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.
Intel's Iris Graphics Boost 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro GPU Performance by 50% or More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a 1.5TB hard disk in my 17" 2011 MBP and 16GB RAM is not much now.
But the discrete graphics card has to be repaired, so I either switch to a mobile workstation PC (which I'm not keen on), or buy a relatively cheap small laptop that can still be barely used for a few days, and then give it away when I have the cMBP back (which is not ideal to continue on).
It is not acceptable to push people to buy a non-refreshed 13" cMBP.
I just ordered a 13", 2.6, 16gig, 512. Glad I read the article, as I was going to go with the 256. I'm upgrading from my 17" i7 with 8gig. I usually have a VM running (actually have a test with Win 2012 with SQL 2012 running on my 17" right now) which is why I like to max out memory.
I went 13" this time around because I'm traveling a week a month and the 17" is just so damn heavy to lug around. I'm very disappointed though as I think the i5 should be dropped completely from these "Pro" laptops. Minimum processor should be the dual core i7 (the "top" processor now in the 13"), even on the 13", and there should be two step ups to quad core i7's. This is supposed to be a "pro" machine after all, and any propaganda for the i5 shows it as a "mid" processor, and the i7 being the "pro". We're paying top dollar for premium hardware, and we should have a more premium based processor to go along with it.
I'm actually a bit disappointed that I'm "upgrading" to a machine with a very marginal increase in performance.... but size was my big deciding factor here and although I was originally looking at the new air (11"), I just couldn't bring myself to use that barely marginal screen, even when just traveling. My $.02.
Mike
I went 13" this time around because I'm traveling a week a month and the 17" is just so damn heavy to lug around. I'm very disappointed though as I think the i5 should be dropped completely from these "Pro" laptops. Minimum processor should be the dual core i7 (the "top" processor now in the 13"), even on the 13", and there should be two step ups to quad core i7's. This is supposed to be a "pro" machine after all, and any propaganda for the i5 shows it as a "mid" processor, and the i7 being the "pro". We're paying top dollar for premium hardware, and we should have a more premium based processor to go along with it.
I'm actually a bit disappointed that I'm "upgrading" to a machine with a very marginal increase in performance.... but size was my big deciding factor here and although I was originally looking at the new air (11"), I just couldn't bring myself to use that barely marginal screen, even when just traveling. My $.02.
Mike
although i support your viewpoint in principle, in practice it ends up being rather short-sighted. Take myself for instance, atm I am on a £900/mnth salary , before tax) However, my wish, dream if you will is to do more music and such like. Replacing the non-unibody MBP that I got in 08 (which is quite frankly tired, and ragged round the edges-been round the world, logic board replaced, faulty display cables, dvd not working...you get the picture.)
What do i really need to do more music, in an ideal world? a macbook pro. so what have I been doing for the last 9 months. Saving moolah every month to put towards it. I am within reaching distance of getting the basic 15" which is going to fulfil my needs with BTO on the ram, and CPU. However, I really cannot be waiting for another month for me to get the money together for the extra GFX card. (this macbook pro im writing on, has a screen that wobbles, literally.)
So, yes people shouldn't complain...(I certainly won't be, the laptop i'm gonna be getting in 2 months time-all being well, will be the millennium falcon to my bicycle.) However you can't really make blanket statements like. "Also, those saying that making people pay a few extra hundred bucks for the better one is a huge mistake. How is it that someone can afford the $2000 version but not the $2600? Seriously, if you can put $2000 in a laptop no problem but not a few extra hundred bucks, you shouldn't consider putting the two grand in it in the first place."
I would happily pay if I could, but honestly, my situation doesn't currently support that, and I suspect i'm not the only one in a similar situation, as such I woulda seen the addition of a lower grade card to the 750m as a huge bonus on my side, even if it was only 1Gb of RAM.
However on the flipside of all that I have seen/heard pretty damned good things about the new Iris Pro, besides all that, I seriously doubt that Apple would take such a huge leap backwards in the performance of their biggest n baddest laptop.
(having written all this, i decided to check the UK prices on the 2 diff models avail. and the top of the range lappie (which has the 16gb of ram, 2.3 CPU that I need) w/ added applecare n the adaptors for all my legacy gear, comes to approx £2,600. Which is slightly eye watering, thats a further 300 above my price that I have for the specced out, lower machine already lol!)
