Apple continues to eliminate the dGPU

[traderjay]

removal of dGPU should in theory further improve system reliability and performance, since quite a bit of driver code for the dGPU, the dGPU to iGPU switching code are not required anymore.

 

[Avalon]

Darn dirty kids need to get off mah lawn! *shakes fist*



At least they got that part right.



Kinda like the 16Gb iPhone6. If you buy cheap, Apple tries to punish you. It's their way of reminding you that poor people are bad. Go buy Android phones poor people! Apple tries to hurt you! With a steeck!

God I miss bigfoot drives.

 

[RussianSensation]

removal of dGPU should in theory further improve system reliability and performance, since quite a bit of driver code for the dGPU, the dGPU to iGPU switching code are not required anymore.

This theory sounds nice but I doubt it actually translates to the real world. If this were true, Apple would have gotten rid of all dGPUs due to all the complaints from their customers and yet dGPUs are found in higher end 27" Macs, MacBook Pros, etc. Secondly, AMD/NV dGPUs aren't active unless a 3D heavy application kicks in and the transition is seamless. I am not aware of deluge of problems associated with active GPU switching when it comes to stability/performance. If you have data that shows it's an issue, I'd love to read it. The most common complaints related to dGPUs are that it doesn't always automatically kick in unless an app is assigned to it and that often the power usage isn't as good as with a stand-alone APU. The second point isn't valid for iMacs since it's a desktop that does't rely on battery life. Thirdly, someone who requires a dGPU for whatever tasks should have the option of purchasing it -- Apple removing options is asinine from a consumer's point of view.

Chances are, it's all about profits. The cost to buy a Broadwell CPU with Iris Pro is likely less than a Skylake + dGPU and that's why they went for it. In a typical Tim Cook fashion, we are seeing profit maximization/gross margins over choices and user experience. The same reasons iPhone 6S still starts at 16GB, not even 32GB.

 

[2is]

removal of dGPU should in theory further improve system reliability and performance, since quite a bit of driver code for the dGPU, the dGPU to iGPU switching code are not required anymore.

That assumes the integrated GPU is just as powerful and has access to ram that's just as fast. Both of which are far from reality with current tech available to us.

 

[Rakehellion]

removal of dGPU should in theory further improve system reliability and performance, since quite a bit of driver code for the dGPU, the dGPU to iGPU switching code are not required anymore.

It's mostly that Intel's GPU would perform better than whatever Nvidia GPU they were planning to throw in there.

Also, cost savings.

 

[ShintaiDK]

There is no discussion about a dGPU would be faster. But this is also a classic example why the dGPU is losing. Raw performance is just one of many metrics. And when IGP gets "good enough" it steals more and more money from the dGPU. And the dGPU sooner or later ends up with a ROI issue. Specially in an industry with never ending spiraling cost expenses.

 

[Genx87]

5400 RPM drive lol

 

[SPBHM]

There is no discussion about a dGPU would be faster. But this is also a classic example why the dGPU is losing. Raw performance is just one of many metrics. And when IGP gets "good enough" it steals more and more money from the dGPU. And the dGPU sooner or later ends up with a ROI issue. Specially in an industry with never ending spiraling cost expenses.

what is it good enough for? is it really better (Iris pro) for the stuff people will be running on these computers than GT2 would be?

Apple went as low as using GMA 950 for a lot of devices in the past...

 

[ShintaiDK]

what is it good enough for? is it really better (Iris pro) for the stuff people will be running on these computers than GT2 would be?

Apple went as low as using GMA 950 for a lot of devices in the past...

You need to ask Apple about that specific usage. But the point is simply that IGP kicked out yet another dGPU.

 

[Blue_Max]

5400 RPM drive lol

It it at least one of those hybrid drive with 8GB SSD caching? Those are at least half-decent - they boot and run your favorite apps at mostly-SSD speeds.

 

[SPBHM]

You need to ask Apple about that specific usage. But the point is simply that IGP kicked out yet another dGPU.

I guess it's the same usage that requires 5400 RPM hard drives
5400 RPM drives kicking out SSDs!?

 

[ShintaiDK]

I guess it's the same usage that requires 5400 RPM hard drives
5400 RPM drives kicking out SSDs!?

Sure its not a hybrid drive?

I know they used a lot of Seagate 5400rpm 1TB drives with 8GB SLC.

 

[Ajay]

I imagine Apple is going with an iGPU for direct cost savings (no need for a dGPU) and indirect savings (fewer SKUs). Apple is all about charging the most for the least - and investors have rewarded them with a huge stock valuation (especially for a 'hardware' company).

 

[ALIVE]

I guess it's the same usage that requires 5400 RPM hard drives
5400 RPM drives kicking out SSDs!?

if you want to be a fanboy you will be a fan boy
when you cry that igpu of ad are too weak to do anything useful
and at the same time praise the use of intel weaker igpu as the way to go

well any credibility you may have you have destroyed it right there.

you need to be fair.
yes apple does good products
and yes apple does failure products
thats way all use pc and not apple
because apple FAILED

now apple is a trend
you pay extra because it is apple
it does not matter if it good or bad it is APPLE TAX

its the same reason you pay 3k for a ferrari key chain
it is FERRARI

and to be fair
apple is killing their brand with the 5400rpm drives the small monitors teh igpu at the price they offer it
people will pay premium to get a better product
but if they pay premium for a bad product then you loose big

what will happen with a user you is a user and as far as his nows they are little humans inside the box realize that this imac is worse than a pc which is cheaper????

if apple wants to burn the brand name be my guest they can do it


and yes imac would have been a great product as it is
if the price was right
and yes apple need a cheap competitive mac to expand the base of consumers
and yes apple need to take games to be developed also for mac

pc won because of price first and then of the user base

 

[Rakehellion]

"PC won." Apple is bigger than Microsoft, Dell, HP, IBM, and Intel combined. People want what they want.

Other than nerds on a computer forum, no one will notice the difference between and Intel HD 6200 and a GeForce whatever that they've never heard of. It's really splitting hairs at this point.

 

[ALIVE]

"PC won." Apple is bigger than Microsoft, Dell, HP, IBM, and Intel combined. People want what they want.

Other than nerds on a computer forum, no one will notice the difference between and Intel HD 6200 and a GeForce whatever that they've never heard of. It's really splitting hairs at this point.

so when apple what the motorola cpu and every apple sold was 1 less intel sale
now every sell of apple is a sale of intel
so now apple make money for intel in the past apple was makign money against apple

even f apple choose amp because amp pays intel to make compatible cpus still intel will be making money not direct but this time indirect

now apple is generating money for intel. in the past they were opponents and apple was crashed.

you want to talk about os??
apple has its own os and for what ever reason they could no longer use it
and welcome unix that is called mac os 10.
maybe also Microsoft will have to do that in future too much spaghetti code and n oone know what the hell the ocde in windows is doing any more

so this apple has nothing to do with the old apple

and if apple is so rich as you say
let her make their own cpus as in the past
and get rid of the x86 intel cpu inside
after all they are bigger than intel lol

 

[Ajay]

and if apple is so rich as you say
let her make their own cpus as in the past
and get rid of the x86 intel cpu inside
after all they are bigger than intel lol

Being paying attention much lately? Apple designs the vast majority of their own CPUs - the A series ARM processors. Seriously, are you from OT and just accidentally posted in a hardware forum?

 

[ALIVE]

Being paying attention much lately? Apple designs the vast majority of their own CPUs - the A series ARM processors. Seriously, are you from OT and just accidentally posted in a hardware forum?

yes for phones
they make their cpus for phones
but we do not talk about phones here
and
its an interesting battle arm has an advantage
intel is throwing tons of money
lets see who will win the battle in the end

thats why the atom is seeing more refresh and improvement from intel
both small cores atoms
and big cores are focused on energy efficient mode in every generation
to battle arm

so yes i know what is in the market
but apple is not using ARM cpus everywhere
they use intel cpus in the laptops and their desktops

 

[Leo9]

pc won because of price first and then of the user base

Apple won. Macs account for more than 50 percent of the PC industry's profits.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/01/23/as-the-mac-turns-30-apple-ponders-post-pc-era/

so when apple what the motorola cpu and every apple sold was 1 less intel sale
now every sell of apple is a sale of intel
so now apple make money for intel in the past apple was makign money against apple

even f apple choose amp because amp pays intel to make compatible cpus still intel will be making money not direct but this time indirect

now apple is generating money for intel. in the past they were opponents and apple was crashed.

you want to talk about os??
apple has its own os and for what ever reason they could no longer use it
and welcome unix that is called mac os 10.
maybe also Microsoft will have to do that in future too much spaghetti code and n oone know what the hell the ocde in windows is doing any more

so this apple has nothing to do with the old apple

and if apple is so rich as you say
let her make their own cpus as in the past
and get rid of the x86 intel cpu inside
after all they are bigger than intel lol

I think Apple will start to do that in a couple of years. Maybe sooner.

 

[ALIVE]

Apple won. Macs account for more than 50 percent of the PC industry's profits.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/01/23/as-the-mac-turns-30-apple-ponders-post-pc-era/

I think Apple will start to do that i a couple of year. Maybe sooner.

good competition is good
for prices and better products
monopolies are bad

even artificial monopolies when you theoretical you have more than 1 manufactures but secretly are working as one

if apple can re enter in the cpu that will be a good thing
but that most probably mean cpus that will not be x86 compatible lol
if intel refuse to give license

 

[RussianSensation]

"PC won." Apple is bigger than Microsoft, Dell, HP, IBM, and Intel combined. People want what they want.

Other than nerds on a computer forum, no one will notice the difference between and Intel HD 6200 and a GeForce whatever that they've never heard of. It's really splitting hairs at this point.

Using that logic, why is there a dGPU option in 27" iMacs? Why have dGPUs in MBPros?

