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

[leman]

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.
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. I don't need any ridiculous "help" in understanding tech.

Fair enough. I can be a bit annoying sometimes, I read lots of nonsense on these forums so I kind of automatically assume the worst ^^ I was actually a bit surprised to see you as the author of this thread because I have a high opinion of you and what you write. Anyway, your posts suggest that you think that the reduction of VRAM is a bad thing (as you call it, 'getting hobbled'). I disagree, because the allocated VRAM of the HD 4000 grows dynamically. So you are in fact not getting hobbled. There is no functionality removed, no performance drawback (actually, the recent update seems to improve my UI performance quite a bit).

BTW, my rMBP also dropped from 768Mb to 512Mb (I have 16GB RAM). I guess Apple (or Intel) simply decided that there is no need to reserve that much RAM for the iGPU.

 

[derbothaus]

Fair enough. I can be a bit annoying sometimes, I read lots of nonsense on these forums so I kind of automatically assume the worst ^^ I was actually a bit surprised to see you as the author of this thread because I have a high opinion of you and what you write. Anyway, your posts suggest that you think that the reduction of VRAM is a bad thing (as you call it, 'getting hobbled'). I disagree, because the allocated VRAM of the HD 4000 grows dynamically. So you are in fact not getting hobbled. There is no functionality removed, no performance drawback (actually, the recent update seems to improve my UI performance quite a bit).

BTW, my rMBP also dropped from 768Mb to 512Mb (I have 16GB RAM). I guess Apple (or Intel) simply decided that there is no need to reserve that much RAM for the iGPU.

Thanks Leman. Sorry for the knee-jerk response. Just frustrated by Apple's continued lack of information sharing. I have posted many times in the past scolding others for equating memory amount with speed of GPU so I am in your clubhouse so to speak. Whether or not I need it and whether or not it makes any difference to my user experience is not really the point of the thread. The point was really to find which models changed. I think we have determined that the 15" cMBP 2012 HD 4000 is the only reduction of memory (now your rMBP as well). Other changes in the 2.0 update allotted more memory to retina branded books. I have never witnessed or measured the pool growing. It just switches to dedicated 650m when anything of consequence happens. So I am not sure when or if a "dynamic" allotment ever takes place after boot allocation happens. If you know how, when, or have a way to measure this process I am all ears as I don't think it is dynamic after boot (I did no further reading to justify this). And we always seem to boot into the exact same configuration (odd, right?). If this is the case then yes, losing 128MB on your iGPU does somewhat decrease "available" performance if you need it prior to switching to the 650m. It would be a real rare case, I know. There are some functional benefits of having more RAM, I don't think you would disagree.

 

[b0fh666]

13" i7 8GB -> 512
13" i5 4GB -> also 512

cheers.

 

[leman]

Sorry for the knee-jerk response.

Don't mention it, I do sound extremely smartypants sometimes (I mean, I gave up on trying to read my posts, its just horrible ^^). And I am wrong often enough with what I write.

Just frustrated by Apple's continued lack of information sharing.

Agree, this is very annoying. I also wish that Apple would be more transparent in this regard.

So I am not sure when or if a "dynamic" allotment ever takes place after boot allocation happens. If you know how, when, or have a way to measure this process I am all ears as I don't think it is dynamic after boot (I did no further reading to justify this)

Maybe this link will bring some clarity: http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/cs-010488.htm

Basically, the VRAM displayed in your system info is the preallocated memory size (which is always reserved for the GPU by the driver). The driver can still allocate additional RAM if required. Because the GPU is actually part of the CPU and uses the same memory controller/L3 cache as the CPU itself, it can address system RAM 'for free', in contrast to dedicated cards which usually need to copy the data from the system RAM to their own VRAM. Apple has also a set of interesting OpenGL extensions (like this one http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/APPLE/client_storage.txt) which can be used as an optimisation to prevent a copy altogether. With the client storage extension, the client can tell the driver that it will maintain a client-side copy of the texture in the RAM at a specific address, which can be used for access directly by the driver, without copying it to a driver-managed space. I don't know whether the driver actually does this, but I am sure that it would, seeing how its why Apple created this extension in the first place.