At the end of the day, Apple know what they are doing, and know their customer requirements. I am confident that the Iris Pro will be more than sufficient for about 50-60% of people needing a new MBP this year!
(the 13" however, thats a different ball game, was mildly perplexed its a dual-core CPU in there!!)
If you ask me, the words "Macbook Pro" and "Integrated Graphics" shouldn't be used in the same sentence. 
Thanks. I am still a bit confused on the different levels of the new Intel graphics. Is there anywhere that explains/compares each of them?
Big difference in read/write speeds between a hard drive and SSD, especially when the hard drive is only 500gb bigger and they're coming out with 256gb thumb drives for under $250
Question
Hi this might sound stupid but i have few questions,
1. The new spec of the macbook pro 15 is 2.0 GHz i7, I found it confusing since isnt that means a downgrade from my macbook pro 2010 model that has 2.66 Ghz i7?
2. Actually what is the need to have 2 graphic cards? My current macbook pro (2010 model) has 2 graphic cards, and the discrete one (NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M) currently always giving me a problem when I open graphic driven apps like photoshop, indesign, etc. Just wondering if I only have only the integrated graphic card, is it actually going to be better or slower for me to do graphic driven stuffs?
Im running OS X Mountain Lion, and recently I always get GPU kernel panic every time I run graphic driven apps. Brought it to apple service centre in my town and they said that my logic board is spoilt, repairing can cost me a brand new macbook pro, so Im considering on getting the new retina macs. But Im totally confused about the specs since first it runs 2.0 Ghz, and it only has one graphic card (15 model the lower spec, the higher one is kinda too expensive for me :/)
Would be really helpful if you guys can help me out in explaining my questions! Thank you so much!
Hi this might sound stupid but i have few questions,
1. The new spec of the macbook pro 15 is 2.0 GHz i7, I found it confusing since isnt that means a downgrade from my macbook pro 2010 model that has 2.66 Ghz i7?
2. Actually what is the need to have 2 graphic cards? My current macbook pro (2010 model) has 2 graphic cards, and the discrete one (NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M) currently always giving me a problem when I open graphic driven apps like photoshop, indesign, etc. Just wondering if I only have only the integrated graphic card, is it actually going to be better or slower for me to do graphic driven stuffs?
Im running OS X Mountain Lion, and recently I always get GPU kernel panic every time I run graphic driven apps. Brought it to apple service centre in my town and they said that my logic board is spoilt, repairing can cost me a brand new macbook pro, so Im considering on getting the new retina macs. But Im totally confused about the specs since first it runs 2.0 Ghz, and it only has one graphic card (15 model the lower spec, the higher one is kinda too expensive for me :/)
Would be really helpful if you guys can help me out in explaining my questions! Thank you so much!
The dGPU is using far more energy than the iGPU.
In fact I never considered the 15-inch a desirable notebook.
If a MacBook had the same weight and battery life as an iPad, would you even buy an iPad?John Sirracusa's OS X Mavericks Review said:
I think the point is that Apple has a product line of notebooks that used integrated GPUs already -- it's the MacBook Air. The MacBook Pro was never meant to be the consumer laptop (at least in the eyes of a lot of people who buy Apple laptops -- we don't really know what Apple thinks of the Pro).
Without a discrete GPU, the MacBook Pro is a bigger, heavier and more expensive Air for the most part. And given that they have a lot more pixels than the Air, using the same GPU to drive the retina displays is really bad.
It's not the same GPU. Intel HD 5000 in the Air vs. Intel Iris in the 13-inch Pro and Intel Iris Pro in the 15-inch Pro.
But if you want to be prejudiced against integrated graphics in general, than they all look the same.
Statistically marginal performance changes combined with huge battery increases is ok in my book.
----------
12 hour battery life with 50% screen brightness (as on the Ars review) is incredible.
Agreed. That's my usage too. I'm never above 50% display brightness. Wow
Hi this might sound stupid but i have few questions,
1. The new spec of the macbook pro 15 is 2.0 GHz i7, I found it confusing since isnt that means a downgrade from my macbook pro 2010 model that has 2.66 Ghz i7?
2. Actually what is the need to have 2 graphic cards? My current macbook pro (2010 model) has 2 graphic cards, and the discrete one (NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M) currently always giving me a problem when I open graphic driven apps like photoshop, indesign, etc. Just wondering if I only have only the integrated graphic card, is it actually going to be better or slower for me to do graphic driven stuffs?
