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

late 2013 13" rMBP buyer's remorse- graphics always lagging-new rMBP better?

cbautis2 said:
I don't get how apple can't code OS X to get 30 apps simultaneously running smoothly while this is no problem with Windoze at all when both OS are running on the same hardware, regardless of the resolution (hidpi retina or just full HD)
Click to expand...

It's just legacy stuff that doesn't work well with high def screens, all reports suggest that El Capitan fixes all these issues. I for one wouyld prefer a new OSX every 2 years that is working properly than one every year with a cycle of new stuff one year and stabilisation and bug work out the next year that we have at the moment.

OP I would suggest you try the El Capitan beta software on your 2013 and see how it does then before you buy anything new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Retrofire
Cluniac I was just about to pig you because I never got an email notification. I haven't had the chance to read your reply but I just wanted to say thanks right away.
 
Samuelsan2001 said:
It's just legacy stuff that doesn't work well with high def screens, all reports suggest that El Capitan fixes all these issues. I for one wouyld prefer a new OSX every 2 years that is working properly than one every year with a cycle of new stuff one year and stabilisation and bug work out the next year that we have at the moment.

OP I would suggest you try the El Capitan beta software on your 2013 and see how it does then before you buy anything new.
Click to expand...
I am running El Capitan in a sandbox and it's buggy as hell with multiple screens and does lag unfortunately even with a 27" thunderbolt display. :(
 
Cuniac said:
Ok I ran the test, I had my MBP running at retina, an external 24" 1080P Via Mini Display to HDMI, and my 4k TV via HDMI. I had Safari running with 15 tabs, Chrome running with 10 tabs, 15 Textedit documents, 15 120MB PDF files, Mail and a Youtube video playing at 4k resolution on the 4k TV. The results are mixed and here is why.

First with all of these things going the video played smooth. Activity monitor shows 14% to 19% CPU usage with 10.6GB of Ram being used. All of the apps when in the app themselves ran very well with no noticeable graphical issues or slow downs.

The mixed comes from performance with the Mac OS itself. These results were the exact same from when I had all these apps running to when I had them all closed and it was just desktops on these displays.

Going to Launch Pad = Smooth
Going to hidden down with magnification and scrolling apps = Smooth
Using the Apps = Smooth
Resizing windows = Chrome was not as smooth as it could be but not bad, finder windows were smooth.
Swipe between desktops = Seemed smooth but it did take longer to go between desktops.
Mission Control = Poor. It would take 1 second to fully processes the action.

Again these results were the same wether or not I even had any apps running at all. Just being connected to these displays caused these results. Because some things listed above were perfectly smooth and others were not and running the apps made no difference it didn't really make a lot of sense. It really feels like there has to be something with the Mac OS causing this slowness. Why would Mission Control have the same lag at 0% CPU usage as it would at 19%? it does not add up.

If these results are similar to what you see, you may not want to buy a new rMBP at all. But thats for you to decide. Again running the apps themselves had no issues, it was just the actions listed above that had lag.

I did a screen recording doing some simple tasks in the OS as well as Activity monitor CPU and Memory usage stats when testing with the applications. Keep in mind again results were the same with no apps running.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much Cuniac; I was in a SCIF so I was just now able to read through this (in a few hours I'll watch the file you posted).

This was with te discrete GPU running? Did you try it won't te discrete GPU? I don't need to use mission control so if the Intel GPU has the same results as you did here with the discrete GPU then I'll go with the 15 with Intel GPU since the price difference is small between the 13 and 15 with 16gb of ram. To be clear this was 10.10 not 10.11, correct?

I assume YouTube 4k video is HTML5 and not flash correct?

Lastly, does the way you hook up a 4k monitor matter with these new machines? I read vis a vis the late 2013 machines I had you needed to connect via Thunderbolt/DP rather than HDMI for 60hz and I think some said performance was better over thunderbolt. Does it matter with the new laptops?

Thank you so much!

