New 13" rMBP got discrete GPU?

[kLy]

(Sorry, I first posted this under the laptop section. I didn't see this board since it was classified under "software")

Seems like our Asian brethren have some shots of the new retina MacBook Pro
http://bbs.weiphone.com/read-htm-tid-5337695.html

Can anyone tell from the logic board pic if it's got a discreet GPU? Really really wishing for that 650M. Technically they should have the space for it since they're getting rid of the optical drive.

If not, I'll be pretty sad but also: (1) will that puny Intel HD thing be able to drive 2560x1600? (2) What will they actually use to differentiate this from the next MBA?

Seems like if there's no discreet GPU, it's mostly a battery concern? I wonder if this means the worst of both worlds, having the requirements of a high res display but before a decent enough integrated GPU comes along to power it in the form of Haswell.

Hmmm...

 

[runawayprisoner]

Logic board shows only one big chip. Likely the CPU. So doesn't look like there is a GPU in there. But there are two fans. So you can keep hoping.

1) The puny Intel HD graphics is actually enough to drive 2560x1600. Most of the interface rendering logic would be on the CPU after all.

2) The screen

Also Haswell won't be here until Summer 2013. Why do people keep assuming that it's Haswell?

Article you linked mention a 2.5GHz Core i5.

Some digging will show that it's the same Core i5 3210M used in the current 2012 MacBook Pro 13":
http://ark.intel.com/products/67355/Intel-Core-i5-3210M-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz-rPGA

So it looks like that with the exception of the different thinner design + more ports and better screen, it has the same specs as the current 2012 MacBook Pro 13".

Edit: and since you're paying $1699 for this thing anyway, save up another $500 for the 15". You get an overclocked 650M and quad-core CPU.

 

[TheStu]

Logic board shows only one big chip. Likely the CPU. So doesn't look like there is a GPU in there. But there are two fans. So you can keep hoping.

1) The puny Intel HD graphics is actually enough to drive 2560x1600. Most of the interface rendering logic would be on the CPU after all.

2) The screen

Also Haswell won't be here until Summer 2013. Why do people keep assuming that it's Haswell?

Article you linked mention a 2.5GHz Core i5.

Some digging will show that it's the same Core i5 3210M used in the current 2012 MacBook Pro 13":
http://ark.intel.com/products/67355/Intel-Core-i5-3210M-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz-rPGA

So it looks like that with the exception of the different thinner design + more ports and better screen, it has the same specs as the current 2012 MacBook Pro 13".

Edit: and since you're paying $1699 for this thing anyway, save up another $500 for the 15". You get an overclocked 650M and quad-core CPU.

Just because the 15" rMBP carries a $400 'premium' over the regular 15" doesn't mean that this will as well. And who's to say that they keep the regular 13" around anyway? The rMBPs are the MacBook Pro, and then you have the lower cost, lower spec MacBook Airs. But I suppose we'll know for sure in a few days.

Or not.

 

[kLy]

Logic board shows only one big chip. Likely the CPU. So doesn't look like there is a GPU in there. But there are two fans. So you can keep hoping.

Also Haswell won't be here until Summer 2013. Why do people keep assuming that it's Haswell?

Edit: and since you're paying $1699 for this thing anyway, save up another $500 for the 15". You get an overclocked 650M and quad-core CPU.

I never said this could be Haswell. I said if this didn't have a discreet GPU, the timing of the machine would suck because (1) it would still have to drive 2560x1200 but (2) it didn't have the GPU advantages of Haswell. Forget trying to do any kind of gaming on this thing.

If it indeed does just have the HD4000 that would be really quite sad They've never been able to fit a discreet GPU in a 13" body because of the optical drive. Now that that limitation has been removed, I was really really hoping for a real GPU here. Some other DVD-less 13" notebooks sport discreet GPUs and it seemed only logical that Apple would push for this considering how hard they've been pushing on the GPU front recently due to retina graphics (on both the iPad and 15" rMBP).

If they're putting a premier price tag on this I can't think of a reason not to do a discreet GPU other than perhaps battery life and thermal design.

And no I'm not gonna save up $500 for the 15", I'm not even gonna get it if it's the same price. I want 13" not cos it's cheaper but cos its smaller.

 

[bearxor]

I'll be disappointed as well if there's no discreet gpu. Seems like the perfect machine for me otherwise. Crossing my fingers.

 

[TheStu]

I'll be disappointed as well if there's no discreet gpu. Seems like the perfect machine for me otherwise. Crossing my fingers.

Same. I got the 11" Air shortly after it came out, and I love it, but my iPad supercedes it in most usage cases. Not sure if a 13" rMBP would get me back into using a laptop again, but if it has an actual GPU, then I could at least game on it.

Honestly, the 11" Air wasn't terrible at gaming either considering its size.

