessed into turning the Pros into glorified tablets than into pro computers. Apparently it's more important for them to shave off 1mm thickness from the 13'' to match the 15'' than to make a pro product.
In what context?
Iris Pro is not faster than the 650 (only in OpenCL it is.) Interesting fact about Iris Pro: Intel is charging the same for iris pro than what Apple pays for its i7 + 650. Iris Pro is comparable yet the total package is 47w total (clocked at 2.4 GHz last I checked.) That would do wonders for the 15" battery life though we won't see it this round in a 13".
Edit: 650 seems faster but the difference is negligible if you're not gaming (even while gaming it seems arguable if the difference would be noticeable.)
You can have 16GBs in the IB based MBPs really it's just Apple only allowing it on their top tier notebooks. No trick to it. Take any of the MBPs that are upgradable and add 16 GBs. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge in the MBPs supported this from day 1 (the ones you could upgrade yourself anyway.)
I don't get the baseline model policy either. It really pays off if you're eligible for the AoC discount, because options receive a far smaller discount for whatever reason.
So, I'm going to save up for a MBP. Thinking of getting the 15-inch: 2.4GHz with Retina Display.
I have wanted a MBP for a long time, I haven't really had the money available for me to save, but now I do. Is there any reason why I shouldn't get this MBP? I will probably be able to afford in three/four months (hopefully)
I have wanted a MBP for a long time, I haven't really had the money available for me to save, but now I do. Is there any reason why I shouldn't get this MBP? I will probably be able to afford in three/four months (hopefully)
Gorgon
Member
For a 13'' it's perfect. At least for me, since I don't need a top GPU, just a quad-core. But I suspect Apple's objective is to put integrated solutions on all Pros and drop discreet GPUs even on the 15''.
Gorgon
Member
I'll eventually get a 13 incher myself but my advice is that if you have to wait a few months then you should wait for the revised models.
Don't see how anyone could tell you not to get it with out any more information from you. What do you need a mobile computer for?
Cash seems to be a big factor going by what you said about saving. You can always go 13" MBP Air or 13" MBP. In general, nobody really needs a quad core or the best specs, it just makes things better moreover, what a quad core can do so can a dual core albeit not as fast or as efficient (or as pretty.
) I know I couldn't bring myself to spend the money on 15" MBP in 2011 when I wanted one. Once the need came when I needed to develop OSX/iOS it became a work need for me. Dropping the money for the 13" with the fastest i7 was done without a second thought. When I wanted it, I debated specs to the last detail and convinced myself I needed a quad core. When I needed it, the fact that the machine could do what I needed was enough.
Will you be using this for work? Will it bring you more money? My purchase brought in money and then some. The MBP 13 (with the 16GB from corsair) paid for itself several times over and then some (my career.)
Also Fall is the best time to purchase a Apple computer because of their Back to School Promotions. (2011 it was a free 100 USD App Store gift card which came in very handy.)
Don't see how anyone could tell you not to get it with out any more information from you. What do you need a mobile computer for?
Cash seems to be a big factor going by what you said about saving. You can always go 13" MBP Air or 13" MBP. In general, nobody really needs a quad core or the best specs, it just makes things better moreover, what a quad core can do so can a dual core albeit not as fast or as efficient (or as pretty.
I know I couldn't bring myself to spend the money on 15" MBP in 2011 when I wanted one. Once the need came when I needed to develop OSX/iOS it became a work need for me. Dropping the money for the 13" with the fastest i7 was done without a second thought. When I wanted it, I debated specs to the last detail and convinced myself I needed a quad core. When I needed it, the fact that the machine could do what I needed was enough.
Will you be using this for work? Will it bring you more money? My purchase brought in money and then some. The MBP 13 (with the 16GB from corsair) paid for itself several times over and then some (my career.)
Also Fall is the best time to purchase a Apple computer because of their Back to School Promotions. (2011 it was a free 100 USD App Store gift card which came in very handy.)
I will be using it for work occasionally, it will not bring me more money unfortunately - unless I decide to start developing for iOS.
I would use it for every day use, emails, internet browsing but the extra power (graphics card) to play a few games, nothing too intense but maybe like EVE, or some indie games. So some gaming but not loads. I have used OSX before and have really liked it, I have an iPhone and iPad and love the fact that everything links together. I love the look and feel of the actual laptop and I want something that will last me for quite some time.
By then we'll know how the upcoming models stack up, it's impossible to give you an answer now. The form factor won't change, so just try them out in a store to see whether you prefer portability or screen real estate.
Where would you be using it? Are you planning to take advantage of the battery life?
One thing about my MBP is that it ramps up when stressed. (iMovie for example and when I ran WoW once.) Mobility wise you're not going to be gaming it on it or doing anything that ramps it up unless plugged in and on a desk. (It gets hot.) Even then, 650 may be better but only benchmark wise.
Honestly, you'd be better off with a 13" MBA (w/ 8 GBs). Are you a student? (Go for the student discount.)
1400 USD (1340 student) MBA w/ i5 5000 HD GPU w/ 8GB 13" + Apple Care 250 USD (183.00 student) + what ever Apps you'll need and 12 Hours of battery life (10 real world most likely.)
Versus 2200 + 349 for the 15" Entry Model plus whatever else you'll need to go with it.
I love my MBP as my personal and work machine (work is buying me a MBP 15" for strictly work) and see no reason to get rid of it or upgrade now even though its been retired to just a personal machine.
