Is the 750M useless for non gamers?

[commac]

Curious if any none gamers with an iris pro only model are feeling like they're missing power...

Preferably someone who uses adobe products like Photoshop Illustrator Premiere Pro Indesign or any pro apps with external monitors.

Still trying to decide if I should keep the 2.3/16/512 + 750M. If the 750M is useless for none gamers I could probably live with 2.0/16/256 and save 400$-500$ To go towards a NAS or gaming console.

So far, I find the dgpu more of a nuisance and disappointment. But I understand driver upgrades and future software engineering could make the dgpu useful for something...

 

[cbautis2]

It's not useless. Right now it's useless since Adobe hasn't coded their GPU renderer to support the 750M. However, Adobe supports the 650M (http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/tech-specs.html) so if you need GPU power, you can get the early 2013/late 2012 models with the 650M. They'll perform better than the current 750M + Iris Pro models for those purposes for now.

If I were you though, I'll just get the current gen and wait for Adobe to include the 750M in their GPU whitelist.

 

[commac]

It's not useless. Right now it's useless since Adobe hasn't coded their GPU renderer to support the 750M. However, Adobe supports the 650M (http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/tech-specs.html) so if you need GPU power, you can get the early 2013/late 2012 models with the 650M. They'll perform better than the current 750M + Iris Pro models for those purposes for now.

If I were you though, I'll just get the current gen and wait for Adobe to include the 750M in their GPU whitelist.

From what I understand the white list you speak of is just a txt file within the applications folder for AE and PP.

Open CL sounds like all the rage and unless nvidia tweaks the drivers to improve open CL performance the iris pro will have the edge for productivity...and the dGPU will be for playing games. I want to be productive as a designer/developer with multiple monitors and feel good about my purchase which apple is not making easy.

 

[cbautis2]

From what I understand the white list you speak of is just a txt file within the applications folder for AE and PP.

Open CL sounds like all the rage and unless nvidia tweaks the drivers to improve open CL performance the iris pro will have the edge for productivity...and the dGPU will be for playing games. I want to be productive as a designer/developer with multiple monitors and feel good about my purchase which apple is not making easy.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Premiere Pro uses CUDA not Open CL on their supported NVIDIA chips. I agree though that Iris Pro does better Open CL than Nvidia. Nvidia is not obliged to improve open cl IMO since the GeForce are made for Direct3D. Nvidia has their own Quadro graphics for CUDA, OpenGL and OpenCL optimization though.

 

[commac]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Premiere Pro uses CUDA not Open CL on their supported NVIDIA chips. I agree though that Iris Pro does better Open CL than Nvidia. Nvidia is not obliged to improve open cl IMO since the GeForce are made for Direct3D. Nvidia has their own Quadro graphics for CUDA, OpenGL and OpenCL optimization though.

Pretty sure Creative Cloud Premiere Pro supports Open CL for Iris Pro and CUDA for Nvidia. A benchmark review I saw on youtube showed the Iris Pro + Open CL actually outperforming the 750M + CUDA for CC PP.

Feels like every benchmark I have seen besides gaming ones put the Iris Pro on par or above the 750M. Makes me feel like a sucker if this holds true and using an external monitor (which forces the 750M) lowers performance.

 

[Freyqq]

It's not useless. Right now it's useless since Adobe hasn't coded their GPU renderer to support the 750M. However, Adobe supports the 650M (http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/tech-specs.html) so if you need GPU power, you can get the early 2013/late 2012 models with the 650M. They'll perform better than the current 750M + Iris Pro models for those purposes for now.

If I were you though, I'll just get the current gen and wait for Adobe to include the 750M in their GPU whitelist.

The 650M and 750M are basically identical. It is silly that they would be treated differently by Adobe.

 

[tubbymac]

Curious if any none gamers with an iris pro only model are feeling like they're missing power...

Preferably someone who uses adobe products like Photoshop Illustrator Premiere Pro Indesign or any pro apps with external monitors.

I haven't missed it yet. I originally had the rMBP 2012 with Nvidia 650M for about a year and I thought I would also use it for gaming. Turns out I never had any time to even play any games I installed, so the 650M sat pretty much unused.

With the Haswell 2013 rMBP I decided to go just pure integrated graphics this time around and told myself I wouldn't game on this machine. If I did it would be old or casual games.

So far Photoshop and Illustrator seem fine. Hasn't seemed to affect my workflow at all. I don't use any custom filters though, just stock stuff that comes with the apps themselves.

 

[everfangomanga]

Makes me feel like a sucker if this holds true and using an external monitor (which forces the 750M) lowers performance.

Don't forget you can always use gfxCardStatus to force integrated before you connect your ext. monitor if, as you said, it does hold true that the integrated gfx outperform the dedicated card.

EDIT: I'm wrong You can't do what I said.

 

[richard371]

Unfortunately I need 16GB and 512 SSD for my VMs. Once I configure the base model to these specs with the 2.3 cpu it comes to 2599 so the 750M is a freebee at this point.

 

[AirThis]

In the Youtube link below they compared the performance of the 650M to Iris Pro (2012 vs 2013 rmbp). They did this using benchmarks as well as real apps (Adobe tools, fcpx, etc.). In my opinion, the test is slightly flawed as the SSD in the 2013 offers significantly better performance than the 2012 model. But it's nevertheless an interesting watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATKDuQOQw9k

 

[dusk007]

In my opinion, the test is slightly flawed as the SSD in the 2013 offers significantly better performance than the 2012 model.

