[joveblue]

Originally Posted by PB PM 25% is significant, especially when you hook your notebook up to a high resolution external monitor! Most people buy new computers when a new generation of CPUs that come out are 25% faster than the ones they currently have for goodness sake!

Then you'd probably be quite pleased with the new IGP's in the 13" MBPs, which are "up to 1.8x faster" than the 9400Ms according to Apple.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by joveblue Then you'd probably be quite pleased with the new IGP's in the 13" MBPs, which are "up to 1.8x faster" than the 9400Ms according to Apple.

Apple have been pretty good at understating battery performance recently. So I should perhaps cut them some slack.. But I'll believe it when I see the real world benchmarks.

If it is true then these IGPs are about 50% faster than a 9600M GT. Which I honestly doubt.

I think the "up to" is the key part of this. And is probably referring to moving memory between the CPU and GPU - which is effectively doing nothing! Let's see how they actually are at drawing - which is what GPUs are actually for.

EDIT : Are there actually Intel IGPs in the 13". I thought they were Nvidia GPUs? I have little doubt that any updated Nvidia offering will be faster than it's previous version. It's the Intel ones that will suck balls.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by scratt EDIT : Are there actually IGPs in the 13". I thought they were Nvidia GPUs?

Er, yeah, that's what I meant, sorry.



Here's where the 1.8x figure comes from:



So it's 1.8x faster at Doom 3, but only 1.3x faster at Quake 4. So yeah, "up to" is the key part.

Still looks like a very decent upgrade. Would need to be pitted head-to-head against the 9600M to compare them properly I suppose.

Also, just heard it was specially designed for Apple.

[scratt]

Doesn't look too shabby, even at 1.3x. Especially in the bottom of the range machine.

I'd certainly rather have one of those as my second GPU in a 15" or 17", but obviously that wouldn't be possible with an i5 or i7. *sigh*

[Mugge]

It sez Nvidia:

Originally Posted by Apple NVIDIA GeForce 320M graphics processor with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory.

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs-13inch.html

[PB PM]

Yeah, since the 13" model still uses C2D, it is not forced to use the Intel IGPs.

[Mugge]

Maybe Apple thinks that C2D with Nvidia IGP offers better performance than i3 with Intel IGP?

[PB PM]

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, either that or they saw they could get a higher profit margin/product ratio out of going that way, without an overly noticeable difference in performance. Desktop Core i3 chips are faster than comparable C2D chips, but I'm not sure if the same can be said for the mobile i3 chips.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Mugge Maybe Apple thinks that C2D with Nvidia IGP offers better performance than i3 with Intel IGP?

That's pretty much it.

[scratt]

I rest my case about Intel IGPs.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by joveblue That's pretty much it.

The wording in that email is so casual and terse that it must be Steve!

[Capella]

Just to throw in a personal opinion based entirely on anecdotal evidence: I can play- and I beat the entirety of- Dragon Age on a 9400M at medium specs. No way in hell I can do that on a GMA950 or even the, what was it, X3100 they upgraded to? The 9400M is a nice card for low-level occasional laptop gaming. The new one will be better.

[Chinney]

Yes, I don't know what all the complaints are about. I assume that Apple's choices here are dictated by a number of factors, with power management being near the top. We are seeing some real gains in battery life, while maintaining quite nice performance. If you want screaming gaming performance, you are going to get a desktop, (and probably not an Apple desktop). Kudos to Apple for paying strong attention to the performance/power balance in their laptop offerings.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by Majost I've been looking around at the benchmarks I could find, and it seems as though the T9550 Core2Duo (I think that's what's in the 13") consistently outperforms the i3s. It's even on par with the entry level i5s. The i5s in the 15" (520M and 540M) do beat it, but it's really not by all that much. (The most comprehensive set of benchmarks I've found is at notebookcheck... I don't know how reliable they are, though.) Then add in the price differential between the C2D and the Arrandale, as well as Apple's apparent distaste for Intel's integrated graphics, and it's a no-brainer. Well, except for the fact that C2D is no longer the cool new kid. Everyone wants an Arrandale.

Cool, that's good to know, I didn't know that!

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by scratt I rest my case about Intel IGPs.

Nobody ever said the Intel IGPs were faster, I never did. I just said they were more power efficient when it comes to the ability to turn off the dedicated GPU, which is an Nvidia card.

Originally Posted by Chinney Yes, I don't know what all the complaints are about. I assume that Apple's choices here are dictated by a number of factors, with power management being near the top. We are seeing some real gains in battery life, while maintaining quite nice performance. If you want screaming gaming performance, you are going to get a desktop, (and probably not an Apple desktop). Kudos to Apple for paying strong attention to the performance/power balance in their laptop offerings.

Chinney GPUs are used for a lot more than gaming now days, so that is not even the issue at hand. Heck, the only games I play are from 3-5 years ago and the 9400M just manages to play them at minimum specs under bootcamp!

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by PB PM Chinney GPUs are used for a lot more than gaming now days, so that is not even the issue at hand. Heck, the only games I play are from 3-5 years ago and the 9400M just manages to play them at minimum specs under bootcamp!

My kids play games from that period pretty well on even my older Macs. On my Fall 2009 MBP, with the 9400M, they play very well.

Games are far from my own focus, but have moved all of my GPU intensive photo work on to my MBP. Smooth as silk.

As I understand it, the new MBP has a better integrated graphics than mine plus a new dedicated GPU, and a new way to switch back and forth depending on needs. Again, I am not seeing the big complaint. I agree that the new MBP still does not have cutting edge graphics capability, but for that you probably would not normally choose a laptop. I have seen reviews of a couple of PCs that are advertised to ship with such capabilities, but performance seems less than advertised and battery life appears to be abysmal. What Apple has chosen to do is deliver well-balanced laptops with good graphics performance and outstanding battery life. Sounds good to me.

[MBHockey]

Does anyone have links to comparisons between the i5 and i7 CPUs in terms of performance and heat output?

I'm about to purchase a 15" MacBook Pro that I plan to have last me through medical school which starts in August. I'm trying to get the best bang for the buck, so if the i7 performance is better while not turning my MBP into a toaster I might go with that. But if it's only marginally better, gives off more heat, and decreases battery life then I'd view the base 15" model as the best value.

Any insights?

I should probably say that I'll be using it mainly for consumer usage (Word, Excel, interwebs) along with playing StarCraft 2, editing photos with Pixelmator, and editing short HD videos from my Panasonic ZS3 in iMovie/Final Cut Express

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Chinney As I understand it, the new MBP has a better integrated graphics than mine plus a new dedicated GPU, and a new way to switch back and forth depending on needs.

The new integrated graphics processor is much worse than yours, which is really what the fuss is about.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by PB PM Nobody ever said the Intel IGPs were faster, I never did. I just said they were more power efficient when it comes to the ability to turn off the dedicated GPU, which is an Nvidia card.

Hmm. But you miss a point I made earlier...

Less capable "alternate" silicon will mean that you have to power up the big guns more often.
So it's possible (and this is pure speculation on my part) that the Intel IGPs may work out costing you more power consumption than the 9400M (or similar updated silicon from Nvidia) would, simply because you can't use them as much.

Case in point. A real world example....
I can develop in the iPhone and iPad Simulator on my current MBP using the 9400M. It's as good as the 9600M GT for that. I will not be able to do that with the Intel IGPs. I can guarantee that.

So if I was sat on the beach with a new MBP bought today, I would get worse battery life than with my current MBP. Guaranteed.

For me, as a "Pro" user of Apple's "Pro" machines this new "feature" makes them a bit sucky.
I have my iPhone, 12" G4, or my iPad for emails. I don't need a pissy low power IGP for that.
What I want is a machine that is capable of running at shows and demos and saving power, but still offering all the features I need.

Two GPUs is nice. One good GPU is also fine.
But if you are going to give me two GPUs, give me two I want, and make them switch on the fly.
Even better let me choose to have them both on at the same time. (I can dream!)

At the end of the day I still think this dual GPU thing is a fudge from Apple.
It was when they didn't have on-the-fly switching - which they could have enabled.
And now it's a fudge because Intel shafted the GPU industry, and Apple.

[PB PM]

If your iPhone can run the app, I'm sure the Intel IGP will be able to handle it. No offense, but that is just silly, you haven't even used it and your saying its garbage. Benchmarks never tell the real story. I give examples of how bad the 9400M is for my usage, and people discount it, but none of you have even used the Intel IGP yet and you trash it based on some benchmarks, not even on how you would use it yourself. BS!

[scratt]

Originally Posted by PB PM If your iPhone can run the app, I'm sure the Intel IGP will be able to handle it. No offense, but that is just silly, you haven't even used it and your saying its garbage.

Err. No.

The iPad Simulator actually runs *slower* than the real iPad. And when working in GLES2.0 even the iPhone Simulator runs slower than 3G iPhones and iPods, and that's on the 9600, backed up by a 2.99 Ghz Core 2 Duo.

It's mainly to do with the fact that the GL stuff is being run through an emulation layer.
I've actually asked a "friend" to try this on a new MBP. He says the Intel IGP won't cut it too.

It's pants. Period.

What's even funnier is that you're sticking up for it, and *you* haven't even tried it!

[PB PM]

Well that is just a sign of poor coding then, not the fault of the GPU. Whether people like it or not, they are going to be stuck with Intel IGPs from now on with notebooks, because Intel isn't going to be removing them from their mobile offerings any time soon.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by PB PM Well that is just a sign of poor coding then, not the fault of the GPU.

Oh well I guess I could just rewrite Apple's developer tools then and use Intel's IGP with my new version. Should only take me a year or so to knock up my own Intel IGP optimised iPhone Simulator... The next year I can re-code the iPad one. Of course I'll need to write both a GLES1.x and a GLES2.0 version.... and hook it into Xcode and everything.

Thanks for clearing that up dude. These new IGPs are really the way forward.
You've opened my eyes now. Thanks.

Perhaps Apple have a switch that let's the Nvidia GPUs run the "good code" and the Intel IGPs only get the "bad code". All I need to do is find the plist and change the settings perhaps?
I wouldn't need to hand code Intel IGP specific drivers myself then....

Nothing to do with the fact that the Intel GL drivers and silicon are shit then? Silly me!

[PB PM]

I'm not saying it's your fault, it's Apple. Don't take things so personally, its just an IGP for goodness take.

[scratt]

I'm not dude. I'm falling of my chair laughing.

[PB PM]

Don't recall saying you were...

[Noel]

Originally Posted by PB PM Don't take things so personally

Originally Posted by scratt I'm not dude.

Originally Posted by PB PM Don't recall saying you were...

[turtle]

Who thought Intel could bring such emotions!

[scratt]

You guys are lucky. I actually had to have the conversation from beginning to end.

Noel, I have no idea what he means at any point, let alone that last bit that confused you.

[PB PM]

Oh boy. Not sure how what I said was confusing. I mean what I say. Sure the Intel IGP isn't great, but it isn't the end of the world either.