Wednesday, April 11th 2012

MacBook Pro 2012 Launch Imminent

by
btarunr
 Discuss (38 Comments)
Over the past few days, several retailers have been reporting shortages of 15-inch MacBook Pro 2011 (including its variants based on higher processor clock speeds), suggesting that Apple is lowering its production to make way for the new 2012 MacBook Pro. Apple is a known early-adopter of technologies, and the advent of low-TDP 22 nm "Ivy Bridge" processors by Intel could catalyze 2012 MacBook Pro.

The new MacBook Pro launch is imminent, according to Apple Insider, and could happen any time this month. We know from older reports that by design, the new MacBook Pro closely resembles Apple's successful MacBook Air. The new MacBook Pro could be driven by Intel's Core i7-3820QM or Core i7-3720QM "Ivy Bridge" quad-core processors, with integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics, and options for discrete graphics.
Source: AppleInsider

Related News

Add your own comment

38 Comments on MacBook Pro 2012 Launch Imminent

#26
dzero
Apple does make a decent product. I probably will not be picking up this model though since there will be another refresh later in the year.
Posted on Reply
#27
bobmilkman
dzeroApple does make a decent product. I probably will not be picking up this model though since there will be another refresh later in the year.
According to who? And what would they refresh once IVB is out?
Posted on Reply
#28
CoreDuo
FourstaffI will consider getting an ultrabook for my next portable machine if the graphics improve to about 400% of what HD3000 is right now.
That's a little bit of an unrealistic bar to set. Intel can improve their graphics by 400% but so will everyone else. According to Anandtech's review of the 3770K, HD4000 is 55% faster than HD3000, but matches Llano's performance in the A8-3850. If rumors are a true and Trinity is 56% faster than Llano, then that puts Intel right back where they started.
Posted on Reply
#29
sergionography
Inceptor1920x1200 would be more than enough pixel density on a notebook, and that has been possible for about 10 years now.

A 21-24" monitor in the 2560x1440 to 2880x1620 range would be a nice next step in monitors; something in the 200+ ppi range.
lol you must be crazy to think apple will use such resolutions on intel integrated graphics XD
its possible but very useless in terms of stepping up the performance, just look at the ipad 3, it has twice the theoretical performance of its predecessor, but in benchmarks it performs nothing like that in terms of fps mostly because all that hp will go into higher resolution rather than fps. tho apple made sure they dont go below the 60fps on apps(since apple pretty much control the apps since they do the hardware and software for the most part)
for computers tho thats not the case, software is more demanding and sacrificing fps for resolution is a bad move.
Posted on Reply
#30
Inceptor
sergionographylol you must be crazy to think apple will use such resolutions on intel integrated graphics XD
its possible but very useless in terms of stepping up the performance, just look at the ipad 3, it has twice the theoretical performance of its predecessor, but in benchmarks it performs nothing like that in terms of fps mostly because all that hp will go into higher resolution rather than fps. tho apple made sure they dont go below the 60fps on apps(since apple pretty much control the apps since they do the hardware and software for the most part)
for computers tho thats not the case, software is more demanding and sacrificing fps for resolution is a bad move.
I wasn't referring to Apple products in that case, I was making a general comment on what I'd like to see from future PC monitors.
If you mean 1900x1200 on a Macbook, AFAIK it's already been done, years ago now, just as it was with PC notebooks. Old technology, ten years old, or more. If it can work with no serious problems on a mobile radeon 9600/9700, then it should be no problem for intel HD4000. Anyway, why would you buy a macbook pro for gaming?
Posted on Reply
#31
sergionography
InceptorI wasn't referring to Apple products in that case, I was making a general comment on what I'd like to see from future PC monitors.
If you mean 1900x1200 on a Macbook, AFAIK it's already been done, years ago now, just as it was with PC notebooks. Old technology, ten years old, or more. If it can work with no serious problems on a mobile radeon 9600/9700, then it should be no problem for intel HD4000. Anyway, why would you buy a macbook pro for gaming?
well back then it was possible because software wasnt much demanding, and the only computers that ran back then on 1900x1200 were most of the times paired with ati/nvidia discrete graphics like you stated, that made it possible, but on integrated that wasnt the case, ive heard people complain about sandy bridge not able to play 1080p movies fluently, not to mention even windows aero suffers with such graphics.
so what im saying is, having such high and dense resolution is pointless when that resolution will not be put to use
but true tho hd4000 is a step forward, but super high resolutions would still cripple it

