Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
dGPU or not?
- Thread starter Dr_Charles_Forbin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly, Apple made significant improvements to the MBP cooling system with the introduction of the Retina models, equally they still run at the absolute upper limit, therefore suffer more thermal shock than counterparts that have superior cooling solutions. The more frequently & harder you push the dGPU the more likely it is to fail.
Best thing Apple can do is drop the MBP with dGPU completely or design one worthy of running a high-end mobile dGPU. What we see now is just poor for the price point; mediocre dGPU that will throttle down to protect Apple (think Radeon-Gate) combined with intrusive fan noise.
Q-6
What a great argument. Going from "Yeah I'm willing to risk 2k+ for a device even if it's prone to failure" to "Yeah you definitely don't need this advice" makes great sense. Keep it up, proud of you.
[doublepost=1464369291][/doublepost]
Read my statement again. First off, Apple Care doesn't help whatsoever. If they replace your defective logic board with a same one that's labeled as refurbished or new, that doesn't solve the problem. You would have essentially paid $200-300 for nothing solved.
Next, it's even worse to go down the road of, "Well this product works for ME, therefore YOU should purchase a reason x (In which this case is a dGPU MBP). Google the problems that have been associated with the 11-13 models of the 15 MBP and now find what people are having problems with the 15 MBP from 14-15. The exact same thing. So if OP or another purchaser were to choose the MBP - even if it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL (Which is total bogus - at worst, you can purchase a PC for $2000-3000 with top of the line absolutely essential parts), s/he would be stuck in a rabbit hole of getting a defective logic board, and having to turn that computer in repeatedly (Regardless of purchasing an Apple Care or not) until Apple decides to put out another repair program.
[doublepost=1464369374][/doublepost]
Are you saying this because of the lack of repair programs Apple put out? Keep in mind they put out the repair program I believe either 2015 or 2016... Either way, 2 or 3 years after the well documented problems. Wouldn't be surprised if it's going to release a similar program for the 2014 models in-between this year and 2018. Same thing with the 2015 model.
I'd be surprised if Apple didn't correct the dGPU issue with the model year '14 laptop. Do you really think that every single iteration of the 15" retina MBP will have catastrophic graphics card failures?
Not every 2011-2013 model had a catastrophic disaster. It was that the logic board and dGPU that came with the computers, as well as the batch that Apple used in its repair depots, were all ****ed. I'm sure the majority of users had a good enough of a dGPU, or at least didn't use their computers enough, to cause the symptoms. I think the same applies here.
I actually have experience with dGPU 15" MBPr. For me, it was not necessary. I now use a 13" with no dGPU and I am fine.
In a language full of polysemy and homonymy such as English, opportunities for misreadings are bound to arise. So I will break it down to a point perhaps even you can understand. I need the dGPU. You clearly do not.
For me, if your usage requires a discrete GPU, you're better off either getting an iMac, a PC, or a thunderbolt enclosure to run one in (for when you're at a desk, on AC power).
Running a discrete GPU burns power at a huge rate. Which means typically you need to be connected to AC to do any significant time working with it (on stuff that demands the GPU be fired up) anyway. And if i'm connected to AC, i'm generally at a desk. And if i'm at a desk, i can hook up a thunderbolt box, or just use a desktop.
Sure, some people need/want a discrete GPU and want to be able to carry it around inside a laptop, and that's fine. Just be aware of the trade-offs; and that if you don't need it for your workload it is just a waste of money, battery life, and potentially, reliability.
The intel GPUs are fast enough for the vast majority of what most people spend most of their time running on a portable.
I do hobby HD video on my 13" machine with no discrete GPU and it's fine. If i was using it to make money editing 4k video all day then sure, a GPU would be worth it. But i'm not. I spend less than 1 hour per month doing that....
High end gaming? Will suck on any portable GPU anyway... and you can't really game for more than an hour on battery anyway because gaming chews so much power.
So yeah....
