Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

OS X 10.9.3 Boosts Maximum VRAM of Recent Retina MacBook Pro and MacBook Air Models

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,625
31,011



OS X 10.9.3, released last week, boosted the maximum VRAM used by the Intel HD 5000/5100/5200 graphics chips used in the most recent 2013/2014 MacBook Airs and Retina MacBook Pros.

First noticed by French site Mac4Ever [Google Translation], updating to 10.9.3 increases available VRAM from 1024MB to 1536MB, boosting the size of the shared memory, possibly to further improve 4K performance on certain machines.

macbookair.png
The change can be seen in the Graphics/Displays section of the System Report accessible via About This Mac. Apple has not yet updated its support page to reflect the new VRAM limits, continuing to list 1GB of system memory as the maximum. The update was also not mentioned in the 10.9.3 release notes.

The 10.9.3 update, available via the software update tool in the Mac App Store, also included enhanced support for 4K displays and restored the ability to sync contacts and calendars between Macs and iOS devices over USB.

Update 12:45 PM PT: As noted by forum member SmileyDude, some machines with HD 4000 graphics have seen a VRAM boost as well, namely the 2012 Mac Mini, which now has a maximum VRAM of 1024MB, up from 768MB.

(Thanks, Peter!)

Article Link: OS X 10.9.3 Boosts Maximum VRAM of Recent Retina MacBook Pro and MacBook Air Models
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/05/20/10-9-3-maximum-vram-increase/
Populus

Populus

macrumors 601
Aug 24, 2012
4,730
6,991
Spain, Europe
I think the Iris Pro will be mandatory on all MacBook Pro lineup, not only on the 15" one. Hope Broadwell will give us that to the 13" MacBook Pro customers in late 2014, with Iris Pro 2.
 
P

paulrbeers

macrumors 68040
Dec 17, 2009
3,963
123
If the intent of more VRAM is to boost the 4K ability of some machines, then there was no point in the MBA. I'm going to guess it is just using additional system RAM unnecessarily now. It isn't like the HD5000 is a gaming GPU, and 1GB seemed to do just fine for anything else I threw at it. Just my .02 worth....

----------
MacsRgr8 said:
I wonder how many Intel HD5xxx users will notice any difference.
Click to expand...

My guess about 1% at best....
 
silvetti

silvetti

macrumors 6502a
Nov 24, 2011
952
376
Poland
More VRAM does not actually improve graphics, it's useful for higher resolutions and allows for textures to load faster.

I might be wrong :)
 
Jack Delgado

Jack Delgado

macrumors regular
May 11, 2012
138
347
I'm going to throw out a guess with absolutely no testing, but given that more VRAM is useful for higher resolutions, I would expect gaming performance to not necessarily be better across the board, but result in less diminished performance as the resolution increases.
 
keysofanxiety

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,539
25,302
paulrbeers said:
If the intent of more VRAM is to boost the 4K ability of some machines, then there was no point in the MBA. I'm going to guess it is just using additional system RAM unnecessarily now. It isn't like the HD5000 is a gaming GPU, and 1GB seemed to do just fine for anything else I threw at it.
Click to expand...

The increase in VRAM is only if the RAM is increased. With the 2011 models it was 384MB on 4GB, and 512MB+ with 8GB or more. Similarly you won't hit the 1GB VRAM unless you have 8 or 16GB.
 
C

commander.data

macrumors 65816
Nov 10, 2006
1,058
187
keysofanxiety said:
The increase in VRAM is only if the RAM is increased. With the 2011 models it was 384MB on 4GB, and 512MB+ with 8GB or more. Similarly you won't hit the 1GB VRAM unless you have 8 or 16GB.
Click to expand...
VRAM for IGPs is also dynamically allocated in Mavericks, so it'll only take as much as it needs from system memory. This gives Apple more flexibility in setting the theoretical maximum. In previous versions of OS X, VRAM allocation was fixed and the IGP permanently stealing 1.5GB of RAM would have been bothersome even with 8GB of RAM.
 