P.S. Or maybe the whole thing is jut a bug in the first place ^^

Edit: one could play aroudn with the OpenGL Driver Monitor (part of Xcode developer tools). I never did OpenGL coding for Mac (I kind of quit doing graphics programming several years ago, before my Apple era), so I don't know the tool. Interestingly enough, it does not have any option to show the currently used VRAM, only free VRAM and mapped DMA RAM. I can't make much sense of the data TBH...

 

[derbothaus]

^^ Thanks. This info has a calming effect. Would still like a reason for initial pre-allocation change. Wrong before, unnecessary, "This saves battery cycles", 512MB caused glitches, bug after, something.

 

[smotania]

i have mid 2012 15" cMPB with 16g ram@1.5v and have 384mb vram ...and notice that after update my safari started doin some bull*hit like showin pictures and websites pixelated and just dont want to load them normal ...when i open them with mozilla its fine ... i tryd with restart safari and the computer as well and there is no effect. Its just start workin properly by its self in some moment and in the next its doin it again. Anybody else with problem like this ?

 

[audio2000]

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
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.

Last Saturday 22 Dec 2012, I bought a Core i7 cMacbook pro 15" mid 2012 non retina model, with 8 GB RAM,

It has Intel HD 4000 512 MB VRAM and Nvidia GT-650M 1 GB VRAM

Apple released ( MacBook Air & MacBook Pro Update 2.0 ) for mid 2012 model

It is not a firmware update...

The results after the update ... Intel HD 4000 384 MB VRAM instead of 512 MB

I reinstalled the OS 10.8, then 10.8.2 combo update again, and did hide the MacBook pro update 2.0

The VRAM of the Intel HD 4000 came to 512 MB

so in my case

8GB RAM -> 384 VRAM After update
8GB RAM -> 512 VRAM Before update

which is better ??

 

[derbothaus]

Last Saturday 22 Dec 2012, I bought a Core i7 cMacbook pro 15" mid 2012 non retina model, with 8 GB RAM,

It has Intel HD 4000 512 MB VRAM and Nvidia GT-650M 1 GB VRAM

Apple released ( MacBook Air & MacBook Pro Update 2.0 ) for mid 2012 model

It is not a firmware update...

The results after the update ... Intel HD 4000 384 MB VRAM instead of 512 MB

I reinstalled the OS 10.8, then 10.8.2 combo update again, and did hide the MacBook pro update 2.0

The VRAM of the Intel HD 4000 came to 512 MB

so in my case

8GB RAM -> 384 VRAM After update
8GB RAM -> 512 VRAM Before update

which is better ??

Read leman's response to me earlier. Neither is really better or worse in practice. Apple just changed the needed allocation. Never got an answer as to why but then I never looked in to it further as when any heavy lifting is needed the 650m kicks in anyway. Pick your fights wisely
The bigger number is usually better but not always needed with portables as battery has to power it. 256 was plenty for basic 1440x900. Having the 384 should be and has been performing fine for me.

 

[Count Blah]

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.

Currently I have 384Megs showing with the stock 4-Gigs of 1.5v RAM. I am getting 16Gigs of 1.35v RAM in the mail in the next day or two. I have the stock mid-2012 15" cMBP. I'll let you know.

 

[The Unseen]

Currently I have 384Megs showing with the stock 4-Gigs of 1.5v RAM. I am getting 16Gigs of 1.35v RAM in the mail in the next day or two. I have the stock mid-2012 15" cMBP. I'll let you know.

Thank you, let me know

 

[Count Blah]

Thank you, let me know

384Megs still showing with 16Gigs of 1.35v RAM