Except for the SSD benchmark none of the test should be affected at all by the SSD speed difference. That extra bandwidth only helps you if you like to masturbate to benchmarks. The random access is still pretty much the same as on the old SSD. Pretty much all of those test are way to heavy on the CPU and will have the SSD sitting idle for most of the time. I doubt the slower SSD would account for more than 2% difference in any of the tests.
A bigger difference is in the CPU clock rates. 2.0-3.0 Ghz vs 2.4-3.4Ghz
20-13%. In reality the difference is smaller due to the Iris Pro probably turboing higher on average compared to its base clock but still. The L4 Cache seems to help in a few of these tests. Not all of them are GPU dependent.

If you'd exchange the two ssd's, I doubt you'd see significantly different numbers.

 

[AirThis]

Except for the SSD benchmark none of the test should be affected at all by the SSD speed difference. That extra bandwidth only helps you if you like to masturbate to benchmarks. The random access is still pretty much the same as on the old SSD. Pretty much all of those test are way to heavy on the CPU and will have the SSD sitting idle for most of the time. I doubt the slower SSD would account for more than 2% difference in any of the tests.
A bigger difference is in the CPU clock rates. 2.0-3.0 Ghz vs 2.4-3.4Ghz
20-13%. In reality the difference is smaller due to the Iris Pro probably turboing higher on average compared to its base clock but still. The L4 Cache seems to help in a few of these tests. Not all of them are GPU dependent.

If you'd exchange the two ssd's, I doubt you'd see significantly different numbers.

Yes, that's absolutely true about the CPU clock rates (or differences in architecture). As for the SSD performance, they didn't give much detail on the "real world tests" that they performed.

It would have been even more interesting if they had performed the tests again with both 2013 models.

 

[richard371]

I pretty much turned off the GPU using gfxcardstaus. I find it useless since I do not play games. I mostly run VMS using fusion 6. I can't tell the difference performance wise and the machine will run cooler and use less juice. It was a free upgrade (for anyone needing 16GB/512SSD) so nice to have on board in case I need it.

 

[OSXphoto]

750m now supported by Adobe?

It's not useless. Right now it's useless since Adobe hasn't coded their GPU renderer to support the 750M. However, Adobe supports the 650M (http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/tech-specs.html) so if you need GPU power, you can get the early 2013/late 2012 models with the 650M. They'll perform better than the current 750M + Iris Pro models for those purposes for now.

If I were you though, I'll just get the current gen and wait for Adobe to include the 750M in their GPU whitelist.

When clicking your link now, Feb 17th, the 750M has been added to Adobe's list. Does this mean we now can have some topics about app performance and battery performance?

 

[UBS28]

Curious if any none gamers with an iris pro only model are feeling like they're missing power...

Preferably someone who uses adobe products like Photoshop Illustrator Premiere Pro Indesign or any pro apps with external monitors.

Still trying to decide if I should keep the 2.3/16/512 + 750M. If the 750M is useless for none gamers I could probably live with 2.0/16/256 and save 400$-500$ To go towards a NAS or gaming console.

So far, I find the dgpu more of a nuisance and disappointment. But I understand driver upgrades and future software engineering could make the dgpu useful for something...

The 750m is not useless for non gamers due to CUDA support.

 

[leman]

The 750m is not useless for non gamers due to CUDA support.

Are there really that many 'important' applications nowadays that only support CUDA but no OpenCL? AFAIK, Adobe's new software (probably the biggest player) has moved to OpenCL.

 

[RoboWarriorSr]

Some programs like Final Cut Pro X are known to use two GPUs (both integrated and dedicated) so if you have programs that support such feature, the 750m should be a pretty good boost. If you're running multiple displays (or a 4K display) having the 750m probably would be beneficial since it would have more power once you're using more intensive task (multiple tabs Safari or several programs running at once but it depends a lot on the program). The 750m is around 20% faster than the 650m.

 

[leman]

SIf you're running multiple displays (or a 4K display) having the 750m probably would be beneficial since it would have more power once you're using more intensive task (multiple tabs Safari or several programs running at once but it depends a lot on the program).

Yeah, people keep repeating this but I am not really sure it is correct. Window composition mostly involves copying of texture data (with some lightweight per-pixel computation here and there). A 'typical' 4K monitor has around 8million pixels. E.g., redrawing the full screen at 60fs (absolutely worst possible scenario) would require around 500 megapixel filtrate. Given that Iris Pro has the fillrate of around around 10.4 giga-pixels/second (and a 4K framebuffer is , it shouldn't have ANY problems even with a bunch of 4K monitors...

 

[RoboWarriorSr]

Is the 750M useless for non gamers?

Yeah, people keep repeating this but I am not really sure it is correct. Window composition mostly involves copying of texture data (with some lightweight per-pixel computation here and there). A 'typical' 4K monitor has around 8million pixels. E.g., redrawing the full screen at 60fs (absolutely worst possible scenario) would require around 500 megapixel filtrate. Given that Iris Pro has the fillrate of around around 10.4 giga-pixels/second (and a 4K framebuffer is , it shouldn't have ANY problems even with a bunch of 4K monitors...

Running several 4K displays wouldn't be a problem but running intensive program like Final Cut Pro X, Photoshop, and especially games on several 4K would definitely see difference with a discrete card (the dedicated 2 GB of VRAM is quite useful in these scenarios). But again the number if people actually doing this is fairly low and the minority. Personally, the 750m would be quite useful since it also support 3D displays and eventually better video editing support once Adobe gets their **** together.

 

[Intelligent]

Definentaly not.