Can 13" with HD 3000 do 2560x1440 well?

[Florida Gator]

Anybody with experience with the current 13" with HD 3000 integrated graphics and a 27" Cinema Display or Dell U2711 running at 2560x1440. I know that the 13" CAN output to this, but does it do it well?

I've read reports that moving and resizing windows is often choppy. Obviously, gaming is out of the question for the most part. But can it handle Expose at full framerate, smoothly move windows and play 1080p video without stuttering?

I'm going to get a 27" screen and don't need monster graphics, but I do need for these things to be buttery smooth and not be laggy and choppy on the external screen.

 

[blinkin182]

Good question!

Hi,

I would also be curious to know. I did just buy a refurb MBP 13, but don't have the right adapter and screen to test it.

I wouldn't want to hijack your thread, but also wonder if the type of adapters (MiniDisplay Port to DVI or VGA or HDMI) makes a difference?

 

[fat jez]

I've used a 13" MBP with that resolution. It works absolutely fine, no choppiness that I could see. I was using it with a Dell U2711, connected via displayport. I didn't try playing video on it though.

 

[DustinT]

Ya, there would be a lot of compromises doing that. I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Macsavvytech]

Ya, there would be a lot of compromises doing that. I wouldn't recommend it.

Evidence, the only poster that has experience says its fine. I personally can't see any problems with it. The only thing that may be problematic is 1080p video playback.

 

[fat jez]

I should add that I've played back video fine with it connected to a 1680x1050 Dell display via DVI.

 

[Vanarak19]

if the 320m could do it, so can the hd3000. I wish I had a monitor to test for you.

 

[dusk007]

You guys don't give Intel's engineers enough credit. That piece of GPU is really power efficient and does everything in the low level very good. It is not good at more complex stuff but it doesn't have the power anyway.
It can support 2 parallel 1080p streams and thus should have no problem at all with playback of pretty much anything although I guess the driver might not support 3D bluray.
1080p encode/decode quality was actually better than with Nvidia in some tests.

And simple resolution is rarely the problem even the 6EU HD 2000 can drive 2560x1600 at least 30hz.

 

[DustinT]

Part of the problem is the frame buffer required is so high for a screen that resolution. You'll consume 113 megs of ram out of your total of 384. Oh, lets not forget thats not even dedicated ram, its coming out of the memory you'd be using to run your system on. Hypothetically, dual channel 1333mhz ram has 21gb/s memory bandwidth and you'd be using 6.6 gb/s just to drive your screen.

So, if you ask the question, can it do it? Yes, it can. But, there'd be too many compromises for my tastes. I'd recommend at least the base 15" since it has a gpu with dedicated ram so overall system performance wouldn't suffer as much as you'd likely see with the 13".

By the way, I've owned a 13" and I was very impressed with the graphics. I just wouldn't recommend you drive a large panel with it ever day. But, I'm sure there are people doing it who don't mind loosing the memory performance. To each his own.

 

[Florida Gator]

I just don't want choppy Expose or basic OS animations being laggy at that resolution.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Well? No.

 

[ApplePu]

Well? YES.

I've been using this setup for a while and haven't encountered any problems yet.

I just did a little test for you: open were

-Word
-Excel
-iCal

and 3 (!) quicktime 1080P streams at the same time

and exposé worked without any hickups and absolutely flawless! no lag, no chops!

 

[DustinT]

Well? No.

Agreed, loosing that much memory bandwidth on a system with low number anyway will slow most everything down.

 

[asdf542]

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3246

Intel HD Graphics 3000 allocates a base amount of 384 MB for video and processes at startup. For example, a MacBook Pro (13-inch, Early 2011) with 4 GB of RAM installed has 3.7 GB of memory available to Mac OS X and applications (4096-384=3712). For portables that have been upgraded to 8 GB of RAM, the Intel HD Graphics 3000 will allocate 512 MB of system memory instead of 384 MB. For example, a MacBook Pro (15-inch, Early 2011) with 8 GB of RAM has 7.6 GB of available memory (8192-512=7680)

 

[DustinT]

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3246

That is an interesting link, thank you. I didn't know the system would allocate more ram to the video card if the system ram had been upgraded. It makes sense though.

It doesn't change the available bandwidth though and the fact you'd be loose 31.4% of it to drive the screen. That has to have an impact on the systems performance. Will it be noticeable for the user? It would seem that any application that pushes the memory substantially will see a decline in performance. This wouldn't show up in the number of 1080p video streams that can be rendered simultaneously rather it would show up in lower performance in applications that fully exploit the memory bandwidth. Rendering comes to mind as something that would suffer.