 

[mmntech]

Adobe CS supports GPGPU on Windows and I assume it does on Mac as well via OpenCL. So having a discrete GPU has a distinct advantage beyond gaming. Especially with processor intensive apps like After Effects.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Just because the 15" rMBP carries a $400 'premium' over the regular 15" doesn't mean that this will as well. And who's to say that they keep the regular 13" around anyway? The rMBPs are the MacBook Pro, and then you have the lower cost, lower spec MacBook Airs. But I suppose we'll know for sure in a few days.

According to 9to5mac, their sources stated that the low end model would be around $1699. I'm taking that with a grain of salt, of course, but I can totally see it happen by rationalizing Apple's pricing tiers.

For instance, it looks like Apple will price the rMBP at that level only to keep it from cannibalizing the MBA 13", if nothing else.

I never said this could be Haswell. I said if this didn't have a discreet GPU, the timing of the machine would suck because (1) it would still have to drive 2560x1200 but (2) it didn't have the GPU advantages of Haswell. Forget trying to do any kind of gaming on this thing.

If it indeed does just have the HD4000 that would be really quite sad They've never been able to fit a discreet GPU in a 13" body because of the optical drive. Now that that limitation has been removed, I was really really hoping for a real GPU here. Some other DVD-less 13" notebooks sport discreet GPUs and it seemed only logical that Apple would push for this considering how hard they've been pushing on the GPU front recently due to retina graphics (on both the iPad and 15" rMBP).

If they're putting a premier price tag on this I can't think of a reason not to do a discreet GPU other than perhaps battery life and thermal design.

And no I'm not gonna save up $500 for the 15", I'm not even gonna get it if it's the same price. I want 13" not cos it's cheaper but cos its smaller.

You can clearly see from the photos that Apple fitted two fans into this machine. It's the first 13" MacBook with two fans from what I can see, which shows how serious they are at heat dissipation on this one. Weird... considering the 15" has much more heat-sensitive components (quad-core CPU, dedicated GPU).

Here's the purported logic board of the 13" unit:

It shows that the heatsink connected to the two fans are only overlaying one big chip in the middle. I highlighted it so you can see.

On the 15", the same heatsink is connected to two big chips, with the one in the middle being the quad-core CPU, and the one slightly to the right being the 650M GPU:

So if those photos are right... I'd say the 13" rMBP likely won't come with a dedicated GPU.

 

[kLy]

Thanks for the analysis runawayprisoner makes sense. Sucks those images are so crappy resolution.

I do wonder why so much space was left for 2 fans then. Especially since previous systems with the same CPU/GPU had only one fan and would have produced more heat (hard drive, optical etc.) You'd think such a space premium would be rather used for something like battery. On the other hand Apple has made stranger decisions about space before (like the single drive Mac mini which had nothing but empty space where drive 2 would go).

If its integrated, is there any chance that there's something other than a HD 4000 that could be producing more heat to warrant the fans?

 

[Eug]

Discreet: Unobtrusive
Discrete: Separate

-

Yeah, I would definitely wait for the benchmarks and user reviews. Even the 15" rMBP has had some reported lag issues, despite the fact it has a discrete GPU. So, even with a discrete GPU, the 13" rMBP may have such issues, and without, it's likely.

This is often the case with version 1 Apple products. The idea is there, but the implementation isn't alway perfect, because of technical limitations of hardware at the time, or because of features intentionally left out for marketing reasons.

BTW, having two mid rpm thin fans would be quieter than having one high rpm thin fan.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Let's see... some maths would show the rMBP 15" as having 60.5 cubic inches volume for the bottom assembly, and the purported rMBP 13" as having 48.9 cubic inches volume for the bottom assembly.

That means the rMBP 13" has a bottom assembly that is just shy of 20% smaller than the 15" rMBP.

Yet Apple needs to fit a battery that's about 15 - 16% smaller than that of the 15" version in the 13" version in order to offset the power consumption of the Retina screen. Battery analysis would show the 13" rMBP as having a battery that's about 80WHr. Compare that to 95WHr in the 15" rMBP and you'll see where the 15 - 16% figure comes from.

So it turns out Apple has about 5% less space to stack things in the rMBP 13" compared to the 15" version. Space is seriously at a premium there considering both laptops are insanely thin already (0.71" means they are actually thinner than the MacBook Air while housing significantly more powerful components). 5% of approximately 60 cubic inches means they are essentially losing about 2.5 inches in either dimension of board space. That's quite a significant loss if you ask me, also considering chips don't scale down in % in the 13" rMBP. You don't get a CPU that's 20% smaller or anything like that. As unfortunate as it may be.

So I think the tightly packed components coupled with the thinner body forced them to implement a dual-fan configuration. In contrast, since they have 2.5 inches more in either dimension in the 15", they have more room to fit a dedicated GPU in, and still have enough for bigger fans.