Edit: I just checked and with the negotiated rates we get, the 15 with discrete GPU is $2249 and the 15 with integrated and 512 SSD is $2099 and the 15 with 256 SSD is $1869. So if I go 512 there's no point in not getting the discrete GPU. I have an 8 bay RAID array for SSDs and a 6x8tv RAID array NAS for storage (if anyone sees this remember RAID does not equal backups and yes I have a backup array of course) so I don't really need the 512gb SSD but I've never heard myself say "I wish I had less space" so I guess depending on the results of the integrated graphics test you will run will make the decision for me.

Thank you again you have no idea how much I appreciate this.
 
Last edited:
cmm said:
Thank you very much Cuniac; I was in a SCIF so I was just now able to read through this (in a few hours I'll watch the file you posted).

This was with te discrete GPU running? Did you try it won't te discrete GPU? I don't need to use mission control so if the Intel GPU has the same results as you did here with the discrete GPU then I'll go with the 15 with Intel GPU since the price difference is small between the 13 and 15 with 16gb of ram. To be clear this was 10.10 not 10.11, correct?

I assume YouTube 4k video is HTML5 and not flash correct?

Lastly, does the way you hook up a 4k monitor matter with these new machines? I read vis a vis the late 2013 machines I had you needed to connect via Thunderbolt/DP rather than HDMI for 60hz and I think some said performance was better over thunderbolt. Does it matter with the new laptops?

Thank you so much!

Edit: I just checked and with the negotiated rates we get, the 15 with discrete GPU is $2249 and the 15 with integrated and 512 SSD is $2099 and the 15 with 256 SSD is $1869. So if I go 512 there's no point in not getting the discrete GPU. I have an 8 bay RAID array for SSDs and a 6x8tv RAID array NAS for storage (if anyone sees this remember RAID does not equal backups and yes I have a backup array of course) so I don't really need the 512gb SSD but I've never heard myself say "I wish I had less space" so I guess depending on the results of the integrated graphics test you will run will make the decision for me.

Thank you again you have no idea how much I appreciate this.
Click to expand...

They way you hook up the monitors really should not matter I was just being as specific as I could. This was with the AMD running and I had turned off Automatic switching. I turned it back on but It still used the AMD by default at that point so I would not be able to say how it would be just on the Intel 5200.

I am fairly certain it was HTML 5 but not 100% as I do have flash installed. But I was under the impression most of youtube is HTML5. Really though I don't think it would have made any difference as I had the same level of issues when using these three screens even if I had no applications open.

This was on Mac OS 10.10.4
 
Cuniac said:
They way you hook up the monitors really should not matter I was just being as specific as I could. This was with the AMD running and I had turned off Automatic switching. I turned it back on but It still used the AMD by default at that point so I would not be able to say how it would be just on the Intel 5200.

I am fairly certain it was HTML 5 but not 100% as I do have flash installed. But I was under the impression most of youtube is HTML5. Really though I don't think it would have made any difference as I had the same level of issues when using these three screens even if I had no applications open.

This was on Mac OS 10.10.4
Click to expand...
Which rMBP do you have the 2015 one or earlier? I thought the 2015 has Intel 6100?
 
I have the 2015 15in base with AMD, the 2499 model. The 13in 2015MBP has the Intel 6100 has it uses broadwell (5th gen) dual core chips. The 15in uses Haswell (4th Gen) 4 core chips that has 5200.

Now, 5200 Pro is faster than the 6100. Also with the 15 using a quad core its faster as well. There was minimal difference between 4th and 5th Gen intel as it was a Tock and not a Tick. (Click here to learn more about Intel's Tick-Tock)

The reason the 15in used 4th as apposed to 5th Gen was intel had not released any 4core 5th gen chips until the start of this month.
 
Cuniac said:
I have the 2015 15in base with AMD, the 2499 model. The 13in 2015MBP has the Intel 6100 has it uses broadwell (5th gen) dual core chips. The 15in uses Haswell (4th Gen) 4 core chips that has 5200.