Running a discrete GPU burns power at a huge rate. Which means typically you need to be connected to AC to do any significant time working with it (on stuff that demands the GPU be fired up) anyway. And if i'm connected to AC, i'm generally at a desk. And if i'm at a desk, i can hook up a thunderbolt box, or just use a desktop.
Sure, some people need/want a discrete GPU and want to be able to carry it around inside a laptop, and that's fine. Just be aware of the trade-offs; and that if you don't need it for your workload it is just a waste of money, battery life, and potentially, reliability.
The intel GPUs are fast enough for the vast majority of what most people spend most of their time running on a portable.
I do hobby HD video on my 13" machine with no discrete GPU and it's fine. If i was using it to make money editing 4k video all day then sure, a GPU would be worth it. But i'm not. I spend less than 1 hour per month doing that....
High end gaming? Will suck on any portable GPU anyway... and you can't really game for more than an hour on battery anyway because gaming chews so much power.
So yeah....
This says it best. Arguing what uses are best for other people is trivial. What some call a better solution, others will undoubtedly find an undue burden. Those that can make use of the dGPU are usually smart enough to figure out if they need it in their mobile solution. Everybody else, more likely than not will be better with the iGPU.
To get back on topic, it doesn't seem the OP will benefit from the dGPU in the current MacBook Pro. The OP hasn't expanded on just what they use Premiere for or if it will even benefit from OpenCL hardware acceleration. More information would be helpful. As I said before, if you have to ask then you probably don't need it.
Last edited:
Apple had a string of GPU failures from 2008 through 2011 (excluding 2009 for some reason those were fine), so yeah I think its conceivable to worry about it
I am hoping Apple has resolved the issues, but to be honest, I'm not sure I'd be willing to risk the $$ on a MBP, when the iGPU (for my needs) is more then enough.
^ That's true, Matt, but after seeing as how Apple had to open and then later extend the free repair/replacement program I doubt they'd want that kind of negative press again. Also, I haven't heard a peep from late-2013 and on users with dGPU failures. I hope you're right, too. I hate seeing people's laptops go bad when they're so expensive and critical for their jobs.
I hope you're right, too. I hate seeing people's laptops go bad when they're so expensive and critical for their jobs.
No, they are not fine. My Mid-2009 17" MBP (9600M GT) had the dGPU problem. See also:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/are-all-macbook-pro-owners-with-9600m-gt-screwed.614158/
D'oh.
I thought the 09's were the one good model out of the lot, I guess I was wrong.
That's a bummer
Simple answer on that is that a company like does not put an extended warranty scheme in place for a small minority of failing units, they do so to prevent extended regulation being put in place by a court of law due to a significant number of notebooks failing due to poor design.
"or at least didn't use their computers enough, to cause the symptoms." seriously apply that to an aircraft then strap yourself in
Apple screwed the design up, they have very decent lawyers, no need to for those on the receiving end of substandard product to defend them Reality is that Apple has a tragic track record with the MacBook Pro and dGPU, for my tastes they are making rather a habit of it. If you really look at it the majority of MBP`s over the years have had issue with dGPU. It`s getting better, equally that`s down to Intel, Nvidia & AMD not Apple...
Q-6
[doublepost=1464454227][/doublepost]
D'oh.
I thought the 09's were the one good model out of the lot, I guess I was wrong.
That's a bummer
No it`s really sad; 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 - 2013 All these top tier MacBook Pros have had an official Apple extended quality program the rest who knows. What I do know is that, I for one won't be buying another, am done being suckerd by one of the wealthiest companies in the world.
What`s even better, Apple only refurbishes the same poorly designed Logic Boards, which in general tend to fail in an even shorter period of time. Effectively just a "bandaid" to blow you off until Apple no longer has an legal liability.
Q-6
The 2009 MBPs had an extended quality program? Source?
& & My next MBP has a Broadwell or Skylake iGPU. The main reason are, that 1.) my bad experience with dGPUs and 2.) that HP and Dell offerings with similar specs are not cheaper.
