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

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, May 20, 2014.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    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.

    [​IMG]
    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
     
  2. macrumors 603

    Michaelgtrusa

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Location:
    Everywhere And Nowhere
  3. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    #3
    Will this anyhow improve performance in games? How?
     
  4. macrumors member

    HipsterGG

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2013
    Location:
    Somewhere in a galaxy far far away.
    #4
    So, how would this effect gaming performance?
     
  5. macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #5
    I wonder how many Intel HD5xxx users will notice any difference.
     
  6. macrumors regular

    Populus

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Location:
    Valencia, Spain.
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #7
    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....

    ----------

    My guess about 1% at best....
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    silvetti

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Location:
    Poland
    #8
    More VRAM does not actually improve graphics, it's useful for higher resolutions and allows for textures to load faster.

    I might be wrong :)
     
  9. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 68020

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #10
    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.
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    kwokaaron

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    #11
    The VRAM capacity is allocated dynamically so the 1.5GB mentioned is the new maximum the graphics card can use. Therefore it wouldn't use up your RAM unnecessarily.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    MA
    #13
    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.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Location:
    Aussie living in Canada
    #15
    Sweet, I don't even know what this does but I received it and I am glad.
     
  16. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Location:
    london
    #16
    holy sheiitttt
     
  17. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    street.cory

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    #18
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Location:
    London
    #20
    That's what I thought!!
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    #21
    Brace yourself for a new Apple Display (fingers crossed)
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    Parasprite

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    #22
    Exactly what I'm seeing. Nice find! :)
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    #23
    Yes i've noticed it yesterday! Very nice indeed.
     
  24. sumo.do, May 20, 2014
    Last edited: May 20, 2014

    macrumors member

    sumo.do

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Australia
    #24
    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.

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=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. :)
     
  25. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Haarlem, the Netherlands
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page