Now, 5200 Pro is faster than the 6100. Also with the 15 using a quad core its faster as well. There was minimal difference between 4th and 5th Gen intel as it was a Tock and not a Tick. (Click here to learn more about Intel's Tick-Tock)

The reason the 15in used 4th as apposed to 5th Gen was intel had not released any 4core 5th gen chips until the start of this month.
Click to expand...
Okay thank you. I think I'm going with the 15 with AMD GPU. Is there any other differences between the 15 and 13? Any chance Apple will update the 13 or 15 in September when they release new iPhones? I don't wanna wait til then but I could get a Mac Pro until then and keep my 2013 13 rMBP. Maybe I would learn to work with two primary computers...
 
I can't think of any other major differences between the 13in and 15in other than what I have already listed. One thing I will say is that the CPU power of the 15in is twice as fast, and after owning a 13in briefly then going to the 15in it was noticeable system wide. Things popped more, loaded a little quicker, I really could feel the difference enough to be glad I was able to get the 15in.

Thinking about getting both the MBP and Mac Pro is a dream set up, but also so expensive and could be somewhat inconvenient. Its a dream because its a Mac Pro and a MBP, best desktop and best laptop. Is expensive because well, that probably does not need explaining lol. Its may be inconvenient depending how how much of your information you will keep in the cloud, wether it be iCloud, dropbox or any other online based storage. Being out all day using the MBP then coming home and having to move these files to the Mac Pro, then before you go to bed making sure they are back on the MBP. Its not un-doable it just requires good cloud storage and keeping all your documents there. Or at the least getting an ethernet adapter for the MBP and connecting it to your network when you get home and accessing your files on the Mac Pro directly from the MBP through your network. All of this is possible and could be quite amazing if your up for it, or at least if your wallet is.
 
Cuniac said:
I can't think of any other major differences between the 13in and 15in other than what I have already listed. One thing I will say is that the CPU power of the 15in is twice as fast, and after owning a 13in briefly then going to the 15in it was noticeable system wide. Things popped more, loaded a little quicker, I really could feel the difference enough to be glad I was able to get the 15in.

Thinking about getting both the MBP and Mac Pro is a dream set up, but also so expensive and could be somewhat inconvenient. Its a dream because its a Mac Pro and a MBP, best desktop and best laptop. Is expensive because well, that probably does not need explaining lol. Its may be inconvenient depending how how much of your information you will keep in the cloud, wether it be iCloud, dropbox or any other online based storage. Being out all day using the MBP then coming home and having to move these files to the Mac Pro, then before you go to bed making sure they are back on the MBP. Its not un-doable it just requires good cloud storage and keeping all your documents there. Or at the least getting an ethernet adapter for the MBP and connecting it to your network when you get home and accessing your files on the Mac Pro directly from the MBP through your network. All of this is possible and could be quite amazing if your up for it, or at least if your wallet is.
Click to expand...

This posting has some amazing replies by Cuniac and others!

The current 13rMBP is a pretty sweet machine if size/weight is a major consideration, but for shear performance the 15rMBP with dGPU is a powerhouse and sounds like the way to go for your needs. Running one ore more 4K external monitors will be taxing for any GPU so having a dGPU gives you the best options now and with future OS updates.

Dedicated desktops are wonderful but as pointed out by Cuniac, managing multiple machines can be cumbersome and if you are running a high-end 15rMBP then it can really crank under heavy and extended workloads like a desktop computer when setup in clamshell mode with a cooling dock and other desktop peripheries.

Personally, under such conditions I find a one computer solution to be the ideal setup, allowing me run my machine hard at the office when required but the second I need to head out to a meeting all I do is unplug the laptop and I am off without a second thought about having files or even having to open apps/files.
 
Thanks! I am just trying to decide now whether to get the 1TB 15 with discrete GPU or just 512GB. I want to run an SSD array of about 500GB of SSD space but I'm not sure if I can do that reasonably with hardware that is out there (I need some type of adapter to connect via thunderbolt for 10gbe speeds). Hopefully I figure out what my options are by the end of the day and I can purchase the right machine tomorrow. I would much prefer to have the array off my laptop in case the laptop dies or something, but I don't want to pay thousands of dollars for thunderbolt enclosures...

