Ivy Bridge Macbook Pro

Apple Adds High-DPI Versions of Pointers in OS X 10.7.3 - Mac Rumors

Since December, there has been rumors that the ivy bridge refresh of the MBP line would include a high-dpi screen.

What do you guys think? Personally I think that they are most likely gearing up for a hi-res screen in their iMac lineup, since laptops with hi-res screens like that would suffer from diminishing battery lives.

 

What is it with high resolution displays and Apple rumors now? Ever since the iPhone 4, every rumor surrounding the iPad has focused on adding a higher resolution display. Are the rumor mills going to start doing this with the MacBook Pro lines?

However, if you actually read the link you put up, it has absolutely nothing to do with high resolution displays but rather high DPI pointer icons in OS X 10.7.3 (which has been out for a ~1 week).

 

No kidding.

Until Apple actually announces its upcoming products, no one anywhere has any idea of what's in store. The company is really good about keeping that stuff close to its vest.

 

HiDPI is going to be a big selling point for higher resolution MBPs. To this day, poor scalability is a nuisance in Window PCs with hi-res displays and Windows 8 doesn't seem to have an equivilent to HiDPI. Advantage to Apple for portable workstations.

 

*IF* it actually works. Right now Windows handles this better, and it STILL isn't suitable for many uses. Both OSes have been claiming for years "oh it's almost here, it'll be seamless", and to date....

I'm perfectly fine with today's resolutions anyway, but really don't want higher without FLAWLESS resolution independence.

Plus there's the issue of GPUs...Apple at best uses mid range ones, and just uses Intel's junk video in their lower stuff, which isn't real great for doing this either.

In the case of iOS, they've been able to (as Palm did) just quadrupole the screen's resolution so up-scaling is a simple matter.

 

A 15 inch at quad resolution would be great for me. Ivy Bridge integrated can handle 4Kx4K and I don't have a lot of heavy graphics needs - I just want at least 1920x1200.

 

What exactly are the benefits of this scalability business?

Does that mean smoother zooming in since the available pixels are sharper and clearer?

 

No, like being able to flawlessly blow up a program designed for a lower resolution to a higher resolution. Windows has DPI settings that SORT of do that, and some resolution independence features, but there can be problems with the interface of a program or web page or whatever not being identical to how it originally looked, which is a problem for web development or the like. (EDIT: Well, honestly I haven't really tried them in Windows 7 yet.)

So far it's never been perfectly solved. The only things that have done it flawlessly are Palm and iOS, and there only because they've just quadrupled the number of pixels, so scaling is easy and flawless-one pixel just becomes four. WAAAAAAY harder on a PC where you're dealing with a huge number of resolutions, window sizes, etc.

 

i see thanks

 

Apple to disrupt notebook space with radically redesigned MacBook Pros

I don't know if this is a good thing or not. What's going to happen to discrete graphics? Is Apple going the way of low voltage processors only for mobile?

 

Just bought my first mac, MBP, two days ago. I'll be severely disappointed if my only future upgrade options are Air style laptops. I was happy to be able to upgrade the memory and hard drive and feel like going to a MBA only style would be a step back for those looking for flexibility.

And yes, a little over two days with this MBP has me sold on not returning to Windows - excluding Virtual Machines as I am a Windows System Admin .

I guess I should update my signature soon.

 

The exact opposite of what I want.

 

Well, nothing new, as rumors have been circulating for months about a thin form factor 15" Macbook. It also seems likely that since i7 quad core Ivy Bridge mobile processors will be the first ones released, the 15" Macbook Pro would be the first product line to be renewed.

The big question is whether Apple maintains separate Macbook Pro and Air lines, or combines the two?

 

What is the chance that die 13" mbp will get a good graphic card? I mean the 2010 Version had a Nvidia, the 2011 one only such a Weak Intel card, any chance they willl put a AMD or NVIDIA in the new one?

 

I'd say slim to none.

 

The Intel HD 3000 is about on par with the Nvidia offerings from the 13" MBP last year. I don't know why people are still complaining about it a year later, they need to get over it as the Intel solution works fine. In fact, it even pulled ahead for some things (so did the Nvidia). That is why it was pretty much on par with the weak offerings from Nvidia. Just because it was an Nvidia IGP solution, that didn't make it more powerful.

 

Hmm i still prefer amd or nvidia. And the nvidia had cuda which is quite nice if you can program on it

 

Yeah, unfortunately I'd say 95% chance or more that they just stick with Intel's garbage.

Because it's still a joke in a $1200 system a year later. it didn't suddenly become a great thing in the past year.

