new MBP: don't need dGPU. Confused between 2 possibilities...

[malch]

Hi there,
I need to get a new MBP, 15". From reading I've done on this forum, I don't think I need the dGPU model (I don't game). But I do want a fast processor, 8 or maybe 16GB or RAM, and a 1TB hd.
(I'm a shooter/editor; I do 95% or my editing on a Mac Pro, but sometimes need to travel and edit, hence the need for RAM).
On the Apple store, there are two choices for the 15" MBP, and once you've selected one or the other, you can tweak away. But what I'm not at all clear about is how I know which model comes with the Iris Pro GPU and which comes with the dGPU. Would someone kindly advise?
Should I go with the MBP on the left, and up the RAM and processor (and will this have the Iris Pro for sure), or should I go with the MBP on the right?
thanks,
malch

 

[rgarjr]

The 2K one is the one without the dGPU, the 2.6K has it.

 

[malch]

what about the 2.3?
This is what I find confusing. Is it spelled out somewhere, and I'm just missing it?
malch

 

[blueroom]

The 2.0 GHz late 2013 is the 15" model without a dGPU.

 

[malch]

O.K., well thanks to you both.
So both the 2.3 and the 2.6 have the dGPU.

Darn it! My 2008 MBP (which just died) had a 2.5GHz processor!
I know the new processors are faster, even if the GHz rating is lower, but I still wouldn't have thought that the computer I'd be looking at five years after my last one would have a (substantially) lower GHz number. Amazing.
malch

 

[blueroom]

The Iris Pro is a very good GPU and the 2.0 i7 is no sloth, plus an extremely fast SSD.

Buy it and try it for 14 days. Easy enough to exchange.

 

[pgiguere1]

Don't obsess over the GHz number, there has been computers with Pentium 4 CPUs launched over a decade ago with a higher clock frequency than your current MBP. It's something that hasn't changed much in the last years and likely won't change much in the near future either. The fact you'll be switching from a dual-core to a quad-core CPU alone is a pretty big deal, not to mention the big architecture jump between Core 2 Duo and a modern i7.

 

[jz-]

My 2008 MBP (which just died) had a 2.5GHz processor!

The 2008 MBPs are dual-core, the 2013 15" are all quad-core, so in terms of total processing power, 2x2.5->4x2.0 is still a big improvement.

If you're going to get the 2.3/16/512 anyway, you might as well get the one with NVIDIA graphics (the one on the right), since it's essentially free and has Iris Pro anyway. Unless there's a particular reason you don't want a dGPU?

 

[stevemiller]

O.K., well thanks to you both.
So both the 2.3 and the 2.6 have the dGPU.

Darn it! My 2008 MBP (which just died) had a 2.5GHz processor!
I know the new processors are faster, even if the GHz rating is lower, but I still wouldn't have thought that the computer I'd be looking at five years after my last one would have a (substantially) lower GHz number. Amazing.
malch

as a reassurance, i had the late 2008 15" 2.8ghz, and i upgraded in 2011 to the 15" 2.2ghz. my work is primary in video and motion graphics, and the 2011 model is between double and triple the performance of the 2008 model for real world encoding and rendering tasks. so the 2013 model will definitely be a noticeable step up for you.

 

[malch]

If you're going to get the 2.3/16/512 anyway, you might as well get the one with NVIDIA graphics (the one on the right), since it's essentially free and has Iris Pro anyway

thank you to all of you. I sort of knew that GHz speed isn't the be-all-end-all that it was once thought to be, but I appreciate being reminded of this. And I didn't know until you pointed it out that these things are now quad-core.
So... I won't worry about processor speed anymore.

In answer to your question, jz, I'm confused because I've read posts from people saying that they like the NVIDIA version because they're gamers (which I'm not) or because they can turn it off with a piece of software. I don't see the point of something if an argument in its favour is that you can easily turn it off.
But I'm open to suggestion here! (hey, the quad-core point won me over pretty quick).