Thanks everybody! I'll be sure to post my impressions here for other google searches :)
 
As far as 512 vs 1TB, you want to make sure you give yourself room to breath. I got the 512GB split it in half for 250GB Windows then 250GB Mac. After I was done moving all my files over, and with the help of heavy data management (i.e. iCloud, iTunes Match, Plex) I was able to still have 165GB free on my Mac side. Yesterday I though it would be a good idea to convert some blu-rays I own so I can watch them easier for an upcoming work trip, and my free space went quickly lol, I decided to just take the disks.

While I wish I could have spent the extra money for the 1TB, it was $500 more. I actually did buy it, and while I was super happy with the free space I could not stand that price tag and returned it for the unit I have now. I will eventually get a Samsung external USB 3.0 SSD drive. It may not be as fast as the PCIe in the MBP but it runs at over 400MBps read/write, is self powered, and I can get 500GB for 200 bucks. However, if you do not want any external storage, you have the money for the 1TB and you think you will need that much space. Then get it. Money was my issue, but if you can get it with out it hurting, do it.

You said your looking into 10Gb Ethernet. Its soooo expensive. All of the Thunderbolt to 10Gb adaptors I have seen start at $599. There is one I saw on amazon for $529 but that's the cheapest one I saw. I have no idea why they are so expensive when a Thunderbolt to 1Gb Ethernet is $29, but it seems to be very expensive. I can understand you wanted 10Gb speeds but the price vs the performance return may not be worth it. If you really want this array then you may have to bite the bullet on that. Otherwise you can just use the 1Gb adaptor or look into other thunderbolt raid options.
 
Cuniac, I am glad I can help you this time!

So I have a bit more storage... I have a 6x6TB WD Red NAS running on ZFS on CentOS with 2 disk parity, plus a backup server (because we all know RAID != backups) and off-site backups in two locations (of course). This is great for large clunky files (like the 15TB of bluray rips, TV shows and ~50GB of music I have). My boot drive, including OS X, dot dot files, ~/LibRary, Applications etc is ~140GB. However, for the 400GB (which is reasonable to expect it to grow at a rate of ~50GB per year) of VMs, small files with high disk i/o needs, photo thumbnails, photo editing in lightroom, large datasets, etc, the ~200-300MB/s I get from my disk array isn't fast enough. This 400GB of data also is accessible on my OwnCloud server (why trust dropbox with my data when I can run my own?) Which is why I needed to decide on how to best take advantage of SSD speeds for these files.

USB 3 speeds of 5GB/s is impressive and highly theoretical. Real world performance, even with an SSD, you won't get more than 250MB/s1. It's very sad. It leaves me to decide whether I want to put the files that need to be super fast on the same drive as my boot drive inside my laptop or spend $500+ on a thunderbolt 10GbE controller. I really don't want those files that should be on an SSD array on my boot drive, but I hate spending money...I guess given it's a ~$500 upgrade (before discount), it isn't that much more to do it right. I guess I solved my problem: I will get a thunderbolt controller.

As an aside, I don't get the high cost for Thunderbolt either. I guess it is because they can.


1 http://www.macworld.com/article/2039427/how-fast-is-usb-3-0-really-.html
 
cmm said:
Cuniac, I am glad I can help you this time!

So I have a bit more storage... I have a 6x6TB WD Red NAS running on ZFS on CentOS with 2 disk parity, plus a backup server (because we all know RAID != backups) and off-site backups in two locations (of course). This is great for large clunky files (like the 15TB of bluray rips, TV shows and ~50GB of music I have). My boot drive, including OS X, dot dot files, ~/LibRary, Applications etc is ~140GB. However, for the 400GB (which is reasonable to expect it to grow at a rate of ~50GB per year) of VMs, small files with high disk i/o needs, photo thumbnails, photo editing in lightroom, large datasets, etc, the ~200-300MB/s I get from my disk array isn't fast enough. This 400GB of data also is accessible on my OwnCloud server (why trust dropbox with my data when I can run my own?) Which is why I needed to decide on how to best take advantage of SSD speeds for these files.