You can, off and on, get a better GPU in a $400 notebook now...like MUCH MUCH, many times better. Heck, my little $200 kitchen computer's got a better GPU LOL

 

Intel integrated graphics are adequate for the typical usage of a Macbook Air or 13" Macbook Pro.

Well, maybe that's why Apple gave serious considerations to AMD APUs for the current generation of the Macbook Air, but had to stick with Intel because AMD lacked the production capacity?

You also have to separate the notion of graphics performance from processing performance. I can think of more than a few AMD APUs that have impressive graphics, but fall short in terms of processing power.

 

Yes for an mba i also thinks its ok, since i think there is not Much place for fans, but this was about macbook pro and i think a good gpu would be nice in there

 

I highly doubt there is any truth in that statement. The Intel HD 3000 provides fine support for a 13" machine (either the MBA or MBP). It is on par with other offerings found in most 13" systems (which also mainly rely on the Intel IGP). So why are people still complaining? Get over it. Intel drastically improved their integrated graphics solutions and it shows. Not only is the HD 3000 providing similar performance to same level Nvidia IGP's, but it is doing so while consuming less power.

 

I just hope when they do update the lines they dont cheeze out again with features that hurt nothing by having them like backlit keyboards.

 

i disagree, the HD 3000 is not a good graphics for a $1100 notebook, and it's performance isn't close to a 320M
with nvidia graphic card you can actually overclock, tune etc. how about intel 3000? also the drivers, geforce drivers are constantly being updated to optimize in newer games and apps, where intel barely releases any new drivers

as with CPU OC, you can do in both. using Intel XTU and nvidia system tools w/ ESA support

 

First off, the 320m is better than the HD 3000. It's considerably faster and certainly more compatible.

Second, it doesn't matter that intel is starting to catch up in performance (not even trying with compatibility) to where nvidia integrated graphics was years ago. You have to keep in mind that nvidia basically had to drop their integrated graphics program because intel stopped licensing them the ability to make intel compatible boards, and Nvidia can't exactly just start making boards for AMD. Yes, eventually intel will catch up with nvidia on the integrated front, as long as nvidia isn't allowed to make integrated graphics cards for intel's processors and we forever compare intel's latest against nvidia's 2009/2010 tech (it's 2012 now, and intel still hasn't hit par yet against nvidia, and AMD isn't even on their radar).

You have to keep in mind, that if they were allowed to compete, Nvidia would have had a mobile integrated 500 series solution out at this point, and an outdated 400 series solution. Another 6 months from now, if Intel finally matches the performance of the nvidia 320m, we *could* cheer, or we could realize that we are comparing intel's new part to a 2 year old Nvidia part, and AMD has stuff like the Radeon HD 7660G at this point, which is a separate league.

At this point, the only interesting comparison to intel integrated graphics is AMD integrated graphics, and they lose that comparison handily.

Hopefully, they will get their act together, but who's to say? Their HD 4000 looks at least a little bit hopeful, but so has every other graphics offering they've pushed for the past several years, each leaving much to be desired. If it's ACTUALLY twice as fast as the hd 3000 AND it supports modern features like DX10+, OpenCL with performance on par with other chips in it's dx9 performance range, then I'll at least calm down slightly.

But you'll still have to dock them points for only supporting OpenGL 3.1, when Nvidia and AMD's ~5+ year old technology supports OpenGL 3.3, and 2+ year old technology supports OpenGL 4.x

... seriously, why does intel insist on staying behind the times?

 

You can compare them by checking the two GPUs in this list and clicking restrict.
Mobile Graphics Cards - Benchmark List - Notebookcheck.net Tech

Sure, the nVidia has a slight advantage. But honestly, if I were looking for a gaming notebook, a MBP/A wouldn't even be on the list. If I was looking for an engineering notebook, I'd be looking 15" which has a dGPU in the MBP. If I was looking for anything else, than the iGPU works just fine.

 

Huh? I don't even know how to respond to that. You have to know that's the case.

Because it's a $1200 system with worse video than a $400 system...or even my $200 system.

There's no "getting over it" until Apple switches to something better. Until that time people have every right to complain about it in a $1200 system.

As someone else pointed out, it's not exactly impressive that they're finally within spitting distance of low end parts AMD and Nvidia released YEARS ago.

This, and what Masterchef said.

I mean it is what it is...if you want a cheap (err..."cheap") or small Macbook, the 13" one will get it done for basic office work I'm sure, but it's still pricy for what you get IMO.

 

Considering many 800-1300 dollar laptops come with the Intel 3000, I'd guess the price point is about on par.

Just speaking ThinkPad, X220, T420, T420s all fall in that price range with the Intel 3000.

 

Obviously not, by what you just said, and regardless those would be overpriced too. Considering you can get vastly better now for as little as 1/3 the price...

 

There is more in the price than the GPU. If all you want is a GPU, then buy a cheap piece of junk laptop with nothing but a high end GPU.

And if most 800-1300 dollar laptops run an iGPU, the price is spot on.

 

Yes there is more to the price-but plenty of other systems provide that too for less.

The point is, it's a $1200 system, which is SOLIDLY a mid range price, yet is only dual core and no GPU... Yes, that's fine for some people, but it's also overpriced.

 

Show me a 13.3" laptop with a quad core processor please.

Plus the majority of 14" laptops are also dual core. Few are quad (I think HP is the only one with them, could be wrong) and they aren't in the $1200 price range.

Quad core + dGPU? Definitely not $1200 anywhere at 14" and again - 13.3" doesn't even exist at any price.

I was mistaken thinking that 15" models didn't exist under $1200:
http://www.google.com/products/cata...6TNIsfhsQLJmej7AQ&ved=0CJoBEPMCMAE#ps-sellers

Though I personally wouldn't buy an HP. That's just me though.

 

Asus U46 and MSI X460DX are 14 inches, have a dGPU (GeForce 540M), and can be equipped with a quad-core for less than $1200.

 

Thanks for correcting me.

 

Besides what Saturn said, you're missing that with Apple, if you want a notebook and don't want to pay $1800, you're stuck with a 13" regardless of whether that's what you want. I've always been annoyed by that too...that they segment screen size by price.

 

The thing that bugs me is that the 13" MBA has a 1440x900 screen while the MBP's is 1280x800. If anything, it should be the other way around. Heck, even the 11" MBA has a higher-resolution screen (1366x768).

 

I'm not saying Apple isn't expensive, they are. But - in my limited experience - you get what you pay for. I also don't get a 15" Lenovo for under $1800 either (W520).

If you want a cheap laptop ($400), then you can buy a cheap laptop. But the quality differences do exist. Now not every laptop that you pay $1800 for is worth the price but at least on my $1200 MBP, it certainly seems to be leagues ahead of many $400 laptops I've used. Same with the $1800 W520 laptops I buy for work.

I buy over 100 laptops a year for my company. I've seen almost every brand (Asus and MSI not so much which is why I didn't comment on their price beyond I was wrong about the existence of such laptops) and few laptops offer the quality that can sustain a high price. Lenovo ThinkPad being the winner in terms of quality and support for my company. Again, my experience with the MBP is limited - I just jumped ship to OS X last week - but so far the quality is there in every facet of the device.

The difference I see with Lenovo's W520 and Apple's MBP however is that if you want OS X (without hacking your way to it) you are stuck with Apple equipment and pricing. Whereas if you want a Windows laptop with Quad/dGPU you can shop around and buy a lower end laptop.

That does suck however the solution to me isn't that Apple lowers the price on their MBP but that Apple allows OEMs to equip their laptops with OS X. Then if you want the Apple hardware and Apple hardware support, you buy a MBP. If you only want the price and OS X you buy a third party laptop.

 

Even then, MacWorld.com tests show that the 320m edges the HD 3000 while anandtech and notebookcheck say the opposite with the HD 3000 outperforming the 320m by a low 8%. So, the 320m might be technically "better" than Intel's offerings but the HD 3000 is still on par with it in terms of performance.

Yes, Intel is just catching up to a solution offered by Intel in 2010 with the 2011 Sandy Bridge launch. However, they are able to offer the same performance and better CPU's all while consuming less power. I think you are jumping ahead a little by saying that Intel's solutions are comparable to 2 year old Nvidia technology. The SB platform was released in 2011, a year after the 320m was used. It is still the current setup and things will change later this year with Ivy Bridge. Maybe Nvidia would have been able to keep up by providing better performance while consuming less power. Given their current operations, I don't think that would have been possible but you never know.

Either way, I still don't understand why everyone craps on the Intel HD 3000. Apple isn't the only one using it in their 11-13" notebooks with higher prices. The industry as a whole seems to have adopted the HD 3000 as the graphics solutions for their 13-14" notebooks even while carrying $1000+ prices. The HD 3000 performs just fine for what the average consumer would do with a 13" notebook. Was there this much of an outcry when Apple used the 320m with the various 13" portable Macs since it was based off of a much older architecture (with little improvement)? What about when Apple put it in the late 2010 MBAs? It was almost a year old by that time yet I don't remember people complaining nearly as much as they are crying about using Intel's HD 3000.