Im running OS X Mountain Lion, and recently I always get GPU kernel panic every time I run graphic driven apps. Brought it to apple service centre in my town and they said that my logic board is spoilt, repairing can cost me a brand new macbook pro, so Im considering on getting the new retina macs. But Im totally confused about the specs since first it runs 2.0 Ghz, and it only has one graphic card (15 model the lower spec, the higher one is kinda too expensive for me :/)
Would be really helpful if you guys can help me out in explaining my questions! Thank you so much!
1. It will be an upgrade to your current Mac. The new 2.00 GHz MacBook Pros are easily 40% faster than your current computer (http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks) plus you only have dual cores and the new MacBook Pro is quad core. Other improvements have been made that will also significantly speed up your day to day use.
2. Your logic board is bad (really just the discrete graphics, which means you have to replace the logic board to fix that - I had to replace mine recently for a similar issue - it cost about $350 after tax to have Apple do it). Having two cards (integrated and discrete) allows your computer to save power when heavy graphics are not needed and then turn on the discrete card for when you need to do more. The new MacBook Pro with the Iris Pro (just integrated) graphics will be much better than the 330M graphics you have in your 2010 MacBook Pro (especially since your discrete graphics card is broken).
Here's your old card: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-330M.22437.0.html
Here's the Iris Pro in the new MacBook Pros: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Pro-Graphics-5200.90965.0.html
The new Iris Pro is 2-4 times faster/more powerful than the 330M (2X faster on actual game benchmarks and up to 4+X with artificial benchmark tools).
I have become so detached from the GPU specs lately so 50% gains doesn't tell me anything.
I am gonna retire my iMac early 2010 with an ATi 4850 GPU, so:
1) Is the Iris 5100 in the 13" faster than the 4850?
2) Is the Iris 5100 and Iris Pro 5200 enough to run TF2 and maybe CS:GO in 1680x1050 and quality kinda high?
3) Which "desktop" GPU from nVidia is closest in performance to the 750M?
(maybe all of the above questions could be answered by pointing me to a GOOD GPU comparison site (side by side comparison))
I am gonna retire my iMac early 2010 with an ATi 4850 GPU, so:
1) Is the Iris 5100 in the 13" faster than the 4850?
2) Is the Iris 5100 and Iris Pro 5200 enough to run TF2 and maybe CS:GO in 1680x1050 and quality kinda high?
3) Which "desktop" GPU from nVidia is closest in performance to the 750M?
(maybe all of the above questions could be answered by pointing me to a GOOD GPU comparison site (side by side comparison))
I'm not prejudiced against integrated graphics in general, but let's not kid ourselves here. The extra power in the Iris over the HD 5000 is being put towards rendering the additional pixels in the retina display. The Iris Pro in the 15" is rendering even more pixels over the 13".
I think there is a good argument for having a Pro laptop that has additional features over the consumer laptops. But the 13" MBP is not really that laptop, IMO.
Let's put it this way - if/when the Mini gets it's Haswell upgrade, it's likely to look a lot like a headless MBP. Do you consider the Mini a pro machine in the desktop line?
Intel HD 5000 is only on Ultra Low Power Dual-Core Processors that you see in the MacBook Airs, Iris 5100 is on Low Power Dual-Core Processors, Iris Pro 5200 is on Quad-Core chips.
Ah I get it now, thanks so much for the help!
As for the discrete GPU Im quite bummed. Repairing cost me up to 2k$ here in Singapore. Thats the reason I feel just like getting new mbp instead.
I understand the desire for a discrete graphics card but what are you doing with your Mac that requires more than 16GB of RAM?
I don't think apple is pushing you to get a non-refreshed 13" MBP. If anything it would make way more sense to look at the 15".
No, because the 15 would also be a temporary machine.
Even the 13" cMBP is too expensive for this. I can buy an Ivy Bridge mobile workstation capable of 32GB for the price.
The logical solution would be to abandon the Mac already.
Or if the iPad had the same power and capabilities as a Macbook Pro, would you buy one over the iPad?
This is one of the many reasons why I believe the traditional laptop form factor is in its last days. We've still got a bit before it happens, but one day...it will happen. And when it does, we'll all be buying iPads, bluetooth keyboards, and styluses to do our work.