USB 3 speeds of 5GB/s is impressive and highly theoretical. Real world performance, even with an SSD, you won't get more than 250MB/s1. It's very sad. It leaves me to decide whether I want to put the files that need to be super fast on the same drive as my boot drive inside my laptop or spend $500+ on a thunderbolt 10GbE controller. I really don't want those files that should be on an SSD array on my boot drive, but I hate spending money...I guess given it's a ~$500 upgrade (before discount), it isn't that much more to do it right. I guess I solved my problem: I will get a thunderbolt controller.

As an aside, I don't get the high cost for Thunderbolt either. I guess it is because they can.


1 http://www.macworld.com/article/2039427/how-fast-is-usb-3-0-really-.html
Click to expand...

That was a great article, thank you for posting that. I'm also pretty impressed with your setup :). I really hope you enjoy your computer and that all these posts were helpful. Ill still keep an eye on this thread for a few more days in case you have any other questions.
 
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news! I know others will report higher speeds but they don't know how to benchmark. It really sucks; I really don't understand why we can't have lower cost Thunderbolt devices. I'm gonna pick up my laptop tomorrow; I'll post a pic when I'm done with my setup (2x Dell P2715Q monitors, NAS on my rack with Control4pro home audio/video/lighting/blinds/security system, managed switch, Ubiquiti edgerouter, 3x Ubiquiti AC WAP (that's our best bet of getting faster than gigabit speeds, so long as we can be close to a WAP and don't have too much interference which isn't really possible in Manhattan), Sonos, A/V receiver, amps, bluray player, raspberry pi running plex (not sure why people complain; I have no issues with full bluray rips, smooth as butter!), lots of wires, a Lenovo TS440 that I'm using as a backup server, various random SSDs and HDDs, and a custom desk that i built myself to go with my Herman Miller Mirra chair (I'm defecting and getting a Generation Knoll in a few weeks when it arrives!)

Yes, my rack is a bit of a mess :)

Thanks again!
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
New laptop is nice...almost all transferred over. Got the 15" 512gb version for $2100 before tax. Gotta figure out the new trackpad.
 
Samuelsan2001 said:
It's just legacy stuff that doesn't work well with high def screens, all reports suggest that El Capitan fixes all these issues. I for one wouyld prefer a new OSX every 2 years that is working properly than one every year with a cycle of new stuff one year and stabilisation and bug work out the next year that we have at the moment.

OP I would suggest you try the El Capitan beta software on your 2013 and see how it does then before you buy anything new.
Click to expand...


I'm running the beta (yeah, I know it's still beta) and can confirm that the massive UI lag still exists. It is improved but it is without a doubt still laggy. Try expose with More than 2 windows open = 5 fps
 
Mcmeowmers said:
I'm running the beta (yeah, I know it's still beta) and can confirm that the massive UI lag still exists. It is improved but it is without a doubt still laggy. Try expose with More than 2 windows open = 5 fps
Click to expand...

Never seen any UI lag myself I was just passing on other peoples luck with el capitan.
 
cmm said:
Hi- which hardware acceleration flag should I turn on? Thanks!
Click to expand...
Via chrome://flags
Click to expand...

Activate the following flags:
#ignore-gpu-blacklist
#enable-display-list-2d-canvas
#enable-gpu-rasterization

...and quit/open Chrome.

I use also these settings for the best possible image and text quality (no slowdown noticeable):
#gpu-rasterization-msaa-sample-count <-- set to 16
#lcd-text-aa <-- activated
#enable-harfbuzz-rendertext <-- activated

chrome://gpu shows:

Graphics Feature Status
  • Canvas: Hardware accelerated
  • Flash: Hardware accelerated
  • Flash Stage3D: Hardware accelerated
  • Flash Stage3D Baseline profile: Hardware accelerated
  • Compositing: Hardware accelerated
  • Multiple Raster Threads: Enabled
  • Rasterization: Hardware accelerated
  • Threaded Rasterization: Enabled
  • Video Decode: Hardware accelerated
  • Video Encode: Hardware accelerated
  • WebGL: Hardware accelerated
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I have a 2014 13" i5 2.8 with 1TB SSD and 16GB RAM. Graphics were v laggy in Yosemite, however since the El Cap DPs the graphics have been buttery smooth. Switching desktops, mission control etc doesn't have a lag in sight. Love it.
 
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