Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is it Physically impossible for the 13" to have dedicated graphics?

S

SolidSnak3

macrumors member
Original poster
Mar 1, 2011
44
0
Like the tittle says^
Is it physically impossible for the 13' retina and non retina macbook pros to have a dedicated graphics card?
I m asking because i own a ultra Asus laptop and it has a gt620 on it as well as the intel hd4000. And its even thinner than the rMBP.
Why wont apple put a dedicated gpu inside? is it because its impossible ? or they are too lazy?
Thanks for the answer.
 
Your notebook comes with:

1)small battery.

2)ULV CPU.

3)Quite irrelevant gpu.

If you look at the mobo design no you cant put in there with this dual fan cooling system that takes a lot of space and the battery. what they could have done is to really use that 2.5'' bay that they put in there and instead they wasted the space with that second hand caddy
 
I believe the main reason is market segmentation. If you wanna play games or use 3d then you have to buy the more expensive model.

There are a few things that can change the market coming down the pipe. #1 is the Intel CPUs will receive better and faster on-board GPU's every generation. The jump from HD3000 to 4000 was pretty drastic.

#2 is the external ports are getting fast enough to (possibly) bring to market external GPU's that plug into the Thunderbolt port.

Of course, the games will keep getting more demanding too.
 
yeah sure nobody can do that
eg asus will never have something like that
 
Mr MM said:
Your notebook comes with:

1)small battery.

2)ULV CPU.

3)Quite irrelevant gpu.

If you look at the mobo design no you cant put in there with this dual fan cooling system that takes a lot of space and the battery. what they could have done is to really use that 2.5'' bay that they put in there and instead they wasted the space with that second hand caddy
Click to expand...

The Asus you point to weights 1.3 Kg like MacBook Air 13.3". So of course it has a small battery and not an overpowered GPU. According to the space waisted for a 2.5 inch bay, it's possible to place a GPU.
 
Why wont apple put a dedicated gpu inside? is it because its impossible ? or they are too lazy?
Click to expand...

Too lazy? You mean the company that is worth more than most countries and rules the market segments of smartphones, laptops, tablets....etc.? Gee, it never occured to me that kind of growth is a result of be lazy. ;)
 
Exana said:
The Asus you point to weights 1.3 Kg like MacBook Air 13.3". So of course it has a small battery and not an overpowered GPU. According to the space waisted for a 2.5 inch bay, it's possible to place a GPU.
Click to expand...

Its 1.4kg, its still 200g less than the rmbp 13.

The gpu in there is irrelevant. Dont think that I dont like the idea, but if the OP was serious, he wouldnt compare something made to compete with the air, with the rmbp.

The OP should have pointed out the vaio S13. While larger than the rmbp 13, it still carries a good mid range gpu.

Indeed they could also have used the space in there for the gpu. That bay is a waste of space. and more 8gb in there

But the thing is, the cmbp are going to die. They need the cmbp 13, its their best seller, how to achieve that with the rmbp 13? one of the ways is to use a HDD in there next year.
 
You can have:

1. Retina display
2. Thin
3. 35W (non-ULV) CPU
4. Decent battery life
5. Discrete GPU

Pick four of them.

Apple chose 1,2,3 and 4. What would you have chosen?

Asus chose a good display that' still not quite Retina, thin, they didn't go with a 35W CPU, got a good battery life and chose discrete GPU but that is barely better than Intel HD 4000 (a rebranded non-Kepler GT 520M).

If you wanted a GPU that's considerably better than Intel HD 4000, something like a GT 640M, it would have been possible if the laptop either wasn't Retina to need less battery life, either by making it as thick as a cMBP or by using a MacBook Air CPU and lowering resolution a bit too.
 
Last edited:
pgiguere1 said:
You can have:

1. Retina display
2. Thin
3. 35W (non-ULV) CPU
4. Decent battery life
5. Discrete GPU

Pick four of them.

Apple chose 1,2,3 and 4. What would you have chosen?
Click to expand...

1,3,4,5

But Apple keeps chosing form over function every time.
 
pgiguere1 said:
You can have:

1. Retina display
2. Thin
3. 35W (non-ULV) CPU
4. Decent battery life
5. Discrete GPU

Pick four of them.

Apple chose 1,2,3 and 4. What would you have chosen?

Asus chose a good display that' still not quite Retina, thin, they didn't go with a 35W CPU, got a good battery life and chose discrete GPU but that is barely better than Intel HD 4000 (a rebranded non-Kepler GT 520M).