There is more to love in an MacBook/OSX than gaming. If gaming is a deciding factor, you're not going to get far as that is still a work in progress. My MBP 13 w/ 3000 Intel HD GPU runs Trine and Trine 2 beautifully as well as Plants vs Zombies.
My new 4770K w/ 4600 HD Graphics plays WoW at fair settings (the 4770K was a want, I just built an SFF gaming machine.) I can try to benchmark EVE for you if you want. The HD 5000 GPU on the MBA's should run those better.Where would you be using it? Are you planning to take advantage of the battery life?
One thing about my MBP is that it ramps up when stressed. (iMovie for example and when I ran WoW once.) Mobility wise you're not going to be gaming it on it or doing anything that ramps it up unless plugged in and on a desk. (It gets hot.) Even then, 650 may be better but only benchmark wise.
Honestly, you'd be better off with a 13" MBA (w/ 8 GBs). Are you a student? (Go for the student discount.)
1400 USD (1340 student) MBA w/ i5 5000 HD GPU w/ 8GB 13" + Apple Care 250 USD (183.00 student) + what ever Apps you'll need and 12 Hours of battery life (10 real world most likely.)
Versus 2200 + 349 for the 15" Entry Model plus whatever else you'll need to go with it.
I love my MBP as my personal and work machine (work is buying me a MBP 15" for strictly work) and see no reason to get rid of it or upgrade now even though its been retired to just a personal machine.
There is more to love in an MacBook/OSX than gaming. If gaming is a deciding factor, you're not going to get far as that is still a work in progress. My MBP 13 w/ 3000 Intel HD GPU runs Trine and Trine 2 beautifully as well as Plants vs Zombies.
To be fair, I think everywhere I would be would be at least in proximity of a power socket to plug it in. Unfortunately, I'm not a student - I would love to get that discount
Gaming isn't the deciding factor. Through this, I'm now thinking MBA may be the best idea. £1339.99 for i7 & 8GB and £199 for Apple Care putting it up to £1537.99 against the MBP which is £1799 as standard and £279 for Apple Care (holy fuck, that's expensive) - putting it to £2078. I think I need to go find my nearest Apple store and go have a play.
Fantastical
Death Prophet
I reset my SMC, but that didn't seem to help too much... Temperatures seem to be maybe better than before, but it's still not strange for me to have a few tabs open in Chrome and be at 60C.
How long did yours take to arrive? My order was placed through my employer (i.e., I can't obsessively track it) on Friday and I'm expecting it around Wednesday. I saw that yours shipped from Asia, though.
Also, how's it performing, generally? I'm not concerned with power, but is it truly as fast as Apple's marketing makes it out to be? Where do you notice it chug and where do you notice it shine?
I ordered it Monday, came on friday. I haven't done anything crazy with it yet so I haven't actually noticed it chug. I didn't buy it to do anything crazy but I'm sure it'll perform perfectly fine doing some lighter photo editing and the like.
One thing I noticed from my old MPB is flash. HBO Go would make it heat up and work like crazy. Heat is staying low on this and there doesn't seem to be any noticeable performance hit.
Honestly, if anyone is looking for a solid laptop for everyday use, it's amazing. Any other questions, let me know.
Gary Whitta
Member
What's the consensus on the new Mac Pro?
Drive bays are gone which is a big negative.
Its a cylinder, but 1/8th the size or something.
Its powerful.
There are not many HD 5000 benchmarks out, especially with bootcamp.
However, the HD 5000 and HD 4000 are comparable. So I'm just wondering if the HD 4000 run games like the walking dead, costume quest, kotor, other indie titles at native resolution (1440x900).
Does anyone use their HD 4000 macbook air to play games in bootcamp? Does it handle fine?
However, the HD 5000 and HD 4000 are comparable. So I'm just wondering if the HD 4000 run games like the walking dead, costume quest, kotor, other indie titles at native resolution (1440x900).
Does anyone use their HD 4000 macbook air to play games in bootcamp? Does it handle fine?
Can you comment on emulators, such as pcsx2 (PS2) and dolphin (gamecube/wii)?
Dolphin is extremely processor dependent. It requires a decently high clock speed to produce accurately.
Emulating PS2 games on any hardware is difficult iirc, emulating multiple chips and synchronizing is a head ache.
I highly doubt the MBA could run these well just because of the requirements for emulation are different.
Gorgon
Member
Not sure if sticking a quad core in there will still enable you to get much gain in terms of battery life as has been the case with the new Airs. Specially with all the rumors about Apple wanting to shave off 1 friggin mm of the 13'' case thickness just to match the 15''. But I guess it could be nonetheless increased.
But yeah, I'm with you on this: give me a 13'' with Iris and a Quad.
Crazymoogle
Member
CrudeDiatribe
Member
Only that at full-tilt it'll use more juice than the i5 at full-tilt, but assuming your task has a finite lifespan it'll be done sooner. Whether that makes it a wash or favours one or the other, I know not.
Running either flat out will miss the quoted battery life by a fair margin.
Doing undemanding things and there'll be no difference.
For some reason Apple feels the need to gimp the 13" processor in comparison to the 15". Ever since forever they never allow you to put the better processor into the smaller form factor laptop etc. For the longest time I have wished that they would change that...
Last year I had to get the 15" rMBP quad core when I really wanted the 13" because the 13" dual core processor was not enough for me.
Since the Airs now put the fastest processor in both the 11" and the 13" hopefully the same happens to the rMBP in the next refresh.