SmileyDude

SmileyDude

macrumors regular
Jul 24, 2002
194
61
MA
I have a 2012 Mac mini with HD Graphics 4000 and I've went from 768MB to 1GB with the update, so it's not necessarily because of 4k support.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 3.38.17 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 3.38.17 PM.png
    16.9 KB · Views: 3,188
nutmac

nutmac

macrumors 603
Mar 30, 2004
6,062
7,345
commander.data said:
VRAM for IGPs is also dynamically allocated in Mavericks, so it'll only take as much as it needs from system memory. This gives Apple more flexibility in setting the theoretical maximum. In previous versions of OS X, VRAM allocation was fixed and the IGP permanently stealing 1.5GB of RAM would have been bothersome even with 8GB of RAM.
Click to expand...

Good point, but do you happen to know how IGP releases memory? For instance, if a Mac is connected to 4K monitor and it is currently using 1.5GB RAM, does it release the memory immediately if OS X is running out of RAM for application processes?

At any rate, IGP puts additional pressure on need for Apple to (1) increase the base memory on all Macs (MBA) to 8GB and (2) offer 32GB RAM option for MBPs.
 
street.cory

street.cory

macrumors 6502
Oct 13, 2009
379
168
C

commander.data

macrumors 65816
Nov 10, 2006
1,058
187
nutmac said:
Good point, but do you happen to know how IGP releases memory? For instance, if a Mac is connected to 4K monitor and it is currently using 1.5GB RAM, does it release the memory immediately if OS X is running out of RAM for application processes?
Click to expand...
I don't know the details, but I imagine applications can't force the IGP to release memory since if the IGP is actually using it that could cause graphical corruption. The IGP should be releasing RAM back to the system when it's no longer needed.

Mavericks also added support for compressed memory though so if system RAM is running low, Mavericks will compress the least frequently used data in RAM (while still keeping it resident in RAM) which can be around 50% efficient. So a Mavericks Mac with 4 GB of RAM can have 6GB of effective memory and 8 GB of RAM has about 12 GB of effective memory. Once Mavericks has compressed as much memory as possible it'll start swapping to disk as usual.
 
sumo.do

sumo.do

macrumors regular
Mar 12, 2014
161
39
Australia
SmileyDude said:
I have a 2012 Mac mini with HD Graphics 4000 and I've went from 768MB to 1GB with the update, so it's not necessarily because of 4k support.
Click to expand...

The VRAM on the 2012 mini already went up to 1024MB when Mavericks (10.9) came out. It certainly did with mine and many others on the forum, although that might have been because I run 16GB RAM. Although a member in this post reports it going up with Mavericks 10.9 on just 4GB RAM.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1658108/

In relation to mini owners, you might all just be noticing only now what already happened with Mavericks 10.9 months ago. That is, you had 1024MB all along. :)
 
Last edited:
burne

burne

macrumors 6502
Jul 4, 2007
302
43
Haarlem, the Netherlands
benjalamelami said:
Essentially, nothing. Your games will look pretty much the same. More memory helps to store information on the video RAM, so you can have more resolution but not necessarily more speed.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

To store a single frame buffer at 1920x1200x32 resolution requires slightly less than 9Mbyte. Triple buffered graphics use the better part of 32Mbyte.

Upping that to 4K requires less than 128Mbyte. I think I do have a 128Mbyte USB stick somewhere with some DOS software demo on it. From 15 years ago.

Or in other words: If you'd use the full 1.5Gbyte as frame buffer you'd end up with a 25820x14524 resolution. No 4K, no 8K, but 25K.

The rest of your VRAM is actually used to do offscreen rendering of new windows, and in case of games, storing textures. More textures in VRAM means less time spent swapping textures around when you move through the game and thus some performance benefits.

Then again, modern CPU's are so fast the penalty of decompressing and swapping textures is minimal and you won't notice much difference unless you're running a specialist benchmark designed to show the effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom