Iris Pro vs. 750m

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by gothamm, Oct 22, 2013.

  1. gothamm macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    #1
    This thread had to be made, so figured i'd make it. Just how much of a performance boost are we talking here? my impression is that the 750m is only 10-15% better than 650m. And the 650m is SLIGHTLY better than iris pro.


    So, is it even worth it to opt for the 750m?
     
  2. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #2
    Why wouldn't you instead use one of the 10 other active threads discussing the same issue?
     
  3. bill-p macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #3
    650M is NOT "slightly" better than Iris Pro.

    Iris Pro is about on par with 640M.

    650M at stock is 30-40% faster than 640M, but since the one in the rMBP from last year was overclocked, it can be up to 50-60% faster than 640M, and that difference should apply to Iris Pro as well. In fact, the difference should be more pronounced at higher resolutions.

    Anandtech's benchmark showed this.

    750M would show the same difference by convention.

    If Apple didn't think a dGPU would be faster than Iris Pro, they wouldn't stick one in. As it is, it's clear how Apple feels about the situation.
     
  4. famalka, Oct 22, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2013

    famalka macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    #4
    No way. The 750M is only 10% to 15% faster than the 650M.

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-750M.90245.0.html
     
  5. King Shady macrumors 6502

    King Shady

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Location:
    Princeton, NJ
    #5
    You guys are forgetting that the "650m" in all of our 2012 rMBP's are actually much faster. Most reports claim that the 650m is really a 660m+. I'm sticking with this baby for another year and then I'll probably upgrade to Broadwell + nVidia's latest gpu (which should be much faster than the 750m). The 750m is not a significant bump at all compared to the "650m" in mine (about 10% increase).
     
  6. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #6
    The 650M in the 2012 rMBP is not the same as in the benchmarks on notebookcheck. It is an over-clocked version made specially for Apple, as has already been mentioned in this thread.
     
  7. VanillaCracker macrumors 68030

    VanillaCracker

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    #7
    Basically, this year's 750M is the same performance as last years 650M - except you pay $600 more to get it :D:D:D:D
     
  8. kappaknight macrumors 68000

    kappaknight

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    #8
    How do we know the 750M hasn't been overclocked as well? I honestly don't know - I haven't been following this at all.
     
  9. justin216 macrumors 6502

    justin216

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #9
    Until the new rMBP is benchmarked, we'll not know. Folks are making "worst case scenario" conjectures based on the stock parts. Apple does tend to get the best binned parts they can and clock them higher, along with using models using GDDR5 memory (whereas many benchmarks out there now are lower-performing GDDR3 parts).

    It'll probably only take a day or two for more accurate benchmarks to hit the net. If you're on the fence, you could wait and see how it really falls out before making your purchase decision.
     
  10. Evil Merino macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    #10

    This is a huge point.

    People have all these conjectures using benchmarks of a 650m vs. a STOCK 750m. And following the trend that apple used a higher binned/higher clocked 650m in the previous gen of rMBP, we can assume they followed suit in terms of the newly released versions.

    Crossing my fingers, hoping the 750m in the rMBP is a little more powerful than just a stock 750m.
     

Share This Page