@Queen6: Thanks for the additional warning regarding dGPUs.
@Dr_Charles_Forbin: No.
My 2014 MacBook Pro dGPU has never been a problem two years in. Don't pay attention to the negative posts. Half of them have never even owned one.
Don't pay attention to the positive posts. Half of them have never had a modern Intel GPU.
Just because yours doesn't have a problem (yet) doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.
Nice of you to sound so eloquent but misread my entire argument in the past posts. Your assertion that "those that bash the dGPU are the same ones that have no business using the dGPU" is false. In fact, I speculate that even before this post, you had no ideas of the dGPU failures, as posts from owners have been sprinkled in a variety of Apple forums, and had Apple even post official repair programs. For you, in light of these, to still say, "hurr durr you people bashing dGPU's know nothing about it" is just childish. I did my own research, how about you try to do it next time?
Next, moving onto the next step of my argument, for you to suggest OP to invest in a large amount of money for dGPU models of MBP's in light of these failures that plague even the most recent models is silly. Your counterargument seems to be, "Well I know what I use MY MacBook Pro for, and you clearly don't need a dGPU." That's not the point. Regardless of usage of the dGPU (As I actually use it, even though it's a rebrand of the 2012 model, which is for shame), the point is is that Apple will NOT look to fix the dGPU problems associated with the Macbook Pro's. If you were to extend this argument and suggest a PC with a nice GPU, I would agree. But given the fact that Apple is so infatuated with a slimmer design at the cost of performance, choice of GPU, and even user experience, I don't see how you can ever suggest or even use a dGPU model of the MBP.
And if you're trying to shove in the argument of, "Well I've never had this problem," don't bother. That circle jerk argument is so overdone and so useless in terms of seeing who's got what problems, and analyzing the situation, that it's hilarious that people still type in those comments.
[doublepost=1464495064][/doublepost]
I love these arguments! "I never had a problem with MY computer, ME, ONE PERSON, therefore these problems DEFINITELY don't exist!"
Last edited by a moderator:
That`s what a lot of 2011 owners were saying in 2013
All Apple has done is tweak the cooling algorithm to be more aggressive which makes the notebook noisy, it`s pretty useless under full load with the dGPU still reaching near three figures centigrade. Bottom lines the cooling is inadequate due to the design.For the 2015 MBP Apple`s solution is to aggressively throttle the dGPU, making it near pointless to be included in the system, given it`s already mediocre performance. Outstanding solutions from one of the worlds wealthiest companies...
Q-6
[doublepost=1464498251][/doublepost]
The 2009 MBPs had an extended quality program? Source?
My next MBP has a Broadwell or Skylake iGPU. The main reason are, that 1.) my bad experience with dGPUs and 2.) that HP and Dell offerings with similar specs are not cheaper.
@Queen6: Thanks for the additional warning regarding dGPUs.
@Dr_Charles_Forbin: No.
The truth is unless you absolutely need the dGPU it`s best avoided, for those with heavy gaming in mind you should be avoiding Mac`s period.
Q-6
At the end of the day, the quad core CPU in a macbook pro (including integrated graphics) 15 uses up to 45 watts of power. The discrete GPU has a thermal budget of typically 40-50 watts as well (on top of that). If you stick both of those in the machine and it runs hard, it will burn up ~90 watts of energy and also put out the equivalent amount of heat. A machine with integrated GPU only will max out at a power burn (and thus heat generation) somewhere near 45-50 watts.
Your cooling system in both machines is essentially the same. The enclosure (and thus the space available to dissipate heat not carried out by the heatsink fan) is the same. The battery capacity is the same.
Almost (? or is it every single one beyond 3 yrs?) every macbook model with a discrete GPU has a history of failure. If the current crop of machines that are still within the applecare period don't start dropping like flies at the 4 year mark, it will very much be an exception, not normal.
