Discrete graphics

Rchawks

macrumors member
Original poster
Jan 12, 2014
97
1
How much of an advantage does this provide. Would the gain of speed in boot up time for web surfing, viewing photos, or video clips, really justify the extra six hundred dollars for the machine.
 

monokitty

macrumors regular
Sep 16, 2011
192
8
It's primarily for gaming, to be honest, and video editing. Everything you listed does not benefit from a dedicated graphics card. That said, for $600 more, you're getting a faster processor, double the RAM and double the storage, too - if that's important to you.
 

iHackPro

macrumors regular
Jan 21, 2014
182
70
DFW, TX
The most noticeable difference would be in gaming and heavy video processing, 3D rendering, etc. If you're doing any of those things, I recommend getting a dedicated GPU for your system.
 

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,725
230
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
It's primarily for gaming, to be honest, and video editing. Everything you listed does not benefit from a dedicated graphics card. That said, for $600 more, you're getting a faster processor, double the RAM and double the storage, too - if that's important to you.
When the CPU, RAM and SSD options are matched on both Iris-only and Iris+750M, they're priced identically.
 

blooperz

macrumors 6502
Dec 10, 2013
287
1
How much of an advantage does this provide. Would the gain of speed in boot up time for web surfing, viewing photos, or video clips, really justify the extra six hundred dollars for the machine.
Those don't utilize the dedicated GPU in any way... I don't even think the dedicated GPU kicks in for watching video (unless your playing it on an external monitor in which case it will)....editing videos on the other hand is a different story.
 

Rchawks

macrumors member
Original poster
Jan 12, 2014
97
1
I would like to edit some video but not very much. Mostly for personal exercise stuff.
Editing of video would still be very capable, just much slower, correct? I use a IPod a lot, so working with music and playlists is important. Also would transfer speed be noticeable using external hard drives with the
With the DGC?
 

alphaod

macrumors Core
Feb 9, 2008
22,047
1,106
NYC
How much of an advantage does this provide. Would the gain of speed in boot up time for web surfing, viewing photos, or video clips, really justify the extra six hundred dollars for the machine.
For these things you won't notice a difference in performance. The model without the discrete graphics will have better battery life though.
 

alphaod

macrumors Core
Feb 9, 2008
22,047
1,106
NYC
I disagree.

The dGPU model also can have the same battery life as the iGPU-only model, as long as you use gfxcardstatus to force it into iGPU-only mode.
Yeah, but there is no way to use the integrated graphics in Windows and no way to use it if you have any external display connected.
 

Vanilla35

macrumors 68040
Apr 11, 2013
3,208
1,187
Washington D.C.
I would like to edit some video but not very much. Mostly for personal exercise stuff.
Editing of video would still be very capable, just much slower, correct? I use a IPod a lot, so working with music and playlists is important. Also would transfer speed be noticeable using external hard drives with the
With the DGC?
You definitely don't need the dGPU. Just stick with the base model

----------

Yeah, but there is no way to use the integrated graphics in Windows and no way to use it if you have any external display connected.
Let's stop making assumptions that are not the case for the average user. Most people buying Macs are using the native OS, and not windows.
 

simon48

macrumors 65816
Sep 1, 2010
1,315
88
Yeah, but there is no way to use the integrated graphics in Windows and no way to use it if you have any external display connected.
I don't think battery life in Windows via Boot Camp is really something people should worry about.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,671
1,748
I would only add that if you use external monitors the desecrate card will help.
Not anywhere near as much as you might think. That was more an issue back when intel was on GMA graphics. What amuses me is that every reason the OP listed has nothing to do with discrete graphics.
 

alphaod

macrumors Core
Feb 9, 2008
22,047
1,106
NYC
Let's stop making assumptions that are not the case for the average user. Most people buying Macs are using the native OS, and not windows.
The average user won't be looking up gfxCardStatus, but instead will be wondering why their battery life isn't what Apple claims. The average user will be more than happy with Iris Pro graphics.
 

Serban

Suspended
Jan 8, 2013
5,160
920
i have the base model, and for those tasks i have 8H and 33min for surfing the web and photos, and for videos i think 5-6h depends on the resolution.

So yeah for these tasks, the 600$ is a waste. For that reason i chose the base model too. I would have liked to have an BTO option like +150$ for 750M alone but sadly its missing
 

mr.bee

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2007
707
422
Brussels, belgium
i have the base model, and for those tasks i have 8H and 33min for surfing the web and photos, and for videos i think 5-6h depends on the resolution.

So yeah for these tasks, the 600$ is a waste. For that reason i chose the base model too. I would have liked to have an BTO option like +150$ for 750M alone but sadly its missing
so are you happy with the iris pro only model? Do you notice anything? Do you use Photoshop, etc?
I'm still contemplating.
It would be great to get rid of the hassle of dGPU in a macbook, but I'm afraid the current Iris pro will not live up to normal standards in 2 years.
 

