New Macbookpro to have i7 quads and gt 650m

New MacBook Pros confirmed to have Nvidia graphics | The Verge

A gt 650m is as powerful as a desktop ati hd 5770. Those kiddies will say macs can't game but with this spec they will easily at 1080p without aa. Now wheres the £1250-£2250 required for one of these

New information and bumped up:
Anyone amazed by the new retina display macbooks screen resolution of 2880x1800 is incredible. I know it is double 1440x900 but I would have preferred the 15.4" to be 1280x800 standard with 1080p option and double 1280x800 which is 2560x1600 which is common on the bigger screens years ago. Oh well 2880x1800 vs 1440x900 is not really a good choice by apple but still amazing and for photoshop or graphics users like game designers photographers this res will look great.

http://www.slashgear.com/slashgear-101-retina-macbook-pro-or-macbook-air-17234231/

If I was rich I would just buy it for the screen being 16:10 and retina display high res.

I personally don't think it is overpriced as computers years ago cost a lot and this is new technology never seen before on a laptop screen wise. Also I don't get why people think it costs a lot, macbooks cost that previous gen around there so this huge screen upgrade for people wih good eyesight is great and first upgrade since probably 9 years ago or so when 1920x1200p screen came out for 15.4.

 

"Macs can't game" is a commentary about OS compatibility, about cooling, and about performance-for-the-dollar, not whether higher-end MBPs have respectable midrange GPUs that can run modern games. Higher-end MBPs have always had respectable GPUs. It's just that you need to run Windows to run most AAA games, the cooling isn't designed for that sort of use, and the pricing of higher-end MBPs is in the same range as Alienware and Clevo dual-GPU beasts.

 

Isn't Clevo more expensive than Alienware? I think that only a few hundred are made each year.`

 

Sagers are Clevo, Eurocom is Clevo to name two large ones, but there are a lot more in all price ranges. Clevo is generally cheaper than AW because of that. If you consider that Falcon Northwest are Clevos, they are also more expensive as well, it depends more on the reseller than on Clevo itself.

Mitlov pretty much nailed in terms of mac and gaming, it's not that macbook pros don't have the hardware, they do, it's just that they are other bumps on the road if you are buying the MBP as a machine primarily meant for gaming. It's great that if you want or need a mac you at least have the option of hardware that will allow you to play games though. The price/performance ratio isn't good, but not everyone cares about that and if it's your money you can very well buy whatever computer you want with it.

 

Yeah, Sagers are a few hundred cheaper than Alienwares for similar specs (though Alienware boasts fancier cases and on-site warranty service, which for some people is worth paying extra for). They're sold in the US under the names Sager, Malibal, and Mythlogic, and I'm sure a few others I'm forgetting.

At least since Intel Macs, you've always been okay playing games for a couple hours here or a couple hours there (either Blizzard games in OSX or in Windows via Boot Camp) on higher-end MBPs. That's a fine solution for people who just really prefer OSX for day-to-day use or who need it for work, and have the extra cash (because those higher-end MBPs are brutally expensive).

But when someone says "I want to get a good gaming machine, and I guess I also have to word process and email on my machine," I always steer them away from Apples. And this doesn't change that. The same compromises are still there.

And while the next-gen MBPs are faster, so is the next-gen everything else. You can get that same GT650M in an Alienware M14x, for criminy sakes (starts at $1099, and is $1274 with Ivy Bridge quad-core i7 and 900p screen).

 

Most probably DDR3 650M's

And with the rumor of a thinner design, less cooling. Expect throttling issues.

 

Although the news in the link might be true, it is still nothing more than rumor and speculation despite coming from a "super duper secret 100% trusted but we won't name inside source." Nothing regarding Apple products is ever truly official until Apple announces it. I didn't think we needed yet another thread regarding rumors about an updated MacBook Pro release.

 

The 650m won't be able to handle today's games on high quality.. Also going off of the Sager thing, I spent $1650 for my laptop, where the same upgrades from Alienware would send me to $2200, so what Mitlov said is very true.

 

Apple generally picks the most expensive memory available for their GPU, which is a good thing.

In this case, GDDR5 is much more likely than DDR3 for whatever GPU apple goes with, assuming those are the available choices.

 

NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

61 fps high on D3
59 fps high on ME3
42 fps high on Skyrim
73 fps high on MW3
32 fps high on BF3
55 fps high on Arkham City
61 fps high on Crysis 2
30 fps high on Metro 2033

Looks like it can handle itself fairly well seeing as the 650M is considered a budget gaming card (although it won't be budget in a MBP)

 

Yes I am aware of what the card can do, I should have stuck in "on a MBP" in my post, but you're on top of that. I was thinking along the lines of temperatures as Mitlov was saying. Yes the card can handle games, but the card handling games in a MBP would be pretty scary.