This isn't limited to MacBooks by the way. There is also a history of PC 15" portables with the same sort of GPU issues. But PC people accept the fact that PC hardware is usually thrown away or considered out of warranty and due for failure after the extended warranty runs out.
DELL, HP and others were affected by many of the same GPU problems as Apple (because at least a couple of them are due to GPU manufacturer fault), but Apple actually eventually offered an extended repair program. Most of the others did not.
IMHO, it's not just apple's cooling solution that is the problem (because other vendors also see similar problems using the same GPUs). It's also the fact that AMD and Nvidia are under pressure to compete with the other for GPU performance. In order to chase better GPU performance, they are pushing things, generally to the limit of the expected extended warranty period of 3 years.
Again, if you need the dGPU, go for it. Just be aware that you're sticking double the potential power draw and double the capacity for heat generation in the machine. Its life expectancy will be shorter, and if nothing else you have 2 core components with a chance of failure rather than one, so even if the design is good and the dGPU general "problem" is fixed you still have an increased chance of failure anyway simply due to more points of failure (the chance of failure of a machine as a whole is the sum of individual component failures).
As above, i would argue that there are better solutions for most people. External GPUs, desktop machines (performance even on high-end mobile GPUs sucks compared to desktop, so don't do it - consider getting 2 machines instead of trying to make a portable do everything), etc.
For some people, those alternatives may be unattractive or not feasible (e.g., you REALLY do need the GPU power in a portable machine for work purposes, to make money with due to visiting clients or doing high end work on the road), but for me at least, I tried the "do everything" portable machine many times since the early 00s (both work PCs and Macs), and it's always a compromise; size, weight, reliability, cost, battery life, etc. So I learned to accept the limitations of the laws of physics, and don't try and fit desktop class performance into a portable any more
[doublepost=1464500386][/doublepost]Oh one more thing...
My (failed) 2011 spec 15" machine was run HARD for most of its early life. The GPU was fine, until one day it just failed whilst playing a flash video (2 years after i stopped trying to do 3d stuff on it).
Was it heat that killed it? Who knows. Given that if failed whilst doing something fairly low stress (the fans weren't going nuts at the time), i'm not so sure. I'd say it's just a manufacturing problem in the GPU chips themselves.... nothing to do with the cooling in the macbook. The GPUs are rated to xx degrees C, the cooling system keeps them within spec (throttling if need be) and they still failed. That, to me, says chip failure due to manufacturing problem or design fault. Not apple's fault.
Your cooling system in both machines is essentially the same. The enclosure (and thus the space available to dissipate heat not carried out by the heatsink fan) is the same. The battery capacity is the same.
Almost (? or is it every single one beyond 3 yrs?) every macbook model with a discrete GPU has a history of failure. If the current crop of machines that are still within the applecare period don't start dropping like flies at the 4 year mark, it will very much be an exception, not normal.
This isn't limited to MacBooks by the way. There is also a history of PC 15" portables with the same sort of GPU issues. But PC people accept the fact that PC hardware is usually thrown away or considered out of warranty and due for failure after the extended warranty runs out.
DELL, HP and others were affected by many of the same GPU problems as Apple (because at least a couple of them are due to GPU manufacturer fault), but Apple actually eventually offered an extended repair program. Most of the others did not.
IMHO, it's not just apple's cooling solution that is the problem (because other vendors also see similar problems using the same GPUs). It's also the fact that AMD and Nvidia are under pressure to compete with the other for GPU performance. In order to chase better GPU performance, they are pushing things, generally to the limit of the expected extended warranty period of 3 years.
Again, if you need the dGPU, go for it. Just be aware that you're sticking double the potential power draw and double the capacity for heat generation in the machine. Its life expectancy will be shorter, and if nothing else you have 2 core components with a chance of failure rather than one, so even if the design is good and the dGPU general "problem" is fixed you still have an increased chance of failure anyway simply due to more points of failure (the chance of failure of a machine as a whole is the sum of individual component failures).
