Macbook Air and Macbook Pro Update 2.0 - cMBP now only 384MB VRAM

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by derbothaus, Nov 10, 2012.

  1. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #1
    Does any other cMBP owners see this with HD 4000 graphics after the recent update? I had 8GB from factory showing Intel HD 4000 at 512MB. Upgraded to 16GB and still showed 512MB. After update showing 384MB:mad:
    I zapped the PRAM, reset the SMC, removed the 16GB kit and put the original 8GB kit in and zapped the PRAM and reset the SMC and still shows 384MB no matter what.
    Kind of pissed at Apple for upping the Air allotments and hobbling the classic users. I need a cross section of users experience so far. If there are any classic 2012 users with 8GB+ memory please post your shared GPU memory allotment.
     
  2. Snarl macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Location:
    Canada Eh
    #2
    I may be out of line here but I suspect they may have just reduced the amount of memory reserved by HD4000 Graphics. I think it will grab more (Up to 1 GB) as required. I have not however checked my facts, just an assumption.
     
  3. liya1201 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    #3
    My HD 4000 graphic vram was reduced to 384MB too. Besides, trim support was removed too.
    cMBP Mid2012, 15 inch, i7 2.3 GHz, 16 GB RAM, SSD M4 256 GB.
     
  4. Rhinoevans macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #4
    How do you like the M4?
     
  5. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #5
    This and the sleep image isn't making me a happy guy
     
  6. Jiggly Billy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    #6
    Ummmmmmmmmmmm my 2012 cMBP with 8GB has always displayed 384MB of Memory for the HD4000. Mactracker even states that too, and it hasn't been updated in a long time now.

    And yeah, any OS update with a non-native SSD is going to reset the TRIM enabler, as well as readd the sleep image.

    Seems like ya'll are just throwing a fit over nothing.
     
  7. The Unseen macrumors member

    The Unseen

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Location:
    Naples, Italy
    #7
    i have a 2012 cMbp 13'' 2.5 with 8gb RAM ( 2X4 Crucial 1.35V ) and after the update is still showing 512Mb of VRAM.
    I've gained 100 points of geekbench score.
    [​IMG]
     
  8. derbothaus thread starter macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #8
    Thanks all.
    So weird. Maybe it is only 15" with GT650m that got the drop. As the 13" cMBP only has the HD 4000. A drop would be real bad on that. Not that it doesn't suck for 15" users and for what reason on the 15"? I had no issue with performance or battery life. Does Apple just want cMBP owners to have as ****** a time with scrolling as rMBP users? Level that playing field? Please keep the "What does your cMBP show after the update" coming. I will be calling them fairly soon for info and wtf they were thinking? Especially with no warning attached to the update. Maybe attach a 2nd display and it allocates more? I don't have an adapter handy right now to test. I can on Monday.
     
  9. chrfr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    #9
    External displays force the use of the discrete GPU.
     
  10. derbothaus thread starter macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #10
    Then very upset. It's almost like without warning a firmware update applied a different clock speed than the one you payed for (Almost). I had 512MB since I bought this 14-15 weeks ago.
     
  11. crispytreat macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    #11
    My 2012 13 cMBP shows 512 as well. I have 16 GB ram and Samsung 840 Pro SSD.
     
  12. TechZeke macrumors 68020

    TechZeke

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Location:
    Rialto, CA
    #12
    My base 15" always had 384MB. Only the hi-end "15 models and the "13 get the 512mb HD 4000. That's weird that those with 512 are now seeing 384.
     
  13. GrandPhrase macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    #13
    I'm not too familar on this topic, but why don't they increase the vRAM to like 1GB for those with more RAM (ex. 16) to allocate more to smoother experience? I mean 16 is sufficient to allocate 1 to vRAM.. Please do care to explain
     
  14. derbothaus thread starter macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #14
    If you were to increase your system memory to 8GB or 16GB you would have seen 512MB. In the past at least. It does not matter whether the processor is 2.3, 2.6, or 2.7GHz. It is weird that is why I am asking the question.:)

    ----------

    The 15" has the 650m with 1024MB already. I think the max on HD 4000 is 768MB. It is for better battery and cooler operation when you don't need to use the dedicated GT 650m.
     