Just to confirm: you say to get the 2.3 with NVIDIA graphics, "the one on the right". Does this mean that the one "on the left" is Iris Pro? (I don't know why Apple doesn't list one or the other in "Specifications", but if they do, I don't see it).
regards and thanks to all,
malch

 

[PDFierro]

thank you to all of you. I sort of knew that GHz speed isn't the be-all-end-all that it was once thought to be, but I appreciate being reminded of this. And I didn't know until you pointed it out that these things are now quad-core.
So... I won't worry about processor speed anymore.

In answer to your question, jz, I'm confused because I've read posts from people saying that they like the NVIDIA version because they're gamers (which I'm not) or because they can turn it off with a piece of software. I don't see the point of something if an argument in its favour is that you can easily turn it off.
But I'm open to suggestion here! (hey, the quad-core point won me over pretty quick).

Just to confirm: you say to get the 2.3 with NVIDIA graphics, "the one on the right". Does this mean that the one "on the left" is Iris Pro? (I don't know why Apple doesn't list one or the other in "Specifications", but if they do, I don't see it).
regards and thanks to all,
malch

The configuration on the left is Iris Pro-only no matter what processor upgrade you choose. Only choosing the 2nd configuration on the right would get you the dGPU.

If you maxed out both, they will come out to be the same price. I personally prefer the Iris-only configuration, even if you can basically get the dGPU for free on a higher-end config.

 

[DavesIknow]

O.K., well thanks to you both.
So both the 2.3 and the 2.6 have the dGPU.

Darn it! My 2008 MBP (which just died) had a 2.5GHz processor!
I know the new processors are faster, even if the GHz rating is lower, but I still wouldn't have thought that the computer I'd be looking at five years after my last one would have a (substantially) lower GHz number. Amazing.
malch

Two words. Turbo boost. The base speed on the new one is 2.0 but it goes to a max of 3.2. So it it will generally goes faster than 2.0 when you are working in things. Plus all the motherboard improvements. I see you have changed your opinion which is good. Think like this, is a Celeron 2.6 faster than your dual core 2.5?

 

[john123]

In answer to your question, jz, I'm confused because I've read posts from people saying that they like the NVIDIA version because they're gamers (which I'm not) or because they can turn it off with a piece of software. I don't see the point of something if an argument in its favour is that you can easily turn it off.
But I'm open to suggestion here! (hey, the quad-core point won me over pretty quick).

The "point" is that you're paying for it, it isn't "just" for gamers, and it gives you flexibility. I'm sorry, but not taking it if you are getting a 2.3/16/512 or better configuration is, with the exception of people using Boot Camp, flat-out idiotic.

 

[malch]

well I'll continue reading up on it. So far, as I've said, I've mostly just seen reference to the dGPU as something for gamers, but that's probably because I've not read widely enough.
Would you mind giving me your reasons for liking dGPU, and give me an idea of what advantages it brings?
thanks,
malch

 

[blueroom]

GPU is pretty much for gamers and heavy 3D CAD users. Else isn't really necessary IMO. The 2.0GHz i7 is a quad core with hyper threading, the only program I have that pegs all 8 is Handbrake.

 

[john123]

well I'll continue reading up on it. So far, as I've said, I've mostly just seen reference to the dGPU as something for gamers, but that's probably because I've not read widely enough.
Would you mind giving me your reasons for liking dGPU, and give me an idea of what advantages it brings?
thanks,
malch

Your problem is that you're reading the garbage here on the forums. This place is littered with sofa jockeys with little to no technical knowledge whatsoever, but who speak with authority.

GPUs do the lion's share of your graphics work, and do so in conjunction with your CPU. See a tech overview for OS X here:
https://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/graphics-and-animation.html

The whole reason why you see people talking about dGPUs being "for gamers" is that iGPUs have not been up to the task, historically. That said, you'll also find plenty of threads on here of people complaining about things like scrolling and OS UI performance at different times. For example, the HD4000 under Mountain Lion wasn't quite up to snuff for rMBPs.

The point is, though, that you don't know for sure what you'll be doing in one or two years from now, nor do you know what apps might want to take advantage of the (significantly) superior OpenGL performance, among other things, afforded by the 750M.

It's not so much that I "like" the dGPU as much as I think the idea of intentionally gimping yourself when there's no cost to have it is insane. If you don't like how the OS is switching your GPUs, you can turn it off via gfxCardStatus. That's an option. If you choose not to take the dGPU now, you don't have that option later on.