edit: to give an example, i have a llano apu, and it plays most games on med/high settings with full fps
the laptop i have has a 720p screen, now if my laptop had a 1080p i would have to lower the settings to have good fps, and setting the resolution to other than the native resolution looks awful usualy
so in such case, having less resolution works better with the gpu performance available
this is my opinion tho and you might have ur reasons to prefer higher resolutions, and there may be things ive overseen but as far as i know thats what i think
Posted on Reply
#32
repman244
sergionographyive heard people complain about sandy bridge not able to play 1080p movies fluently, not to mention even windows aero suffers with such graphics.
I heard the same + they don't even support 10-bit panels so IPS (10-bit) screens can't even work on the SB iGPU hence no switchable graphics on laptops, I wonder if the HD 4000 supports 10-bit.
Posted on Reply
#33
Fourstaff
CoreDuoThat's a little bit of an unrealistic bar to set. Intel can improve their graphics by 400% but so will everyone else. According to Anandtech's review of the 3770K, HD4000 is 55% faster than HD3000, but matches Llano's performance in the A8-3850. If rumors are a true and Trinity is 56% faster than Llano, then that puts Intel right back where they started.
No, if they improve it by 400% from where there are right now, I can play all the games I enjoy smoothly (Starcraft II, various DotA clones, Skyrim, addictive flash games). It doesn't need to be blazing fast delivering constant 60+fps, as an old school gamer I believe content and gameplay is more important than fancy visuals.
Posted on Reply
#34
Red_Machine
This issue has been discussed many times by many different people. So I shall wade in with my opinions.

My Dell Inspiron 8100 from 2001 has a 1600x1200 screen. It was a $2000 laptop when it was new, which probably equates to about $5000 in today's money. For $5000 today, I'm lucky if I can even get 1920x1200, which is barely an improvement over 1600x1200.

Back in 2001, the standard desktop resolution was 1024x768. Somebody looking at the 8100 for the first time would have been blown away by its massive resolution by comparison. Today, 1920x1080 is the desktop standard, but 98% of laptops only have a 1366x768 screen, even some of the higher end ones. The really expensive stuff is usually 1600x900 (going by the Alienware M17x) but you can get 1920x1080 models.

We seem to have ground to a halt in terms of resolution. I blame 1024x768 and 1280x800 being the standard for too long.
Posted on Reply
#36
Red_Machine
I'm talking about gaming here, not general usage. And even then, that's no more than a 2% increase on the mainstream standard of 10 years ago. It's horrendous.
Posted on Reply
#37
Fourstaff
Red_MachineI'm talking about gaming here, not general usage. And even then, that's no more than a 2% increase on the mainstream standard of 10 years ago. It's horrendous.
Even in gaming, most people still use resolutions less than 1920x1080, there was a survey in steam. Granted, 1920x1080 is the biggest lot at 25%, but it also means that more than 70% of the people are using resolutions lower than 1920x1080

store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
Posted on Reply
#38
sergionography
CoreDuoThat's a little bit of an unrealistic bar to set. Intel can improve their graphics by 400% but so will everyone else. According to Anandtech's review of the 3770K, HD4000 is 55% faster than HD3000, but matches Llano's performance in the A8-3850. If rumors are a true and Trinity is 56% faster than Llano, then that puts Intel right back where they started.
what are you talking about dude, in the review llano holds a good 30% advantage over hd4000
so the hd 4000 is more of a amd A6 gpu performance and not an A8
and dont forget one very important bit, when amd gets 30fps over ivy bridge remember that in reality hd4000 is more than 30% slower than llano, because the cpu in ivy bridge is light years ahead of llano in cpu performance which helps alot in games(just look at the discrete gaming page)
notice amd is claiming 50% increase in graphics performance on trinity, i bet some of that increase is due to the faster x86 performance(because vliw4 is only 15%faster than vliw5 at the same clocks and same number of sps, but the trinity gpu will be clocked 25% higher than llano to total 15+25=40% increase in pure gpu performance, but then u have that extra 10% increase in fps and so on due to the faster cpu)
the only way you can accurately benchmark gpus is when you make sure the rest of the system is identical in the test benches, but in this case that is impossible
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 18th, 2024 04:27 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts