Intel Iris Pro Graphics

Yes, the Intel Iris Pro is good enough for that and more. No need for a dedicated GPU just for Photoshop.

Pronoun said:

Even the 3D features (CC 2014)?

Click to expand...

This is not a thread question. It is an FAQ question. Just look up system requirements. 3D features don't take much when it comes to moving around a few polygons, and aside from that, if you're going to do anything meaningful with 3d modeling, the photoshop tools are terrible. Even Blender would be a better choice.

The Iris Pro is capable of running 3D games, even current ones, albeit lower settings.
The bit of 3D needed for Photoshop will work with the IrisPro, even dedicated 3D applications will be able to display several thousands of polygons in a viewport.

If you are still unsure and do not get the answers you seek, probably due to your nondescript thread title, something like "3D in Photoshop with the Iris Pro - possible?" could help, head over to Creative Cow Forums and ask there if no thread about that already exists.

Pronoun said:

It is a thread question, I posted this here to get advice because I find it helpful and if this post bothers you, just move along to another post. I like to hear about real world experience and what problems some people have had with the intergraded graphic cards such as the Intel Iris Pro Graphics. I haven't posted here a lot, but I do read the threads quite a bit and the users on this forum always seem happy to help. They tend to be very well informed and up to date with the current systems, why wouldn't someone ask a question here before dropping a couple grand on a new notebook. As I said in the original post, I work with desktop publishing applications, but I just don't want to limit myself and not be able to run some of the 3D features because the graphics card is not powerful enough. System requirements don't always give you the whole picture. In general is the Intel Iris Pro Graphics card going to limit me in anyway?

Click to expand...

Well the use of those tools isn't worth $500 either way. I can tell you that. Did you have an idea what you would do with them? As far as 3D tools go, what matters is what they have to compute. Any modern gpu can push around a few polygons, which is probably what you would be doing. If you go up high enough, both options can hit a pretty distinct wall. I wouldn't expect either to be able to render a few million polygons with shading. That sounds like a lot, but it's a matter of subdivision levels where starting from a base mesh as level 0, your number of polygons would be basenumber * 2^2n. For what you're doing, I think you're wasting your money on gpu.

If you wanted to do any "heavy" 3D work rather than only using proxies in your viewport, you would still be looking at a desktop option today. Apart from the lack of power, you'll drain your battery even with the charger plugged in if it has to max both cpu and gpu simultaneously while powering that display. Check Apple discussions if you don't believe me. That problem is actually less likely on integrated graphics. I would say the only way to know if you would be happy with one yet not the other is to test it yourself due to some of the conflicting issues I just mentioned, but for a few polygons, as long as it supports the required OpenGL spec on paper and doesn't have any known bugs. Check something like creativecow for that. Don't make a thread for hardware that has been out an entire year because it's a jerk move. Look up existing ones, because if there's an issue, it's generally known and discussed within a couple months. Otherwise you're fine.