Although mostly irrelevant, it is interesting that Apple have dropped the high end Iris Pro graphics in the new 15" MacBook Pros, instead going with the Intel HD 530 alongside exclusive Radeon Pro 400-series dedicated graphics chips:
The lowest end 13" MBP gets the 540 Iris Graphics (a lower clocked 550), the premier 13" gets the Iris 550. Neither get the Iris Pro 580 GT4e. The 13" choices are within expected lines.
I think the 580 might not be too far off, the Iris 5200 was getting quite long in the tooth. The 530 on my 6700K is quite comparable to the Iris Pro 6200 though there is a significant difference in power usage (91 vs 45) which will greatly affect the performance ability of the graphic card. Hard to say with a 530 in a 45 w power envelope but the 580 has that 128 MB of VRAM which is quite significant and they did double the EU count if I'm not mistaken.How much worse is the Intel HD Graphics 530 compared to the previous (late 2013 - 2015) 15" rMBP iGPU, the Iris Pro 5200?
How much worse is the Intel HD Graphics 530 compared to the previous (late 2013 - 2015) 15" rMBP iGPU, the Iris Pro 5200?
I think that any way you slice it the last gen iris pro 5200 is faster than the HD 530 (http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...is-Pro-HD-5200-V2-Mobile-12-GHz/m34955vsm8190)I think the 580 might not be too far off, the Iris 5200 was getting quite long in the tooth. The 530 on my 6700K is quite comparable to the Iris Pro 6200 though there is a significant difference in power usage (91 vs 45) which will greatly affect the performance ability of the graphic card. Hard to say with a 530 in a 45 w power envelope but the 580 has that 128 MB of VRAM which is quite significant and they did double the EU count if I'm not mistaken.
I think that any way you slice it the last gen iris pro 5200 is faster than the HD 530 (http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...is-Pro-HD-5200-V2-Mobile-12-GHz/m34955vsm8190)
If there is ever one. There is no 2+4e, just 2+3e (48EU, 64MB eDRAM), which these 13" MBPs are apparently using.Just another disappointment - within expected lines means no improvement. The 13" with GT4e would have given more of a reason for those who like the form factor to consider the 13" over the 15", and its not exactly like the new 13"s are cheap either.
Miss, miss, miss. Bad .
According to my research:I found this to be the most curious aspect of the MBPs just released. Over the past several generations since the first Intel processors with iGPUs came out, Apple has always used the 45W CPU with the highest end integrated graphics in the 15", and the next lower capability one (corresponding to a 28W chip) in the 13" . Now they've upended that formula entirely for the 15".
The lowest end 13" MBP gets the 540 Iris Graphics (a lower clocked 550), the premier 13" gets the Iris 550. Neither get the Iris Pro 580 GT4e. The 13" choices are within expected lines.
The 15" on the other hand does not get Iris Graphics at all. It takes 2 steps back from the top end Iris Pro 580 and instead uses the HD 530 integrated graphics, with a discrete AMD card included across the board. This is effectively a vote of no confidence towards Intel's iGPU because Apple entirely skips Iris graphics.
I guess Apple decided HD 530 is enough to drive the current screen, but that for intensive graphics or to drive one or more external displays, the discrete card is preferable. Of course, this could also be a margin related choice on their part - why use a GT4e Iris Pro when they can just put a cheaper HD 530 based Skylake and a discrete card ? Alternately, Intel could not supply them enough GT4e based chips to make it worth their while.
Whatever the reason, 'automatic graphics switching' is fairly useless now. For anything more than basic graphics needs, it's better to run the dGPU mode.
But we dont get the 7700K 530, we get the 6700HQ 530.There's was a site that benchmarked all current Intel GPUs and the 7700k 530 was slightly faster than the 550.
Just synthetic benchmarks. If you check gaming reviews for 580, you can see 580 is either on par with or slower than M270, which is slightly slower than M370X but still the same chip. Say AnandTech's NUC review.According to my research:
Radeon Pro 450=R9 M370X
Radeon Pro 455=GTX 960M
Radeon Pro 460=GTX 965M
If we compare the Iris Pro 580 to the R9M370X (Radeon Pro 450 stand in) we find that the Iris Pro is ~30% faster. (http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...l-Iris-Pro-580-Mobile-Skylake/m30774vsm132950)
They would not have put the Iris Pro in the 15in when it would outperform the dedicated card.
What is kinda interesting is that the Iris 550 in the 13in outperforms the HD 530 in the 15 in (http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...Intel-Iris-550-Mobile-Skylake/m34955vsm129148)
[doublepost=1477761503][/doublepost]
But we dont get the 7700K 530, we get the 6700HQ 530.
But we dont get the 7700K 530, we get the 6700HQ 530.