 

[daneoni]

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3246

Yup. I don't see the HD3000 having problems personally.

 

[jonnysods]

This is good to know. I just bought mine, I haven't had a chance to hook it up to my 24" ACD yet. I also run a 1900x1200 display alongside it using a USB video card adapeter. Cant wait to try it out!

 

[DustinT]

This is good to know. I just bought mine, I haven't had a chance to hook it up to my 24" ACD yet. I also run a 1900x1200 display alongside it using a USB video card adapeter. Cant wait to try it out!

using a USB adapter will prevent the problems I'm mentioning since it offloads the processing to the external device. Thats a good thing.

 

[Florida Gator]

Agreed, loosing that much memory bandwidth on a system with low number anyway will slow most everything down.

Including graphic performance?

 

[DustinT]

Including graphic performance?

Well, the graphics performance is the cause of the other slow downs... So, there's a really strong relationship there. Basically, when the computer has an integrated video card both the CPU and the graphics processor share the ram. So, when one is stressed heavily the other suffers. Whereas when the computer has a dedicated card the graphics processor has its own, dedicated memory. So does the CPU. Naturally, performance of both increases as a result. Its like two people trying to share a car. It'll work but its not as nice as each person having their own car.

So, like I said, you can run an ACD off a MBP 13" but there will be some compromises. If I have the option, I'd recommend even the base 15" since it has a dedicated graphics processor with its own dedicated ram. Overall performance will be much stronger.

 

[kjjnk]

Don't believe the FUD that was posted here. I have a couple of buddies who actually own these machines and run them off 30" displays with no hiccups. Let alone the people I know that do the same with the weaker 9400M.

 

[corvus32]

Well, the graphics performance is the cause of the other slow downs... So, there's a really strong relationship there. Basically, when the computer has an integrated video card both the CPU and the graphics processor share the ram. So, when one is stressed heavily the other suffers. Whereas when the computer has a dedicated card the graphics processor has its own, dedicated memory. So does the CPU. Naturally, performance of both increases as a result. Its like two people trying to share a car. It'll work but its not as nice as each person having their own car.

So, like I said, you can run an ACD off a MBP 13" but there will be some compromises. If I have the option, I'd recommend even the base 15" since it has a dedicated graphics processor with its own dedicated ram. Overall performance will be much stronger.

A few days ago I ran Geekbench with automatic graphics switching enabled and disabled just to test this theory for myself. What I found was only a slight increase in performance with AGS disabled. I would have to run the test again to get the details of the individual scores, but the difference in total wasn't much (maybe 1%).

EDIT
Added some quick and dirty Geekbench results:

AGS enabled

AGS disabled

As you can see, the integer and floating point results are basically identical. Memory performance does increase with the IGP switched off, but not appreciably, IMO.

 

[DustinT]

A few days ago I ran Geekbench with automatic graphics switching enabled and disabled just to test this theory for myself. What I found was only a slight increase in performance with AGS disabled. I would have to run the test again to get the details of the individual scores, but the difference in total wasn't much (maybe 1%).

I appreciate your posting this. But, here's the thing... Your MacBook, the 17", is just like mine which is a 15". The internal graphics card isn't connected electrically to the minidisplay port. Ie, its impossible for a 15" or 17" to drive an external monitor off the Intel chip. So, your test wouldn't really prove anything.

What is needed is a user with a 13" and an ACD. Xbench should report lower memory scores when the ACD is being driven at full resolution. I'd offer to test but I don't have my 13" anymore.

 

[asdf542]

Dustin... all the OP wants to do is move windows around, have a smooth Exposé and watch 1080p videos while at a resolution of 2560x1440. All of which the 13" MBP can handle without breaking a sweat. He's not doing anything that's memory intensive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiT98D8PhTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttawdDP23pk
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12655347

 

[DustinT]

Dustin... all the OP wants to do is move windows around, have a smooth Exposé and watch 1080p videos while at a resolution of 2560x1440. All of which the 13" MBP can handle without breaking a sweat. He's not doing anything that's memory intensive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiT98D8PhTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttawdDP23pk
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12655347

Asdf, I hear you. The title of the thread is 'Can the 13" dor 2560x1440 well?' At this point all I can say is that it must depend on how you define well.