 

what people don't understand is a gt 650m is kepler 28nm so its not a power hungry card. It should take less power then a gt555m, its more closer to the power consumption of a gt 540m then a gt 555m. Also it being 28nm although the chips tend to heat up more it is also easy to compensate by getting a cooling system for it internally which doesn't have to work as hard.

Also apple are stingy as I remember them putting out 90w adaptors for i7 sandy bridge quad core and 6750m laptops when 120w adaptors were needed. GT 650m and i7 3612qm or above should work perfectly with 120w adaptors though.

 

:O DDR5 is possible then

Curious what clocks will the 650M in the MBP 15" will achieve. The W110ER has already done 1000/1050.

My speculation with the higher end 15" will pack 650M 2G DDR5's while the lower end 15" will pack 640M 1G DDR3.

 

what a load of rubbissh 650m should play most games on ultra at 1080p without aa at 30fps or above.

Computer Games on Laptop Graphic Cards - Notebookcheck.net Tech

Its quite funny you went with a laptop tats 100w more overall on stress test then a gt 650m laptop to achieve around 20% better. Nvidia messed up big time so much that the 7970m is so far ahead. The 7970m even takes 17w less then the 675m and performs 80% better. A 7990m should offer double the 675m performance and take the same watt.

At the end of the day a gtx 675m is like someone buying an equivalent of a 9800m gtx over a 6970m takeaway dx11 performance as that is the same difference percentage wise then the 675m to the 7970m performance per watt wise.

 

Probably lower than the 650M you can buy in other notebooks, just like the 6750M in the 2011 MBP.

 

That's a joke big guy, try 50% better than the 650m and no one is comparing it to the 7970m so it's not valid. Any game that requires any more intensive graphics is showing way less that 30 fps on ultra. Blizzard and EA don't require intensive graphics so you get your measly 30-40 fps. What I was talking about was temperatures in the MBP, I'm simply agreeing with what another poster said, go troll somewhere else. The fact of the matter is, the laptop that I did select CAN handle the temperatures that the crappy Nvidia architecture is putting out at the moment period because it has one of if not the best cooling systems out there, and paired with diamond thermal paste I'm laughing. And who said I don't have coin to upgrade my gpu when new one's come out, I went with the 675m cause I'm not waiting around for the botched 7970m batch that had to be sent back. To receive it 3 months later, I need a laptop now and it is the best that I could get at this particular moment in time. 100w or 80w doesn't phase me, when it won't even be in my laptop for long. Who says I'm not gonna switch it out as soon as I can? Before creating arguments look at the entire picture instead of a piece of it, did you happen to read my second post where I corrected myself? Doesn't seem so.

 

the 640m is also available with GDDR5, so even if the low end model used the 640m, I seriously doubt it would have DDR3 memory. Of course, a 650m would still be better, but I would guess that whatever ends up in the MBP, it'll have the more expensive memory selected for the GPU if there is a choice.

Even when Apple went with the lower end 6490m GPU for their 15", they still used GDDR5.

 

MRLost maybe I should have simplified it, your system is like getting a fat ps3 power consumption and getting a 7970m is like getting the latest ps3 slim power consumption.

It makes no sense to me why people would get a gtx 670m or 675m as a gtx 660m or gt 650m overclocked should reach the same performance and not take anywhere near as much electricity. I suppose electricity doesn't cost much but your machine is the most power hungry single gpu wise out now. Laptops and power hungry parts don't really go very well as portability.

At the end of the day I expect the gtx 680m to take slightly less power then your 675m and be double your performance as some people have rumoured now that the 7970m being so good nvidia ramped up the clocks so it reaches 6000 in 3dmark11. Your gpu is basically a 2.5 year old architecture fermi gpu and 40nm vs the latest 28nm which came out and it being the latest and greatest.

Its your choice at the end of the day and the gt 650m gddr5 is not 50% slower on most things more around 35% overall.

 

^ That is definitely not going to be the case.

When you game on a mbp through Windows what is the overall
performance like? Assuming cpu and drive are similar.

For example if a card normally gets around 35fps on a wintel machine
what will it get on a mbp using bootcamp?

 

If the hardware is otherwise identical, 35 fps.

 

Cliff's Notes time!

(1) The 650M is not the best gpu EVAR, but it's not weaksauce either.
(2) The MBP 15 will be perfectly reasonable for people who want an Apple laptop but also want some gaming here and there.
(3) The new Alienware M14x R2 offers the same performance parts for half the price if you're not focused on OSX or ultra-thin cases.

 

mitlov you also forgot about the weight, the m14x currently weights 500g more than the mbp 15, with the redesign, we dont know how much more or less

 

I touched on portability in #3...but yes, I could have said "if you're not focused on OSX or ultra-thin, light cases" instead of just "if you're not focused on OSX or ultra-thin cases."

 

......................
A gt 650m is one of the best as it doesn't take to much electricity and performs very well. I wish nvidia were at 22nm now as that would mean something like a 650m could play games close to 60fps without aa at 1080p at same power consumption. Are they going to 14nm next.

 

Is it sure that the next macbook pro will not have a CD drive or is it just a speculation?

 

So, this is the era when macs can run battlefield 3 on max'd?

OH MY GOD

lol


Still, I'm curious what will apple do? Wouldn't they go with Radeon cards like the SB 15" and 17"?

Or is the jump to AMD a failure and apple has decided to go with nVIDIA again?

 

Credible rumors from industry sources. Not confirmed but not mere speculation.

 

That could make me buy a macbook pro. I never had a mac and I never thought I would ever buy one (being a little bit pro pc) but I really start to think about it as an option. I want a thin laptop with a good screen and being able to play diablo 3, that's all I ask

 

This ain't gonna cut it if the rumors of a Retina display is true.

 

Wasnt expecting a 7970 but a 650 is a pleasant surprise. However, I am a bit skeptical about wether it will be powerful enough to push a high ppi display.

 

I'd think it'd cut it just fine for playing games at 1440x900, just not 2880x1800. And you should get perfectly sharp images playing at 1440x900 on a 2880x1800 screen, considering that the pixels line up exactly (four physical pixels for each in-game pixel).

 

A next-gen MBP 15 sounds like a perfect fit for you.

If the Vaio SE didn't have RedOrangeGate (i.e., its reds look orange), I'd recommend that too, given its thin profile and 4.4 lb weight (great for a 1080p 15.5" machine)...but I think RedOrangeGate is a deal-breaker for most screen-quality-lovers. Its GPU isn't nearly as nice as a 650M, but from what I've heard, D3 isn't very demanding.

 

looks like it was a good thing to hold off on buying the 6770m mabook 15 inch.

My only question is, will the price stay the same?

Ive only got around 2,000 USD to blow

 

Probably pretty similar. Apple doesn't normally have big price hikes for new-generation products. It's a positive side-effect of them not discounting long-in-the-tooth products. With most other companies, products get less expensive as they age (either out-and-out price reductions or increasingly-frequent discounts), but then there's a big jump back to the initial price when the next-gen model comes out. With Apple, pricing remains totally flat.

 

apple dont usually jacks the price up when it launches new hardware.

 

This is not an accurate assessment. Even overclocked the GTX660m should not =to a GTX675m nor should the GT650m equal a GTX670. Also the desktop 5770 comparison is false too. The GT650m is rated a hair above a 5870m which is an underclocked desktop 5770, so a desktop 5770 at stock clocks should still be faster than a 650m. Still the 650m is impressive for its size.

I am interested in how this will effect the iMac 2012 line up. Will the new iMac also use Nvidia GPUs also? I cannot see Apple using ATI for desktops and Nvidia for laptops (although I guess they have before). Since iMacs use laptop graphics cards, it makes sense for all the cards to come from the same manufacturer. Still a iMac 13.2 with a 650m would be underpowered compared to the current 6970m in the iMac.

I cannot wait till WWDC to see what happens.

 

my point is why would anyone get old gen for around 10 fps.

 

? how is the new kepler and ivybridge old gen?


side note, if apple decides to put this on the 13 inch i will go bananas. Probably unlikely though.

 

Well if it is the difference between 60fps and 70fps, yes I'd get the 650m, but if it is 30fps vs 40fps, I would get the 40fps card. So I guess it is relative.

 

If you look at notebookcheck theres like a 100w difference between a 675m laptop and a gt 650m. Thats crazy. I have been waiting for this new 28nm and ivy bridge 22nm and now all I need is dell to get those dell outlet deals like last year with an l521x or l721x.

This is just my opinion but you would have to be crazy to get a 100w card over 45w card just for 10fps. Theres a reason why ultrabooks with gt 640m are as powerful as a gtx 460m and fit in razor thin designs as it is 28nm as well as having a tdp closer to a gt 525m then a gt 540m.