 

Because it's years newer. That's true for everyone. Nvidia would be stomping all over them if they were still able to make chipsets. AMD is stomping all over them right now.

I'd say it's pre 2005 technology, really.

The 320m was Nvidia's worst at the time it launched, which was years before Apple quit using it, and it's still better than Intel.

We've said. Apple's selling a $1200 notebook with it. You have to upgrade to a $1800 notebook to get a real GPU at all.

And Intel's video is garbage, and wasting transistors. It's something like 200 million all together, which could be getting used on a third or fifth core, or more cache, or moved over and used for or as part of a real GPU.

And you're again ignoring that Apple doesn't give you any other choice for <$1800, and that at the least there are cheaper 14" notebooks with bajillion times more GPU power and quad cores.

No, because at the time it wasn't AS outdated, and also because at least they were providing a real GPU. It was also assumed Apple was going to be using OpenCL heavily in OS X, which never happened.

Because it's STILL better and that was YEARS ago. What's hard to understand about that?

 

MacBook Pro (2010) vs MacBook Pro (2011)

If you're running Windows, the 320M walks all over the HD3000, but in OS X, the Intel is much closer.

 

@saturn That's because the games tested in OS X run through compatibility libraries with CPU overhead. If we're comparing the entire computer, that's one thing. If we're comparing just the graphics chip, that's a separate thing. All of those benchmarks technically are demonstrating computer performance at a task. The windows benchmarks are doing a better job of isolating the 320m.

@korn You're welcome to look at it as though the hd 3000 is even with the 320m, but I've used the machines side by side in windows and OS X, and I'm operating on a different mindset. The reason I listed the time differences as I did, is that I think MAYBE the hd 4000 will match the 320m for performance but not features. That's where the accounting came from, so now it's clear. As far as blaming Apple, I don't really. I didn't mean to come off that way. Intel left them with no other short term alternative. They can either keep using the core 2 duo which a non-choice, or adopt intel graphics and move to core i.

Ultimately, my beef is with Intel, not Apple. However, I do expect Apple to do something about it eventually (soon). I don't expect them to just surrender because their motherboard and cpu provider sort of screwed them. The way I see it, either Intel steps up their game, or Apple does something drastic (either of these):

- switch to custom AMD (assuming trinity isn't good enough)
- redesign to add space for a dedicated GPU in the 13" (remove optical drive, probably)

 

I would have been perfectly happy with an MBP 13 that had the Radeon 6490M from the early-2011 low-end 15" model. I probably still would be today if Apple is able to go this route.

 

I had a /2010 MBP last year, and it could easily play CoD BO at 720, medium setting.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/apple-mac-os-x/527864-2010-macbook-pro-13-graphics.html

I tried BO on my MSI X460 using the Intel card, and even on low it was very choppy.

 

So your single test of one game under Windows invalidates the benchmarks, tests, and experiences of other people?

Would they? I don't know if they would be able to provide more performance while consuming less power. After all, they have had a bad habit of using the same architecture through a few generations. They aren't the only ones recycling old material.

This again? I guess the benchmarks and personal experiences of people out there mean nothing then.

It has also been replied: they aren't the only ones doing it. That doesn't necessarily make it right but this is nothing new for Apple or anyone else. Remember the days of the PowerBook G4? The 12" model had a terrible graphics solution while the 15" and 17" were the only ones that offered upgrades. That held true even after the switch to Intel. The 13" MBP (and 13" aluminum MacBook) only used integrated graphics, only the 15" and 17" had IGP's and GPUs. That is standard practice though as Dell, HP, Lenovo, and even Sony rely on IGP's for their ~13" systems. It has been this way for a while, the only difference now is that instead of relying on Nvidia or lowly 4500MHD graphics from Intel, they are strictly using Intel's HD 3000 IGP which offers a drastic performance boost over the 4500MHD.

You can't tell me they are the only ones offering inefficient products. We all know that AMD and Nvidia are both doing it.

Again, you are also ignoring the fact that Apple is not the only one doing this. It doesn't matter if there are less expensive 14" systems with quad-core processor and GPU's that can somehow defy quantum mechanics and cure cancer, that has always been the case with Apple computers. They generally charge more.

It was still outdated. Why aren't you complaining about that? Nvidia was using inferior architecture while providing a sub-par graphical experience with technology that was 1.5-2 years old. OMG, screw Nvidia! They suck, they suck, they suck! It should also be noted that the 320m is not a "real GPU," it is an integrates solution.