If you wanted a GPU that's considerably better than Intel HD 4000, something like a GT 640M, it would have been possible if the laptop either wasn't Retina to need less battery life, either by making it as thick as a cMBP or by using a MacBook Air CPU and lowering resolution a bit too.
Click to expand...

I don't agree ! WoW running @ 1366x768 or similar :
MacBook Pro Retina : 36 fps
Asus UX32VD : 98 fps

Source : http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptop/apple_macbook_pro_with_retina_display_13-inch.aspx
 
Exana said:
I don't agree ! WoW running @ 1366x768 or similar :
MacBook Pro Retina : 36 fps
Asus UX32VD : 98 fps

Source : http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptop/apple_macbook_pro_with_retina_display_13-inch.aspx
Click to expand...

GT 620M (or 520M, it's the same thing) :
3DMark Vantage: 4,235
3DMark 06: 7,470
PCMark Vantage: 5,143
Cinebench R10: 4,963

Intel HD 4000:
3DMark Vantage: 3,212
3DMark 06: 4,860
PCMark Vantage: 7,425
Cinebench R10: 4,855

GT 650M (factory OC'ed in the rMBP):
3DMark Vantage: 9,466
3DMark 06: 13,719
PCMark Vantage: 10,935
Cinebench R10: 6,252

Or just go check gaming results on notebookcheck (at same graphical settings and resolution obviously). The GT620M is maybe 40% faster than Intel HD 4000 while the GT650M is around 3.5x as fast.

I'm not sure putting a GT 620M is really worth the extra battery drain for results that are marginally better than integrated. A GT 640M would be worth it, but putting a 620M seems like a marketing move to me, just so they can say "our utrabook has discrete graphics" just for the heck of dropping the "discrete graphics" buzzword.
 
Last edited:
There's all that empty space where the SSD drive is at. Surely they could have found a way to include a dedicated GPU if they really truly wanted to do it.

Impossible? - NO.

But the will and desire clearly wasn't there.
 
neteng101 said:
There's all that empty space where the SSD drive is at. Surely they could have found a way to include a dedicated GPU if they really truly wanted to do it.

Impossible? - NO.

But the will and desire clearly wasn't there.
Click to expand...

Finding space is one thing, but having a proper cooling system is another. Putting a dGPU under the trackpad would not have been a solution. There's no room for a fan, intakes aren't oriented in that direction and people would literally burn their fingers while gaming.
 
3D Mark is crapy any one know it. PC Mark score depends on CPU far more than on GPU. According to Cinebrench R10, GeForce 650m is only about 50% faster than HD 4000, so it also should be useless... :rolleyes: In games, 40% to 100% more fps is rather nice. And dual GPU did not affect battery life as dGPU is off most time. So a least a GeForce GT 620 should have been used on this Retina 13,3.

Maczor said:
Did you consider that WoW tested using Max settings on the rMBP?
... and the Asus produces that FPS value using Low settings?
... do think about it for a moment ( "autodetect" for sure didn't detect Low for the rMBP ) ;)
Click to expand...

On "World of Warcraft," this system averaged 36 frames per second with the resolution set to 1432 x 894, and the graphics on autodetect. (That's the closest resolution to 1366 x 768 we use when testing other notebooks.) When we increased the resolution to native (2560 x 1600), it dropped to an unplayable 21 fps.

By comparison, on these same settings, the XPS 12 averaged 38 fps at 1366 x 768, and 14 fps at 1080p. The ASUS UX32VD averaged an excellent 98 fps at 1366 x 768, and 62 fps at 1080p.
Click to expand...

So what ?
 
SolidSnak3 said:
Like the tittle says^
Is it physically impossible for the 13' retina and non retina macbook pros to have a dedicated graphics card?
I m asking because i own a ultra Asus laptop and it has a gt620 on it as well as the intel hd4000. And its even thinner than the rMBP.
Why wont apple put a dedicated gpu inside? is it because its impossible ? or they are too lazy?
Thanks for the answer.
Click to expand...

I think you'd have a hard time running a 13' screen with a single graphics card :p
 
Exana said:
According to Cinebrench R10, GeForce 650m is only about 50% faster than HD 4000
Click to expand...

You dismissed all benchmarks expect the one that proves your point. If what you're going to do is gaming, compare actual gaming results then, not synthetic benchmarks.

At the same settings, a GT 650M will get you around 3x the framerate of an Intel HD 4000 in games, not 50% more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back