 

I am on about gtx 670m and 675m being like 10fps difference on ultra at best compared to something like a gtx 660m. I find it amazing that power consumption drops so much, imagine if there was technology in cars to increase mpg from 50mpg to 100 to 200mpg. I suppose electric cars are good if they can improve it.

 

Fps difference is not a good way to look at it. 675M is more like 50-100%
better performance ( which in some some rare cases may be only 10fps
depending on game ). Also those games where there is only 10fps
difference is usually where the 675M can still handle the game and
the 650M cant.

You will be able to play all games ( except maybe 1-2 ) at Ultra levels
fluently @ 1080 ( greater than 30fps ). 650M cant do that. It would
be able to play almost everything at high levels and reduced resolution
but that is a big trade off imo.

If you want a gaming rig the 650 is just not that powerful. If you want
a good all around machine that can still handle most games well and fit
in a smaller machine then the 650 is a great choice.

The problem is there is only one small/light laptop currently using a 650M
and that is a Sager 11.6 (<4lbs). It is a beast ( although 1366x768) and
runs very hot. It is pretty fat at 1.46" so it can handle the heat better.

Love to see a mbp with a 650 and a high res screen in a thinner package.

 

If this is true, the MBP will indeed get a boost in gaming...

The 650m is no slouch, but then again, it's a budget/ultralight GPU...
It most certainly will game "well enough" and is a step up from the previous MBP generations, but will not qualify the MBP for gaming laptop anytime soon.

The non-apple gaming laptop crowd is going to be enjoying desktop-enthusiast-level performance at 1080p with every feature on. With the likes of the 7970m or future 680m, especially overclocked, the laptop gaming gpus are head and shoulders beyond the 650m and may very well embarrass previous gen desktop enthusiast setups. A comparison between a 650m and a 7970m or future 680m isn't even close to fair.

Apple laptops generally have problems with heat buildup as their claim to fame is thin and light. A 650m won't be too bad on heat, but a quad-core ivy-bridge + 650m is likely going to test it. This will especially true for extended gaming. (who here really likes interrupting their D3 or shooter session because their laptop is overheating?)

Unless Apple's cooling tech gets a lot better, the better gpu and processor will only help for short periods until the heat gets in the way.

I really wish Apple would put out a model that isn't quite so thin and light, and would trade a few pounds and a fraction of an inch of thickness for the proper cooling and performance a "professional" laptop deserves.

Sadly, fashion will likely win over function...

 

There's another way of looking at this. Gaming notebooks are a small, niche market. Ultrabooks with the HD4000 will actually be capable of playing a lot of AAA games at modest settings. I think we're going to see game developers realizing how many ultrabooks are going to be sold, and making sure their games will run on them.

So the MBP will not be as good as a Clevo or Alienware notebook, but it will destroy ultrabooks, which will be de facto the minimum required hardware for many games going forward. Remember also that most studios are going to want their games to run on the Xbox 360 for years to come, so they for the most part won't be going crazy with hardware requirements any time soon.

I feel pretty good about the new MBP as a modest gaming rig.

 

Except the Xbox 720 will likely be released next year (remember that the 360 was released seven years ago and is very long in the tooth). While the HD4000 can run Xbox 360 ports on low or medium settings, when the Xbox 720 drops, AAA games will no longer be made for the 360. So I think we'll only have about a one-year period where laptops with only integrated graphics can play AAA new releases.

 

But what about MBP13??

It's the 13. Not the Air, but the regular 13.


If they are smart: dumb the goddam optical drive, and add that 650. I will pre-prder that thing on THE DAY! But 15 inch is way to big, even if it is slim.

 

Apple will probably use that extra optical bay room for cooling

 

Yes, and the install base for the 720 is going to be tiny, while the install base for the 360 will be huge. There will be as many games targeted to the 360 as the 720 for at least a couple of years. And by that time Intel will be on the HD6000 and you'll be working on your next upgrade.

Remember that the PS2 outsold the PS3 for years after the PS3's release!

 

here is one hoping for that as well

 

But did the XBox outsell the 360 for years after the 360's release? I don't think it did. I certainly remember IGN and the like quickly took down their XBox-specific pages when the 360 came out, though they kept their PS2-specific pages up for years after the PS3 came out. The PS2's longevity into the PS3's lifecycle was an anomaly. I don't know exactly why, but it was. But I'm not expecting the Xbox 720 to follow the PS3 model; I'm expecting it to be like the Xbox 360 replacing the Xbox.