No it's not, what's so hard to understand about that?

 

We don't have to be hostile about this. I don't think most people seriously blame Apple, there isn't much they could do about it. They built a system designed for integrated graphics, integrated graphics started to take off, and then innovation was suddenly and forcefully stifled primarily at the hands of Intel.

Apple's job is to adapt to the state of technology in the market. It's their job looking forward (but not backwards) to roll with the punches and come up with a solution.

I think reasonable solutions include:

-a redesign with lower end dedicated graphics (possibly switchable via optimus)
-a switch to AMD for their trinity platform with solid graphics
-sticking with intel (easy) IF intel is able get somewhere with the HD 4000. At least it will support OpenCL, but OpenGL 3.1 support only means that in Mac OS X you'll be relegated to legacy OpenGL 2 support. To take part in the OpenGL 3 fun in Mac OS X, your graphics card needs to support OpenGL 3.2

 

Um, no. Next time click on the link I post.

I tested it with CoD 5, MW2, BO, and JC2.

Also, take a look at notebookcheck's 2011 MBP 13 review. The HD 3000 in the 2011 MBP 13 scores 2550 in 3DMark06. My 2011 MBP with the 320M scored 4728 in 3DMark06.

So there you have it, personal experience and benchmarks.

Review Apple MacBook Pro 13 Early 2011 (2.3 GHz dual-core, glare-type screen) - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

Review Apple MacBook Pro 13" 2010-04 2.66 GHz Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

http://forum.notebookreview.com/apple-mac-os-x/527864-2010-macbook-pro-13-graphics.html

 

Frankly one game like that would be more than enough, but as he said it wasn't one game.

Those seem to be two unrelated thoughts, and I'm not sure what the point of either is. Of course newer hardware from Nvidia would provide more power in the same power envelope. And so what if they're using the same basic hardware for years? So does Intel, AMD, and every other company. That doesn't change the fact that their drivers are far better, and they're years ahead of Intel.

To you apparently. Multiple people have shown you in this thread that an ancient part from Nvidia, that was low end when introduced, still beats Intel's best...and you won't accept it, and keep saying you "don't understand" why people complain. Well, multiple people have told you why people complain, multiple times.

Not sure that's true, but regardless for at least the THIRD time I'm going to point out that:

1) Not everyone buying the 13" Macbooks is doing so because they care about or even want a 13" screen-many are going to be doing so because that's all Apple offers for less than $1800ish.

2) Certainly in a marginally larger 14" notebook you can get real even mid range GPUs, let alone beat what Intel can do, and of course get quads too.

You can't tell me they are the only ones offering inefficient products. We all know that AMD and Nvidia are both doing it.

This isn't actually a response to what I wrote...

Ooookay, no "defying of quantum mechanics" is involved. And yes, they charge more...this is my point.

Why are you asking something I've already answered? I think others have already answered this too? Why do you keep asking things, getting an answer, and then asking them again?

But okay...

For at least the second time:

1) That hardware is better than what Apple used to replace it, and also has far better driver support, and also supports OpenCL, CUDA and the like.

2) Because it was launched years earlier, that hardware was more impressive or acceptable for the time then when they replaced it with something worse.

And also:

3) That hardware was available in the kind of "general purpose" notebook Apple sold for $1000...which they no longer even make.

So effectively they raised prices, and give you worse hardware, years later.

Huh? "Inferior" compared to what? That architecture is...well actually still pretty good today. Certainly it's far better than anything Intel has.

Huh? How is it a "sub-par graphical experience"?

Huh? It's still more advanced than anything Intel has on the horizon.

I'm really not getting these posts. Apple replaced something that for the time was kind of decent, with something that's outclassed by 2005 hardware. I've said that, other people have said that, yet you continue claiming you "don't know" why people are complaining.

 

Driver support is irrelevant as it applies to OS X because Apple provides that software, not NVIDIA or Intel as the case may be.

 

Well, I'm not 100% sure that's true since they're still working with the company in question, and there still may be differences, and also since of course some people are going to run the hardware with Windows.

Plus Intel's stuff still lacks OpenCL and is a lot more "hard wired" than what AMD and Nvidia have been doing for years.

EDIT: I guess my point is I'd say it's LESS relevant on average, but not necessarily completely irrelevant to some people.

 

Any date for release?

 

Nope. It launches in April, so my guess is you'll see Apple launch systems with it somewhere between mid to late April and July.