  15. GrandPhrase macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    #15
    Thanks. Hopefully Haswell (HD 5000?) allows vRAM up to 1GB so the retina Macbooks can have smoother operation. I'm sure the bettery battery life that Haswell claims will make up for the loss in battery life in increased usage of vRAM.
     
  16. J&JPolangin macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Location:
    Thule GL @ the TOW
    #16
    My 2011 13" cMBP also shows 512Mb of vRAM...
     
  17. Podifer macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    #17
    Not sure if I should do update

    Confused now - my high end cMBP currently shows 512mb VRAM -don't really want that to drop - not sure now what I would be gaining (or losing!) with this update.

    Could it just be an error in the way the system is reporting VRAM? Really wish I knew what Apple are thinking of with this update :(
     
  18. jvpython macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #18
    What is up with people that keep thinking increasing the VRAM will make the GPU faster. The performance will be EXACTLY the same unless you are actually using all that memory which will certainly not happen when scrolling through webpage (Even at retina resolution).

    ----------

    If you were using applications that required all that extra memory you'd most likely be better of using the discrete GPU anyway (i.e. games, pro apps etc.)
     
  19. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #19

    Who cares how much VRAM does the HD 4000 have? :confused:

    The iGPU memory is reserved from the system RAM. Basically, its a portion of RAM which your application can't use. If the driver needs more video RAM, it can always allocate it from the system RAM. The HD 4000 has direct access to the system RAM anyway. The change should have absolutely no impact on your performance.

    Did you actually do some benchmarks?

    ----------

    More VRAM fro the iGPU won't change the performance a bit. The more I read stuff like this the more I believe that some specs are simply better hidden from the average user who lacks education in graphics programming.
     
  20. playsontheleft macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    #20
    Weird that some people are experiencing this issue... mine's still reporting 512MB here. If it matters, rMBP: 2.6/768/16. So it doesn't look like the issue is showing up exclusively in 15" machines or anything like that.
     
  21. zjazz, Nov 11, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2012

    zjazz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    #21
    Same here, no change RMBP shows Intel HD Graphics 4000 512 MB. Do I see any difference in performance after update? No. Only improvement I can see is that it shuts down much faster now, pretty much in 1-2 seconds.

    EDIT: However wake up from sleep is longer now!!! It's been instant, once lid is open everything is ready, now open lid wait for screen... Camone apple... Ohhh...if not one then another thing is wrong. And my wallpaper changes each time I restart...
     
  22. Rich74 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    #22
    Same here on my 15-inch, Mid 2012 model, 384mb graphics now.
     
  23. The Unseen macrumors member

    The Unseen

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Location:
    Naples, Italy
    #23
    I've read in another thread that swapping 1.5v RAM with 1.35v RAM results in changing the amount of available VRAM from 384 to 512Mb.
    Maybe this is the problem.
     
  24. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #24
    the issue is showing up to my understanding of 15in users with 8 gig of ram. Used to be 512 but now 384

    for 13, it seems 8 gigs of ram remains at 512

    in all cases, it seems 16 gig is 512, aside from the 13rmpp, which is 768
     
  25. derbothaus, Nov 11, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2012

    derbothaus thread starter macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #25
    Clueless newb trying to school an o.g. Did you even read my post? Did I say it would get faster? Have you seen any of my posts in the past? I want to understand why for 14 weeks it always said 512MB and now it says 384MB. Simple.

    ----------

    The more I read your posts leman the more I realize you need to stop trying to teach others you assume don't know anything. The assumption is insulting and you need to get over yourself. You ain't special. Not everyone is an iConsumer as you see them.
    I did not do any benchmarks. I care because of the change. Would you not care if your book got slightly hobbled? Are we just supposed to eat it when Apple decides we just may not need 512MB for 1440x900 even though we had it previously? Don't flatter yourself with the rest.

    For reiterative purposes:
    The RETINA and the 13" MBP did not change. They allot 512MB when more than 8GB is present on the system. The 15" cMBP 2012 changed.

    ----------

    Not true. I tested with 8GB and currently 16GB. Voltage the same on both kits and I swapped them back and forth (as was posted originally) Same results: 384MB allotted.

    ----------

    Thanks Rich.

    ----------

    Yes, it matters. You shouldn't see a drop. They didn't screw with the retina.
     

Share This Page