As above, i would argue that there are better solutions for most people. External GPUs, desktop machines (performance even on high-end mobile GPUs sucks compared to desktop, so don't do it - consider getting 2 machines instead of trying to make a portable do everything), etc.
For some people, those alternatives may be unattractive or not feasible (e.g., you REALLY do need the GPU power in a portable machine for work purposes, to make money with due to visiting clients or doing high end work on the road), but for me at least, I tried the "do everything" portable machine many times since the early 00s (both work PCs and Macs), and it's always a compromise; size, weight, reliability, cost, battery life, etc. So I learned to accept the limitations of the laws of physics, and don't try and fit desktop class performance into a portable any more
[doublepost=1464500386][/doublepost]Oh one more thing...
My (failed) 2011 spec 15" machine was run HARD for most of its early life. The GPU was fine, until one day it just failed whilst playing a flash video (2 years after i stopped trying to do 3d stuff on it).
Was it heat that killed it? Who knows. Given that if failed whilst doing something fairly low stress (the fans weren't going nuts at the time), i'm not so sure. I'd say it's just a manufacturing problem in the GPU chips themselves.... nothing to do with the cooling in the macbook. The GPUs are rated to xx degrees C, the cooling system keeps them within spec (throttling if need be) and they still failed. That, to me, says chip failure due to manufacturing problem or design fault. Not apple's fault.
Last edited:
At the end of the day, the quad core CPU in a macbook pro (including integrated graphics) 15 uses up to 45 watts of power. The discrete GPU has a thermal budget of typically 40-50 watts as well (on top of that). If you stick both of those in the machine and it runs hard, it will burn up ~90 watts of energy and also put out the equivalent amount of heat. A machine with integrated GPU only will max out at a power burn (and thus heat generation) somewhere near 45-50 watts.
Your cooling system in both machines is essentially the same. The enclosure (and thus the space available to dissipate heat not carried out by the heatsink fan) is the same. The battery capacity is the same.
Almost (? or is it every single one beyond 3 yrs?) every macbook model with a discrete GPU has a history of failure. If the current crop of machines that are still within the applecare period don't start dropping like flies at the 4 year mark, it will very much be an exception, not normal.
This isn't limited to MacBooks by the way. There is also a history of PC 15" portables with the same sort of GPU issues. But PC people accept the fact that PC hardware is usually thrown away or considered out of warranty and due for failure after the extended warranty runs out.
DELL, HP and others were affected by many of the same GPU problems as Apple (because at least a couple of them are due to GPU manufacturer fault), but Apple actually eventually offered an extended repair program. Most of the others did not.
IMHO, it's not just apple's cooling solution that is the problem (because other vendors also see similar problems using the same GPUs). It's also the fact that AMD and Nvidia are under pressure to compete with the other for GPU performance. In order to chase better GPU performance, they are pushing things, generally to the limit of the expected extended warranty period of 3 years.
Again, if you need the dGPU, go for it. Just be aware that you're sticking double the potential power draw and double the capacity for heat generation in the machine. Its life expectancy will be shorter, and if nothing else you have 2 core components with a chance of failure rather than one, so even if the design is good and the dGPU general "problem" is fixed you still have an increased chance of failure anyway simply due to more points of failure (the chance of failure of a machine as a whole is the sum of individual component failures).
As above, i would argue that there are better solutions for most people. External GPUs, desktop machines (performance even on high-end mobile GPUs sucks compared to desktop, so don't do it - consider getting 2 machines instead of trying to make a portable do everything), etc.
