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

Can 13" with HD 3000 do 2560x1440 well?

DustinT said:
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.
Click to expand...
And the answer to that question is yes. Even more so when you read what he plans on doing with that resolution. Everyone in this thread and the other thread I posted have posted that it runs great. The only one here who has anything negative to say is the only person who's never actually done it and that's you.

I've seen people edit HD video in Final Cut on 13" MBP's connected to 27" and 30" monitors with no lag or hiccups. It's not as big of a deal as you think it is.
 
asdf542 said:
And the answer to that question is yes. Even more so when you read what he plans on doing with that resolution. Everyone in this thread and the other thread I posted have posted that it runs great. The only one here who has anything negative to say is the only person who's never actually done it and that's you.

I've seen people edit HD video in Final Cut on 13" MBP's connected to 27" and 30" monitors with no lag or hiccups. It's not as big of a deal as you think it is.
Click to expand...
The other thread you posted was about a Mac Mini with an Nvidia card, thats hardly relevant.

Anyway, my point stands. If you run a high resolution screen on any system with an integrated graphics system you'll be loosing overall memory bandwidth. Now, if loosing performance isn't a big deal than its not a big deal.

Again, it depends on how you define 'well'. I'm just having a bit of a problem with why you would choose to purchase the most portable MBP and then connect it to the least portable screen? An iMac would make a lot more sense in that case, I think.

Performance wise, I wasn't really in love with my 15" MBP until I added the SSD. This whole thread makes me think about giving up 30+% of my memory bandwidth and, I have to say, I just don't like the idea. But, until we've got someone with a 13" and a Cinema Display we won't have any numbers to show one way or the other so continuing this discussion would be rather pointless. Perhaps in the future we'll get some proper testing done and can sort this out properly.
 
DustinT said:
The other thread you posted was about a Mac Mini with an Nvidia card, thats hardly relevant.
Click to expand...
It's an integrated card that shares memory. That's your whole argument, no? That he needs the discrete GPU of a 15" which you just happened to upgrade to? Who cares if it's an NVIDIA card or Intel. That's what's irrelevant.

Anyway, my point stands. If you run a high resolution screen on any system with an integrated graphics system you'll be loosing overall memory bandwidth. Now, if loosing performance isn't a big deal than its not a big deal.
Click to expand...
When you connect a machine to a monitor with a discrete GPU you are giving half of the VRAM to that monitor. The IGP has a maximum amount of shared RAM it can take. If you have an IGP with 512 MB you have 256 MB left for one monitor and 256 MB left for the other. You will not be "losing" anything that you wouldn't if you were to connect a discrete GPU to an external monitor.

Again, it depends on how you define 'well'. I'm just having a bit of a problem with why you would choose to purchase the most portable MBP and then connect it to the least portable screen? An iMac would make a lot more sense in that case, I think.
Click to expand...
Is this a serious question? Can you move an iMac around with you as much as you can a 13" MBP? Maybe some people want portability and the screen size for various occasions. They aren't going to be plugged into the screen all the time.

Performance wise, I wasn't really in love with my 15" MBP until I added the SSD. This whole thread makes me think about giving up 30+% of my memory bandwidth and, I have to say, I just don't like the idea. But, until we've got someone with a 13" and a Cinema Display we won't have any numbers to show one way or the other so continuing this discussion would be rather pointless. Perhaps in the future we'll get some proper testing done and can sort this out properly.
Click to expand...
Shared memory comes from your RAM. Your SSD is irrelevant.
 
DustinT said:
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.
Click to expand...

why the heck would somebody be rendering with a paltry intel gpu? it will do fine for the OPs needs.
 
Just to settle things, I will take my 13", 2011 Macbook Pro home from work and connect it to my Dell U2711 and run Geekbench both with and without the monitor connected.
 
fat jez said:
Just to settle things, I will take my 13", 2011 Macbook Pro home from work and connect it to my Dell U2711 and run Geekbench both with and without the monitor connected.
Click to expand...
Terrific, that should help a bit.Is there any chance you'd mind running a full Xbench and Geekbench? I have done limited testing here and I'd love to see if you can confirm the results.

Thanks!
 
DustinT said:
Terrific, that should help a bit.Is there any chance you'd mind running a full Xbench and Geekbench? I have done limited testing here and I'd love to see if you can confirm the results.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

It's a work laptop, so I might be limited in what I can do, but I'll give it a go. Do you want me to run it with a video on the Dell screen? I might be able to sort out an MKV of a Bluray rip I did.
 
fat jez said:
It's a work laptop, so I might be limited in what I can do, but I'll give it a go. Do you want me to run it with a video on the Dell screen? I might be able to sort out an MKV of a Bluray rip I did.
Click to expand...
The main thing is geekbench and xnebch with and without the external monitor. If you can do a set with the video that would be interesting but if its too much trouble don't sweat it.
 
fat jez said:
OK, first up, the results of the tests while running a 1080p MKV of the Pacific on the Dell U2711 second display (nothing on the first display, just the wallpaper).

Xbench
Geekbench

Now Xbench and Geekbench on their own with the Dell U2711 connected.
Xbench
Geekbench

And finally just the MBP on its own.
Xbench
Geekbench
Click to expand...
Fat Jez, you are the man.

From those results there's a 4%-8% drop in available memory bandwidth just from connecting an external GPU. That jumps to 16% just playing one video stream. I wonder what would happen if we start adding other applications that require memory performance.

So, can you run a 2560x1440 monitor from a MacBook 13"? Sure... But you'll be slowing the entire system down between 4% - 16% in the process. If performance doesn't matter that much than go for it. Personally, if I'm asked to make a recommendation I'll suggest the 15" with a discrete graphics card since it won't loose that much performance just plugging in a monitor. But, I know there's a lot of people out there that aren't so demanding. If thats you, enjoy!
 
The real issue is Xbench is such an ancient tool i'd be more inclined to trust readings from a Tarot card and Geekbench results are as unstable as my friends marriage.
 
daneoni said:
The real issue is Xbench is such an ancient tool i'd be more inclined to trust readings from a Tarot card and Geekbench results are as unstable as my friends marriage.
Click to expand...
Lol! Tell me about it. I wish I had the hardware to test this more fully but I have neither the Macbook or the display to do it. Anyone else in a position to test?
 
fat jez said:
OK, first up, the results of the tests while running a 1080p MKV of the Pacific on the Dell U2711 second display (nothing on the first display, just the wallpaper).

Xbench
Geekbench

Now Xbench and Geekbench on their own with the Dell U2711 connected.
Xbench
Geekbench

And finally just the MBP on its own.
Xbench
Geekbench
Click to expand...

The test you didn't do if playing the 1080p video on the MBP without the monitor attached. I imagine that there's a similar decrease.

The 4% decrease when connected to external monitor is well within the error margin of geekbench.

i.e. there should be no meaningful decrease in performance when connected to external monitor.
 
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
Back