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,725
230
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
so are you happy with the iris pro only model? Do you notice anything? Do you use Photoshop, etc?
I'm still contemplating.
It would be great to get rid of the hassle of dGPU in a macbook, but I'm afraid the current Iris pro will not live up to normal standards in 2 years.
I actually have the Iris+750M model, and believe me, the Iris performs better than the 750M in Photoshop CC because Photoshop is now more OpenCL-oriented.

The Iris is only better than the 750M in OpenCL tasks though. When it comes to gaming and CUDA-assisted software, the 750M still beats the Iris.
 

leman

macrumors G4
Oct 14, 2008
10,002
4,564
It would be great to get rid of the hassle of dGPU in a macbook, but I'm afraid the current Iris pro will not live up to normal standards in 2 years.
And 750m will? ;)

If you are not a gamer, here is not much reason in getting the dGPU. For computation, Iris Pro is superior in most cases. And you don't need the fast 3D graphics capabilities.
 

mr.bee

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2007
707
422
Brussels, belgium
thanks for the info! the only game I played on my current iMac is warcraft, and that game became boring.

I'm looking forward to an apple tv/gaming console and don't play games on my computer.

I'll probably order my new computer on Thursday :)

It will be base model with extra RAM, (heavy multitasker), and maybe upgraded to 2.3 ghz.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,671
1,748
so are you happy with the iris pro only model? Do you notice anything? Do you use Photoshop, etc?
I'm still contemplating.
It would be great to get rid of the hassle of dGPU in a macbook, but I'm afraid the current Iris pro will not live up to normal standards in 2 years.
Your concerns are misguided. You should look at whether any additional performance will justify the additional cost amortized over the life of the device. It will not. It's a complete waste of money outside of gaming. If you're slogging around 3d models, neither one is absolutely ideal. If you really want that, why not a 2012 model? Save $800~. End up with a lower clocked version of the 750m. Retire it proportionately earlier relative to the money that has been saved. The absolute only advantage is greater vram, and most people will never notice that. Adobe currently recommends 1GB for heavy users, which you can still find on the 2012 model.


I actually have the Iris+750M model, and believe me, the Iris performs better than the 750M in Photoshop CC because Photoshop is now more OpenCL-oriented.

The Iris is only better than the 750M in OpenCL tasks though. When it comes to gaming and CUDA-assisted software, the 750M still beats the Iris.
The first part isn't entirely true, and the second part is completely misguided (you may want to read Adobe's official specs). It only relies on the gpu for certain things. They've been slowly rewriting parts that can be made threadsafe, which I suspect is partly due to the millions of lines of code that make up that one application. If you're one of the rare users who actually wants to push it all the way and has to deal with switching with other applications that may use vram, then it depends more on video memory. Oddly I would still come to the same conclusion. The iris pro is fine, because it's not worth the extra money for the other in that situation.
 
Last edited:

Serban

Suspended
Jan 8, 2013
5,160
920
yes Photoshop is seamless, no problem there. Only problems i get (but not a really problem) is in games like other people said.
But for the OpenCL it really screams
 

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,725
230
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
The first part isn't entirely true, and the second part is completely misguided (you may want to read Adobe's official specs). It only relies on the gpu for certain things. They've been slowly rewriting parts that can be made threadsafe, which I suspect is partly due to the millions of lines of code that make up that one application. If you're one of the rare users who actually wants to push it all the way and has to deal with switching with other applications that may use vram, then it depends more on video memory. Oddly I would still come to the same conclusion. The iris pro is fine, because it's not worth the extra money for the other in that situation.
Mate, I said that the Iris is better than the 750M in Photoshop CC, not the other way round.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,671
1,748
Mate, I said that the Iris is better than the 750M in Photoshop CC, not the other way round.
Yeah I know. It's poor writing style on my part. In my own tests in PS and Illustrator I haven't seen a significant difference with graphics switching, although I wasn't testing my own machines, which are older. I did test up to around 10k x 6k @ 16 bpc in PS. Filters and things run a bit faster. I have never been able to find significant difference in general responsiveness with graphics as long as it has adequate memory. Did your results differ in general use? I never liked the benchmarks, because no one is just going to run a long stream of automated operations in PS. That kind of thing is much better implemented in Lightroom, yet Lightroom doesn't use OpenCL at all (yet). Also when I say misguided, it's more that the topic of picking apart which notebook gpu for Creative Suite is a bit misguided in general, because it's unlikely that the difference will in any way justify the increased cost.
 

snaky69

macrumors 603
Mar 14, 2008
5,903
480
How much of an advantage does this provide. Would the gain of speed in boot up time for web surfing, viewing photos, or video clips, really justify the extra six hundred dollars for the machine.
A discrete graphics card does nothing whatsoever for any of those tasks. From your posts in this thread, I doubt you actually know what a discrete graphics card does, as nearly everything you mention makes no use of a graphics card, let alone a discrete one.
 
Last edited:

Zeov

macrumors 6502a
Apr 1, 2011
634
113
Odense
I would like to edit some video but not very much. Mostly for personal exercise stuff.
Editing of video would still be very capable, just much slower, correct? I use a IPod a lot, so working with music and playlists is important. Also would transfer speed be noticeable using external hard drives with the
With the DGC?
you don't need discrete graphics.