13" Retina with dedicated graphics?!

[chibiterasu]

Thank you for correcting me.

No problem we all make mistakes

It looks like someone else has already pointed this out. Whoops.

Anyway, the HD4000 is a REALLY good integrated solution, but I don't know if it's good enough for this situation.

Hehe look like I beat you to it lol

The 320M is an integrated GPU. The only difference is that it was integrated within the mainboard chip while current CPUs integrate the parts of mainboard chip (memory controller and GPU).

A dedicated GPU is a GPU which a) resides in a separate chip on its own (not integrated with other system components) and b) has its own RAM.

I doubt that the mainboard of the 13" MBP has enough space to fit a dGPU. Although, this could be possible if the ODD is dropped.

Oh really again with the repeating lol

and for everyone saying how the intel HD4000 can support a retina display. It can't, yes its good integrated solution begin 60% faster than a HD 3000 and the 320m as well. But all you have to do is look at people complaining about how Facebook lags on the 15 rMbp with the 650m ( see here for more details about graphic performance https://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/2...shes-the-limits-of-its-graphics-capabilities/)

 

[immanuelsun]

I, on the other hand, doubt it.

The HD4000 in my 11" 2012 Air runs my 2560x1440 Thunderbolt Display and its own 1366x768 display without breaking a sweat. I imagine that they've been holding off in order to get Mountain Lion to a point where performance is -- at least -- reasonable on the HD4000. Seems like that time is about now.

I won't count on hd4000 to run retina 2560*1440 smoothly, 'cause its performance on 15inch retina is really doubtable.

 

[leman]

Oh really again with the repeating lol

Sorry, didn't see your post.

and for everyone saying how the intel HD4000 can support a retina display. It can't, yes its good integrated solution begin 60% faster than a HD 3000 and the 320m as well. But all you have to do is look at people complaining about how Facebook lags on the 15 rMbp with the 650m ( see here for more details about graphic performance https://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/2...shes-the-limits-of-its-graphics-capabilities/)

Well... I did UI tests with my rMBP compared to the 2009 MBP. Facebook and The Verge (constant scrolling) were both around 20-30 fps using the balanced HiDPI mode (HD4000) on the rMBP and 30-40fps using the 1920x1200 HiDPI mode (650M). The 2009 MBP (9600M GT) shows 20-30fps on 1440x900. So I couldn't find any slowdowns with the rMBP UI. And btw, things which are sluggish (for instance, App Store resizing) - are also slow on any other Mac I have tried. My point is: the HD4000 should be capable of supporting HiDPI 1280x800 if it already can do HiDPI 1440x900.

----------

I won't count on hd4000 to run retina 2560*1440 smoothly, 'cause its performance on 15inch retina is really doubtable.

Who is talking about 2560x1440 retina? That would be 5120x2880 pixels, which is an absolutely ridiculous resolution. Of course HD4000 won't be able to run it adequately. But the HiDPI version of the 13" MBP is only 2560x1600. In contrast, the 15" default mode has to run 2880x1800 and the HD4000 doesn't seem to struggle with it. Surely it won't have any problems with 26% less pixels.

 

[Dark Void]

Highly doubt it - but hopefully quad core at least. If another dual core i5 or i7 model is released for the 13'' it would be kind of disappointing in my opinion. In other words, if it's just dual-core with a slightly better integrated chip than the HD 4000 with 4 GB RAM - I don't really see the appeal. Just because it's a Retina screen? I guess.

 

[heisenberg123]

Highly doubt it - but hopefully quad core at least. If another dual core i5 or i7 model is released for the 13'' it would be kind of disappointing in my opinion. In other words, if it's just dual-core with a slightly better integrated chip than the HD 4000 with 4 GB RAM - I don't really see the appeal. Just because it's a Retina screen? I guess.

the appeal would be they could keep it in the 1300 range with quad core and dual of beefed up GPU its going to be 1700 range for the base

 

[snaky69]

if you have another monitor plugged in. when you try to force the hd4000 it just disables the other monitor.

That would be because the thunderbolt port is not physically connected to the HD4000 on macs with a dedicated graphics card. It has nothing to do with the HD4000's performance and everything to do with how it is soldered onto the board.

 

[NutsNGum]

I won't count on hd4000 to run retina 2560*1440 smoothly, 'cause its performance on 15inch retina is really doubtable.

Re-read what I posted.

 

[Dark Void]

the appeal would be they could keep it in the 1300 range with quad core and dual of beefed up GPU its going to be 1700 range for the base

I don't understand the appeal in that though compared to current 13'' Mac laptops. If it gets a small dual-core bump and a slightly increased integrated graphics chip - what's the big appeal? Just the screen?

It doesn't seem too great if the screen is going to be the only thing that is going to be a significant change was what I was trying to convey.

 

[heisenberg123]

I don't understand the appeal in that though compared to current 13'' Mac laptops. If it gets a small dual-core bump and a slightly increased integrated graphics chip - what's the big appeal? Just the screen?

It doesn't seem too great if the screen is going to be the only thing that is going to be a significant change was what I was trying to convey.

I understood but would people pay 1799 for a 13" rMBP because thats where i would see the base price for one with a quad core and dual GPU

 

[Cassadian]

Again. I highly doubt that the Intel HD4000 isn't suited for the task. It's the software. I'm sure that if you ran the native resolution of the Retina without any scaling I'm sure the HD4000 would run it just fine. Or at the very least an alternative like the GT620M, GT630 or any lower end mobile graphics cards would be suitable for the job.

 

[Dark Void]

I understood but would people pay 1799 for a 13" rMBP because thats where i would see the base price for one with a quad core and dual GPU

I am not sure if people would do so, and I'm not sure where you are getting that number from either.

It's a $1,200 laptop - I think they can squeeze in something else besides a screen to make it more appealing. Quad-core, dedicated graphics, more memory, SSD - anything. Another refresh with a dual-core i5 or i7 processor, 4GB memory, integrated graphics, and a 5400 RPM hard drive seems like a slap in the face at this point.

 

[heisenberg123]

I am not sure if people would do so, and I'm not sure where you are getting that number from either.

It's a $1,200 laptop - I think they can squeeze in something else besides a screen to make it more appealing. Quad-core, dedicated graphics, more memory, SSD - anything. Another refresh with a dual-core i5 or i7 processor, 4GB memory, integrated graphics, and a 5400 RPM hard drive seems like a slap in the face at this point.

But if you make the CPU and GPU the same as the 15" you can't make it $900 cheaper it would be closer to $300 cheaper

 

[jdechko]

I am firmly in the camp that thinks the HD4000 could drive an internal 13" retina display and at least 1xExternal just fine. The Current 13" MBP and both MBA can drive the internal monitor (at up to 1440x900 on the Air) and 2x TBD (2560x1440 each). And those machines only have the HD4000. What I'm not sure of is whether we will see a Retina 13" + 2 TBD (which is only slightly more pixels than 3x TBD).

According to my calculations

Retina 13" + 2(TBD) = (2560*1600) + 2*(2560*1440) = 11,468,800 pixels total
MBA 13" + 2(TBD) = (1440*900) + 2*(2560*1440) = 8,668,800 pixels total

Retina 13" setup would have about 32% more pixels. That's where my doubts with the HD4000 are. Supporting only 1 external monitor would be a step back in my opinion.