 

[Eug]

I betcha this design is basically a Haswell design, but a generation early.

As I implied earlier, Apple has a habit of doing this. Version 2 of the 13" rMBP in 2013 will be the machine to get. BTW, by that time, it will also have 802.11ac.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Haswell will just have faster GPU performance and not much else. I think people are blowing Haswell up too much... almost as if it's a magical fix for everything that's happening to this generation of hardware.

Most of the performance issues with the rMBP are actually all Apple's fault. They are still trying to work out software kinks. Though admittedly, the 15" rMBP is almost perfect... if only Apple would push out another EFI update for it.

 

[Eug]

Haswell will just have faster GPU performance and not much else. I think people are blowing Haswell up too much... almost as if it's a magical fix for everything that's happening to this generation of hardware.

Most of the performance issues with the rMBP are actually all Apple's fault. They are still trying to work out software kinks. Though admittedly, the 15" rMBP is almost perfect... if only Apple would push out another EFI update for it.

The number one issue for the 13" Retina MacBook Pro is GPU speed, which is why Haswell could be a big boost.

It could mean the difference between smooth Mac OS X vs. laggy Mac OS X. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that really matters in a machine like this. Everything else is fine. If the OS lags, then it's not OK, no matter how good everything else is.

 

[runawayprisoner]

The number one issue for the 13" Retina MacBook Pro is GPU speed, which is why Haswell could be a big boost.

It could mean the difference between smooth Mac OS X vs. laggy Mac OS X. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that really matters in a machine like this. Everything else is fine. If the OS lags, then it's not OK, no matter how good everything else is.

You can actually use gfxCardStatus to turn off the dedicated GPU in the 15" rMBP completely, and interface performance would not get better or worse. This is because Apple isn't using the GPU for many things. The CPU is still partially responsible for many interface elements under OSX.

Add to that the fact that the last EFI update from Apple causes a lot of rMBP to throttle the CPU to 1.2GHz indefinitely until SMC is reset and you get the recipe for extreme lag.

So it's actually the CPU that is the limiting factor. Not the GPU.

If you still don't believe me, compare OSX interface performance between a MacBook Air 13" and a MacBook Pro 13" of this current generation. See which one is faster.

 

[Eug]

Even if that's true, all the more reason to wait until the next generation. Haswell's performance per Watt is said to be much better, which is a big deal when you're talking uber-thin 13" laptops. At the same wattage, Haswell will provide much more performance than Ivy Bridge.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Well, again, I think that's still blowing things way up. Haswell is not a magical fix for Ivy Bridge... just like Ivy isn't really a magical fix for Sandy.

It'll matter more for ULV implementations where Intel is shooting for 10W power consumption rather than 17W, but I don't see any change for higher TDP packages. The rMBP 13" most likely rocks a full 25W CPU.

I think it'll benefit the MacBook Air more than the MacBook Pro. And even then, the increase in performance (save for the GPU) will most likely be marginal. Just like it has always been.

 

[dagamer34]

Well, again, I think that's still blowing things way up. Haswell is not a magical fix for Ivy Bridge... just like Ivy isn't really a magical fix for Sandy.

It'll matter more for ULV implementations where Intel is shooting for 10W power consumption rather than 17W, but I don't see any change for higher TDP packages. The rMBP 13" most likely rocks a full 25W CPU.

I think it'll benefit the MacBook Air more than the MacBook Pro. And even then, the increase in performance (save for the GPU) will most likely be marginal. Just like it has always been.

Doubling the EUs but a lower clock speed in the Haswell GPU is supposed to give a 100% boost in performance in some SKUs, but like the Haswell platform piece Anand did a few weeks ago, the real increases come with Broadwell and a new architecture. Plus, let's also not forget the embedded DRAM which Apple was heavily pushing for in Ivy Bridge, but won't come until Haswell. I feel like the Retina display was built around having that chip, but Apple released it a year too early for whatever reason.

 

[alkemyst]

, but Apple released it a year too early for whatever reason.

Forced upgrade.

Apple knows it's user base will pay to play.

 

[Subyman]

The HD4000 supports up to 3 display devices (2 DP and 1 DVI/HDMI/VGA.) It supports 2560x1600 for DP and up to 1920x1200 with an aux DP plus another 1920x1200 via DVI. So in theory, you could have three monitors like this:

DP port 1: 2560x1600
DP port 2: up to 1920x1200
DVI port: up to 1920x1200

All running concurrently. That is what it "supports", I doubt you would get smooth performance when running intensive tasks though. So that's your answer. Apple will have to limit the external resolution that the MBP can output OR step down the resolution of the MBP's built in monitor when a high resolution monitor is hooked up OR require the MBP be in clamshell mode when hooked to a high resolution external monitor.

Unless they figured out some trickery to make it work.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Doubling the EUs but a lower clock speed in the Haswell GPU is supposed to give a 100% boost in performance in some SKUs, but like the Haswell platform piece Anand did a few weeks ago, the real increases come with Broadwell and a new architecture. Plus, let's also not forget the embedded DRAM which Apple was heavily pushing for in Ivy Bridge, but won't come until Haswell. I feel like the Retina display was built around having that chip, but Apple released it a year too early for whatever reason.

It's just like the iPad 3. They want to push this tech out of the door and get the manufacturing process solidified. By next year, they'll be able to get more efficient parts in and finalize the production chain.

I have no doubt that the next generation of the Retina MacBook Pro line will be perfect, or close to that, in terms of hardware features. But that doesn't condemn the current generation. Just like Apple did not condemn the Unibody MacBook Pro 15" 2008 model by introducing a 2009 or 2010 model. In fact, it took Apple up to 2011 to introduce a quad-core MacBook Pro 15" model that really separated itself from the older generation. The 2008, 2009 and 2010 models just had minuscule gains in processing power.

So I think we are seeing the same thing here, and until Intel knows how to Turbo Boost their quad-core processors to past 4GHz, or until they know how to shrink octo-core processors down to fit into notebooks, I don't think we'll see any significant leap in performance any time soon.

And that's what I kept saying. Haswell isn't a magical fix for Ivy, nor is Ivy a magical fix for Sandy. Haswell will be faster, but it won't blow your mind or condemn its big brother.

The HD4000 supports up to 3 display devices (2 DP and 1 DVI/HDMI/VGA.) It supports 2560x1600 for DP and up to 1920x1200 with an aux DP plus another 1920x1200 via DVI. So in theory, you could have three monitors like this:

DP port 1: 2560x1600
DP port 2: up to 1920x1200
DVI port: up to 1920x1200

All running concurrently. That is what it "supports", I doubt you would get smooth performance when running intensive tasks though. So that's your answer. Apple will have to limit the external resolution that the MBP can output OR step down the resolution of the MBP's built in monitor when a high resolution monitor is hooked up OR require the MBP be in clamshell mode when hooked to a high resolution external monitor.

Unless they figured out some trickery to make it work.

Note that Apple uses Thunderbolt ports, not Mini DisplayPorts.

While it's true that Intel HD4000 alone won't be able to drive 3 simultaneous displays exceeding those resolutions, nothing is stopping Apple from introducing a new Thunderbolt display that has a built-in graphics processor to handle the extra pixels. The end result would actually be that the Intel HD4000 won't be responsible at all for driving any external display connected to Thunderbolt (not in Mini DP mode), and it'll only be responsible for the internal display + the HDMI port at most.

It's just a guess, but I think that's the logical step Apple would take if they want to advertise their rMBP 13" as being able to drive multiple high resolution external displays.

 

[Eug]

I'm glad I didn't succumb to the urge to buy the unibody 13" MacBook. I waited just one generation and got the unibody 13" MacBook Pro. That's still my main laptop today. My next one should have USB 3.0, 802.11ac, and preferably retina that's nice and smooth.

 

[Subyman]

Note that Apple uses Thunderbolt ports, not Mini DisplayPorts.

While it's true that Intel HD4000 alone won't be able to drive 3 simultaneous displays exceeding those resolutions, nothing is stopping Apple from introducing a new Thunderbolt display that has a built-in graphics processor to handle the extra pixels. The end result would actually be that the Intel HD4000 won't be responsible at all for driving any external display connected to Thunderbolt (not in Mini DP mode), and it'll only be responsible for the internal display + the HDMI port at most.

It's just a guess, but I think that's the logical step Apple would take if they want to advertise their rMBP 13" as being able to drive multiple high resolution external displays.

The Thunderbolt connector uses DP pipelines for video, so they are equal from that stand point.

I think it would be a step backwards. I'd argue most people with MBP's use the display they have, which is not a Apple Cinema display. That is why apple has long offered a DVI adapter. Then again, the only people affected by the limited resolution would be professionals. Apple has shown they do not market or design for them much any more. The normal consumer doesn't use 1200p+ displays.

 

[AkumaX]

it has to have a discrete GPU, thunderbolt won't output another monitor with integrated

(well, i haven't tried a low-res monitor. that might work..)

ex: w/ rMBP, i can't use integrated to output to my 2560x1440 monitor (in OSX or windows) - discrete has to be on

 

[TheStu]

it has to have a discrete GPU, thunderbolt won't output another monitor with integrated

(well, i haven't tried a low-res monitor. that might work..)

ex: w/ rMBP, i can't use integrated to output to my 2560x1440 monitor (in OSX or windows) - discrete has to be on

How are you using the integrated GPU in Windows? I thought that it didn't work correctly?