For some people, those alternatives may be unattractive or not feasible (e.g., you REALLY do need the GPU power in a portable machine for work purposes, to make money with due to visiting clients or doing high end work on the road), but for me at least, I tried the "do everything" portable machine many times since the early 00s (both work PCs and Macs), and it's always a compromise; size, weight, reliability, cost, battery life, etc. So I learned to accept the limitations of the laws of physics, and don't try and fit desktop class performance into a portable any more
Very much agree, thin & light notebooks with current technology and dGPU is just trouble in the making. Apple stands out as they have a limited line and as stated virtually every model with dGPU has had issue. Windows OEM`s tend to fair better as they are more likely to engineer the cooling system for efficiency over aesthetics, however in the case of failure support will certainly be lacking.
Personally I have arrived at the same point, if I need a dGPU I will opt for a Windows desktop (Workstation) solution. This then opens up the choice of notebooks vastly both Windows & OS X. These days my weapon of choice is the 12" Retina MacBook and potentially one of the 1Kg class windows 10 Ultrabooks, any heavy lifting can be accomplished remotely.
Q-6
Anecdotally, a huge number of our work machines fail around the same period (4-5 years), but because we depreciate them over 3 years (1 year if they are working on a remote site - mining industry), and we don't want to have to support a huge number of different models in our SOE platform (updating and testing our image for machines that are essentially worthless and due to fail is pointless), we budget on replacing them as soon as the extended warranty is out.
If a 4 year old machine comes in with a problem of any kind (for example) it is replaced. It's not worth fixing, when the hardware is out of warranty and at risk of failure again after we fix it (causing lost time for the employee, wasting IT time, etc.).
e.g., we fix it, send it back out... it fails again.
Say the lost time for the staff member is $300 worth of productivity (one day of disruption), and it costs IT half a day of screwing around (another $150 worth of productivity loss) you're almost halfway to a new machine worth of costs anyway. If its a machine for a VIP, double or triple that productivity loss $$ rate. 1-2 failures that could have been prevented by replacing the machine and you've blown any cost saving you thought you had by stretching out the life, even before you budget for the cost of replacement parts. To really save money based on the downtime impact, you need to have less than 1 additional failure within the 3-6 year period and it's just not going to happen that way.
And that scenario above is being optimistic. If the failure happens when the employee is on the road and they're disrupted for multiple days (e.g., until they get back, or due to IT backlog), it's even worse.
I'm sure our business is not alone in that.
I suspect that if enterprise was running 15" discrete GPU machines everywhere and tax law didn't make depreciating over 3 years and replacement at the end of that (or just leasing) attractive, then Apple wouldn't be singled out for GPU failure being a problem quite so much.
But Apple are often personal machines, they stay looking current for longer and people have higher expectations. But the insides are mostly the same...
If a 4 year old machine comes in with a problem of any kind (for example) it is replaced. It's not worth fixing, when the hardware is out of warranty and at risk of failure again after we fix it (causing lost time for the employee, wasting IT time, etc.).
e.g., we fix it, send it back out... it fails again.
Say the lost time for the staff member is $300 worth of productivity (one day of disruption), and it costs IT half a day of screwing around (another $150 worth of productivity loss) you're almost halfway to a new machine worth of costs anyway. If its a machine for a VIP, double or triple that productivity loss $$ rate. 1-2 failures that could have been prevented by replacing the machine and you've blown any cost saving you thought you had by stretching out the life, even before you budget for the cost of replacement parts. To really save money based on the downtime impact, you need to have less than 1 additional failure within the 3-6 year period and it's just not going to happen that way.
And that scenario above is being optimistic. If the failure happens when the employee is on the road and they're disrupted for multiple days (e.g., until they get back, or due to IT backlog), it's even worse.
I'm sure our business is not alone in that.
I suspect that if enterprise was running 15" discrete GPU machines everywhere and tax law didn't make depreciating over 3 years and replacement at the end of that (or just leasing) attractive, then Apple wouldn't be singled out for GPU failure being a problem quite so much.
But Apple are often personal machines, they stay looking current for longer and people have higher expectations. But the insides are mostly the same...
Last edited:
Nooooooooooooooo. I can add a few more 'o's in there to make it even more explicit. Apple's reliability with the GPUs suck.