GPUs for Dummies: (6490 vs 6750)

[Mr. Wonderful]

Glad you like the thread.

I think it could be very useful, but, sadly, I'm not sure it's been working super well; Personally, I still have n idea which model to buy!

Again, I think the main problem here is that GPUs and what they do is not very well understood by many (gaming aside). Something like the CPU we all know is important for many things. But: Do I need a good GPU? ... A lot of us don't have a clue.

Unfortunately, if you want to know about something like 3D animation, you're slicing the MR population into first, the 3D animators, then those that really know GPUs and their function in 3D, then those that see this thread, those that don't vomit when they read it, those that care to comment, and finally those that are not murdered by ninjas before they click 'submit reply'. this is a very tiny group of individuals.


... of course, if you're out there, as for our Question of the Week-ish:

it seems for most 2D design, either 15" (maybe any dedicated GPU) is fine.

for video editing, especially with the new Final Cut, the GPU boost may come in handy, (but maybe either will still be fine)

(correct me if i'm wrong.)

How about 3D animation/design? ... I know this often comes down to drivers and not necessarily card specs, but, can anybody with some 3D wisdom tell us whether the jump to the 6750 is worth the thousands and thousands of pennies? Is the GPU really utilized in 3D work?

For 3D animation, of course you're going to want a better GPU.

For most 2D acceleration, unless you're a professional working with VERY large images in Photoshop (I would speculate, even even then, I don't think the improvement to the 6750M would be huge), the 6490M is good enough.

Quite frankly, if you're putting your machine under heavy load, get the 2.2Ghz model for the extra CPU speed and the GPU upgrade, which in most professional cases outside of 3D rendering (subject to change in the future), won't make a difference.

If you're doing intensive graphical work, get the 2.2Ghz. Otherwise, save the $400, and use it in the future where $400 will get you much more of an upgrade. Simple as that.

 

[nebulos]

First off, Mr. Wonderful, I have to say how happy and relieved I am to see that those murderous ninjas did not get to you!

I appreciate you taking the time to respond; I'm sure to people that understand this stuff even hearing these questions can be annoying. However, know that your advice means a lot to me and many others! We thank you!

For 3D animation, of course you're going to want a better GPU.

I realize this may sound like a silly question. However, I've been googling this stuff quite a bit lately and have come up with essentially nothing definitive! (I admit, my googling skills may be partly to blame, as well my ignorance on the subject making the info harder to appreciate.)

... On the one hand, people say GPU does NONE of the rendering; It's all CPU. They say GPU only helps when 'navigating the scenes', or when 'moving many, many polygons'. (Of course, I don't know what any of that really means! or if I should care!)

On the other hand, there are several threads on choosing the right GPU! So, clearly, it must be important!

... Now, part of that is drivers. Apparently, as far as 3D art goes, the drivers are as, if not more, important than the card specs themselves; There are 'gaming' GPUs and 'professional' GPUs, one of the main defining features of the latter being simply the drivers. Sadly, I have learned that NVidia is the traditional choice for pros, ATI having a troubled past/reputation. Which brings up the question:

If ATI isn't great for 3D art anyways, is it worth paying a lot more for a better ATI card? ... Will there be drivers that actually make use of the performance difference (or will gamers be the only ones seeing this)?


... Then there's another issue: CUDA, OpenCL, etc. You can only use CUDA on NVidia cards. OpenCL (GL...) (open and available on ATI) implementation is currently limited, but seems like its spreading. In particular, many hope the new Final Cut will make more use of OpenCL and thus the GPU; Unfortunately, this is all somewhat unclear, as you hinted at, and, to a GPU Dummy like me, doesn't really mean that much.


Of course, there are other considerations, like the 1GB over 256MB of vram (though, again, I read different things here too!), and the, thankfully much more tangible CPU upgrade ...

For most 2D acceleration, unless you're a professional working with VERY large images in Photoshop (I would speculate, even even then, I don't think the improvement to the 6750M would be huge), the 6490M is good enough.

Quite frankly, if you're putting your machine under heavy load, get the 2.2Ghz model for the extra CPU speed and the GPU upgrade, which in most professional cases outside of 3D rendering (subject to change in the future), won't make a difference.

If you're doing intensive graphical work, get the 2.2Ghz. Otherwise, save the $400, and use it in the future where $400 will get you much more of an upgrade. Simple as that.

... so, the upgrade is worth it, in the 3D/video/heavy graphics context, more for the CPU, with the GPU as a (potentially) important bonus?

if so, this answer makes more sense to me.




i should add that for me, (and this might be useful for others), another thing i recently started considering is the fact that upgrading to a 128GB SSD on the higher end 15" is $100 ($90), down from $200 ($180) on the low end.

so, if you know you want to go SSD through Apple (and there are some good reasons to do so), the price difference goes down another $100. for students like myself, that means you get the better CPU and GPU for only $200 more, which makes it much more appealing.

 

[Stiksi]

For most 2D acceleration, unless you're a professional working with VERY large images in Photoshop (I would speculate, even even then, I don't think the improvement to the 6750M would be huge), the 6490M is good enough.

I can tell you that the 6490M opens 16 images at the same time in Photoshop CS4 with graphics acceleration and the Intel 3000 only opens 10.

If someone has a lot of extra time, try to break the limit on the 6750M. Might take a while though

 

[Giacchino]

It isnt really worth the extra price

Hi,
I have the baseline 2011 15" model with a hi res glossy and an Apple SSD, I got the MOD discount because my dad is a Commander in the RAF, so we could justify the £1682 price tag because of the discount. However, my dad also has a clean MBP 15" 2011 as well, but the higher end edition, this includes the 2.2 ghZ CPU and the 6750.

The differences are:
Gaming
COD MW2 6490 low to medium settings - 48fps
Left 4 Dead 2 6490 medium to high settings - 53.9fps

COD MW2 6750 medium settings - 51fps
Left 4 Dead 2 high settings - 98fps

As you can see the difference is fairly minimal in terms of the fps, but the smoothness of the game if it is running of the SSD is astounding because of the read write speeds. And if you are gaming, then why have you got a laptop to do it unless you use an alienware (which is a slab of heavy plastic)

The times when you are really going to notice the difference are when you are doing some graphics rendering on something like autocad or a photoshop variant. When drawing something like a troll from Lord of the Rings, the 6490 is perfectly fine, when rendering it, it is stretched a bit if you go for the highest detail settings, and if you rotate the head and make it 3d and spin it around then the fans come on and the CPU heat goes up a LOT. The 6750 is more or less fine for things like this as it has more VRAM and is a higher class and performance GPU. And overall, the difference in the CPU is not really worth the extra cost.

But if you are doing these things, then unless you REALLY need the laptop, I would say just go and get an iMac for the same price with a better GPU and CPU. But I do think that the option to get the higher end graphics card should have been incorporated into the customization options for the lower end model, as paying an extra £300 is a bit extreme.


Hope that this is helpful.

 

[snaky69]

Is the 6490 sufficient for AutoCAD?

Unless working in very large models or assemblies, the Intel 3000HD is good enough for AutoCAD. Most people that use AutoCAD use it to make 2D plans, which barely require any computing power at all.

If you get into the likes of SolidWorks, SolidEdge, Catia, Pro/Engineer(Now called Creo I believe) and the likes, then the more power the better. But I do CAD on a 1080P monitor, full screen on my nearly 4 year old MBP with an nVidia 8600GT, I think the 6490 could easily hold its own.