Also, Apple would have ditched dGPU entirely 2-3 years ago because the increase in GPU load at 4K pixels from 1080P is far greater than the increase in iGPU in the last 12 months. The argument that HD6200 is just as fast at 4K as a budget dGPU is the same that previous integrated graphics were just as fast for most consumers (your logic) for 1080P.

Further, what's the point of options at all? Make all PCs like consoles with 0 upgrades and built in obsolescence. Why offer Core i7 CPU upgrades, RAM upgrades, GPU upgrades? Surely it's way better for Apple to sell appliances that cannot be upgraded even from the factory and go obsolete even sooner, right?

Since this is a PC forum, not an Apple forum, members here will uphold Apple to PC standards, not Apple consumer standards. We do understand that most Apple consumers are sheep who don't have the skills to put together a 34" 3440x1440 Hackintosh that will blow the doors of an iMac 4K, but it doesn't mean we can't discuss the Pros and Cons of an Apple product - hence AT is a technical sub-forum.

5400 RPM drive lol

I don't know what's a bigger insult -- Apple thinking that most of its customers are too stupid to not know how slow 5400 rpm drives are or for anyone who is in the know, essentially the stock configuration is a waste of time and a $1500 iMac essentially becomes a 2TB Fusion drive (+$300) or a 256GB SSD (+$200) -- more $ to Apple I guess.

Apple won. Macs account for more than 50 percent of the PC industry's profits.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/01/23/as-the-mac-turns-30-apple-ponders-post-pc-era/

I think Apple will start to do that in a couple of years. Maybe sooner.

Unless all of us are Apple shareholders or employees of Apple, if they generate 1% of the profits or 50%, what difference does it make to me us as consumers? It's interesting how in recent times people keep cheering how much money a company can make off them vs. judging a product objectively on its technical merits and price.

Even on Apple sub-forums people are making fun of the iMac 4K for its 5400 rpm HDD, non-upgradeable RAM unless outside of the factory, lack of Skylake option, lack of dGPU option, etc.

Also, just because the product is mass marketed to the average consumer, doesn't mean it's actually a good product. For example, LCD is far inferior to Plasma in IQ (the main function of a TV) and who won that battle? Similarly, we've seen products that sell well that are basically junk - Beats, Bose, Crocks, I could go on.

Amount of profits and market share isn't always a great indication of how amazing the product is. 40 million customers purchased the Toyota Corolla but on an enthusiast driving forum, that car would be ripped apart against the Ford Focus or Mazda 3. You need to understand the context of this forum since you've joined

To your last comment, I cannot wait until Apple ditches Intel x86 CPUs and keeps prices high -- it will be the ULTIMATE proof that most Apple PC buyers are sheep who just buy a logo in shiny aluminum. Theoretically speaking if no 3rd parties even reviewed their products, they could put a Core 2 Duo E6300 (just call it Broadwell for marketing speak) in there with a 5400 rpm drive with 8GB of DDR2 (don't disclose that it's DDR2), add in a $50 dGPU and there you go a $1500 20150 iMac 4K.

The updated iMacs don't have have USB 3.1. How much would that have cost them $20?! Ridiculous.

 

[Rakehellion]

Unless all of us are Apple shareholders or employees of Apple, if they generate 1% of the profits or 50%, what difference does it make to me us as consumers?

Unless you're planning to buy one, what difference does it make what GPU is in an iMac? I await your next rambling wall of text.

 

[stingerman]

That's missing the point. Its Apple deliberately sabotaging the base model in order to encourage people to up spend on storage options.

Did you really think this comment out? It is the "base" model. So it's going to have the base components. Graphics artists, video post, photographers, do not buy the base model.

Businesses running office productivity and schools buy the base models. So large orders of the base model will be discounted up to 20%. Apple is keeping the BOM of the base as inexpensive as possible allowing them to sell and discount into markets that are typically low margin. Hard drives are inexpensive, so it makes sense Apple uses them. It also takes demand pressure off of the SSD makers allowing their prices to come down over time.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Unless all of us are Apple shareholders or employees of Apple, if they generate 1% of the profits or 50%, what difference does it make to me us as consumers? It's interesting how in recent times people keep cheering how much money a company can make off them vs. judging a product objectively on its technical merits and price.

I don't own a single share of Apple stock nor do I work for the company. However, I take immense gratitude when I see a company like Apple deliver such great value to its customers while at the same time delivering great value to its stockholders.

 

[Exophase]

No surprise. Specially after all the overheating trouble.

Welcome to the future, a world without dGPUs. Death of the dinosaur.

The continued erosion of the lower/medium end discrete GPUs doesn't point to a future world without dGPUs any more than the narrowing gap between phone and laptop CPU power points to a future world without laptop CPUs.

These platforms have both gradually climbed up power budgets and benefit from process technology improvements in a non-linear way, but eventually their advances will slow to the same rate and they'll stay significantly behind the alternatives that are allowed to use 10x the power. Even if this market becomes limited to 150+W SLI-ready GPUs reasonable demand will still be there for the foreseeable future.