Apple May Have Cut Kepler GPUs From Some New MacBooks

[TEAMSWITCHER]

[citation][nom]LuckyDucky7[/nom]That's too bad... but since when did Apple care about performance? It's also strange (to me) that Intel would delay Ivy Bridge because of Apple; because Intel would have known beforehand that Apple would want processors- and they'd need the same number anyways even with a Keplar GPU.[/citation]

Apple always cares about performance, but they temper that against other design goals like size, weight, thermals, etc.. Every other manufacturer is doing the exact same thing - it is a reality of modern industrial design. It's dead wrong to state otherwise.

When it comes to Intel customers - Apple is alone in the highest tier. Apple doesn't buy any of the low-cost Celeron or Pentium brand products. Apple buys Intel products without co-marketing kick-backs for putting Intel stickers on devices. Apple product launches are often covered by major news networks like FOX, NBC, and ABC, and Intel loves that level of exposure. Sure the iPad is a sore spot for Intel, but all they need to do is develop a better chip, and Apple would buy that too. Intel loves Apple!

 

[kcotton]

I' sorry but how does a company, Apple, that represents less than 8 percent of the pc market share effect supply of cpu's? It doesn't. As much adoration as Apple gets, it did not 'buy up' all of the ivy bridge stock and force a late release to the public. That's just wishful thinking on ifans part.

 

[fiduce]

Vladislaus : my answer was as sarcastic as the guy I was answering to. So what if they want to give those laptops a second Thunderbolt port ? (second display port --> graphic card)

 

[walter87]

[citation][nom]shardey[/nom]Always have to have the reference to pc being a dominate gaming machine. How about the people who actually use a GPU for something other than a hobby?[/citation]

Dedicated Graphics >>

If video editing/encoding or CAD is required, cpu/gpu combos like AMD APU's and Intel HD Graphics + cpu don't come anywhere close to dedicate workstation or mid-high-end graphics.

Regardless, even if your using it for other appllications other than 'hobby' (games) you will still see PC is better simply because of the greater flexibility of better dedicated graphics card options.

 

[philipjacobs]

Intel $300M Investment Ultrabooks
Just curious, Has no one read anything abou this????
Google anything about this. Intel is trying to directly compete with the macbook air.
http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2011/08/10/intel-capital-creates-300-million-ultrabook-fund
I know it doesn't directly corelate, but who knows?

 

[impreza]

Apple puts in the world worst gpus yet charges more than something with a real gpu, they should at least look to amd to get some real gpu that has real 3d performance unlike intel's junk that is no good for any demanding 3d task. It wouldn't surprise me if some mobile gpus can now outperform intel.

 

[memadmax]

/SadMac

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]Not all people use dedicated GPUs just for gaming, they also have other uses. Or do you think that Nvidia has the Quadro and ATI the FirePro for gamers? Now the integrated GPU may be enough for people that want to browse the web or edit text, spreadsheet,... documents. Some people need the power of a dedicated GPU like for example running 3D CAD, modeling, animation, rendering,... software.[/citation]
You get a lot of QuadroFX and FireproGL cards in Macbooks?
...
All those things are done on a dedicated workstation, usually accompanied with a massive professional 30" monitor, never, ever, a laptop

 

[virtualban]

[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]You don't need a bobcat bulldozer to dig a 1 foot hole.[/citation]
I see what you did there.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

Kepler probably just performs too well, so Apple has to ignore it to keep up with expectations

 

[halcyon]

Love my Mac Pro and MacBook Pro and OS X. ...but to be honest they perform amazingly well and smooth, and I don't think its just because they have RAID'd SSDs and 24GB and 16GB of RAM respectively. ...but yet I can't find the interest within myself to game on them lately. ...or on my overclocked Phenom II x4 965.

...but my Apple gear's graphics abilities are fine for when I do decide to game...trust me.

 

[lamorpa]

Nope. More like Nvidia is not ramping up production at the prices Apple is willing to pay. As always, Apple sells one generation back technology at premium prices to people who care more about marketing hype than specs. Nvidia is far to smart to play their games.

 

[shardey]

[citation][nom]GozerHozer[/nom]I thought Apple only made iPhones.. Honestly being in the IT field for 16 years any person who knows anything about IT does not use Apple.[/citation]

Maybe people don't want to spend the extra money for the aesthetics, or the great battery life? 16 years in the field, well the past 3-4 years is when Apple has finally been keeping up-to-date with their machine specifications. I would like to se a 17" thats less than an inch thick, has a 93 w/H battery, maintains around 7-8 hours of use (I get more battery life from running OS X and Windows in parallels then I do running bootcamp) and looks as nice as this machine does. To me, it sounds like some people don't like to spend the extra money on something like this. I have my 6750m under volted and over clocked and runs cooler (AS-5 installed) and performs well. Not to mention it isn't a plastic monster.

Your ignorance isn't bliss

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]shardey[/nom]Maybe people don't want to spend the extra money for the aesthetics, or the great battery life? 16 years in the field, well the past 3-4 years is when Apple has finally been keeping up-to-date with their machine specifications. I would like to se a 17" thats less than an inch thick, has a 93 w/H battery, maintains around 7-8 hours of use (I get more battery life from running OS X and Windows in parallels then I do running bootcamp) and looks as nice as this machine does. To me, it sounds like some people don't like to spend the extra money on something like this. I have my 6750m under volted and over clocked and runs cooler (AS-5 installed) and performs well. Not to mention it isn't a plastic monster.Your ignorance isn't bliss[/citation]

The folks that don't value a MacBook Pro for what it offers are the same folks that think the Asus, HP, and Sager are the machines that are the best. Its okay. ...as long as those folks don't stop me from getting my MacBook Pro or Mac Pro and decide for me that I have to build a PC to be as intelligent as they we're fine.

...I just built yet another PC...a little overclocked AMD Phenom II x4 965-based toy. ...and that's precisely all I think an AMD CPU'd machine could ever be next to my Mac Pro. ...but it will have its purposes. ...sheesh...while money is certainly not irrelevant its not everything either.

 

[kcotton]

[citation][nom]philipjacobs[/nom]Intel $300M Investment UltrabooksJust curious, Has no one read anything abou this????Google anything about this. Intel is trying to directly compete with the macbook air. http://newsroom.intel.com/communit [...] abook-fundI know it doesn't directly corelate, but who knows?[/citation]

Actually, Intel is NOT trying to compete with the AIR. The AIR represents less than 10% of the laptop market. Besides, Apple uses Intels chips, why would they compete against themselves.

I believe they are trying to, indirectly, compete with ARM. People would tend to buy an ultrabook and not a tablet or the other way around but not both. Also, $1000 for a full computer v/s 500-1000 for a computer-lite. The ultra book would be the logical, most cost effective purchase. At least that it what intel is hoping.

I will give you that Apple is a huge/profitable company, but you people give way too much credit to their influence on other company's direction, decisions, and abilities.

 

[eddieroolz]

This can mean that Ivy Bridge's integrated graphics can be considered powerful enough for a lot of things, or Apple is simply trying to use their large sales figure as leverage.