And a lot of this junk about power consumption and heat with the dGPU is a straw man argument. If you ramp up an Iris Pro, it sucks about as much power as the 750M does. If the laptop has selected the 750M, there's a reason it did so. Sometimes that reason isn't very good, but more often than not, it is.

In short, it's all about option value. There's almost no downside to having it on there, and potential downside to not. In fact, the ONLY real downside comes from people who run Boot Camp, as it doesn't switch dynamically and instead will just use the dGPU, which is a power drain. (And if you're confused about how this matches up with my statement above, at high loads, Iris Pro and 750M power consumption are comparable, but at low loads, Iris Pro consumption is lower.)

Does this make sense?

 

[blueroom]

Your problem is that you're reading the garbage here on the forums. This place is littered with sofa jockeys with little to no technical knowledge whatsoever, but who speak with authority.

GPUs do the lion's share of your graphics work, and do so in conjunction with your CPU. See a tech overview for OS X here:
https://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/graphics-and-animation.html

The whole reason why you see people talking about dGPUs being "for gamers" is that iGPUs have not been up to the task, historically. That said, you'll also find plenty of threads on here of people complaining about things like scrolling and OS UI performance at different times. For example, the HD4000 under Mountain Lion wasn't quite up to snuff for rMBPs.

The point is, though, that you don't know for sure what you'll be doing in one or two years from now, nor do you know what apps might want to take advantage of the (significantly) superior OpenGL performance, among other things, afforded by the 750M.

It's not so much that I "like" the dGPU as much as I think the idea of intentionally gimping yourself when there's no cost to have it is insane. If you don't like how the OS is switching your GPUs, you can turn it off via gfxCardStatus. That's an option. If you choose not to take the dGPU now, you don't have that option later on.

And a lot of this junk about power consumption and heat with the dGPU is a straw man argument. If you ramp up an Iris Pro, it sucks about as much power as the 750M does. If the laptop has selected the 750M, there's a reason it did so. Sometimes that reason isn't very good, but more often than not, it is.

In short, it's all about option value. There's almost no downside to having it on there, and potential downside to not. In fact, the ONLY real downside comes from people who run Boot Camp, as it doesn't switch dynamically and instead will just use the dGPU, which is a power drain. (And if you're confused about how this matches up with my statement above, at high loads, Iris Pro and 750M power consumption are comparable, but at low loads, Iris Pro consumption is lower.)

Does this make sense?

Why pay for something the OP is unlikely to ever need, can you name non game or CAD programs that would benefit from the dGPU vs the Iris Pro? Some folks just spend all their time fussing over benchmarks.

 

[raxafarian]

They BOTH have the Intel Iris Pro graphics.

The left one only has Iris pro... the right one has Iris pro and dedicated nvidia 750m.

Once you select which graphics model you want, you can then customize. You need to pick Iris only or Iris/NVIDIA first.

It is listed right on the page:

----------

Why pay for something the OP is unlikely to ever need, can you name non game or CAD programs that would benefit from the dGPU vs the Iris Pro? Some folks just spend all their time fussing over benchmarks.

Lots of programs can take advantage of GPU acceleration and that should increase in the future... Granted, if you're just browsing the web and working in office/openoffice then it won't help.

here's a list of some that can use the GPU:
http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/123576/nv-applications-catalog-lowres.pdf

 

[john123]

Why pay for something the OP is unlikely to ever need, can you name non game or CAD programs that would benefit from the dGPU vs the Iris Pro? Some folks just spend all their time fussing over benchmarks.

Because, if you'd paid attention and read my post, HE IS NOT PAYING FOR ANYTHING. IT IS 100% COST-FREE. For like the millionth time, you are getting the 2.3/16/512 configuration anyway, getting the dGPU costs you $0.00.

And yes, again, if you read my post, I named you something that wasn't a game or CAD where a dGPU made a difference—Apple's own OS. Granted, that was because of crappy software development, but it still proves my point. Sometimes, hardware can be a great crutch to rest on.

Also, here's another one: Parallels.

 

[Xerotech]

O.K., well thanks to you both.
So both the 2.3 and the 2.6 have the dGPU.

Darn it! My 2008 MBP (which just died) had a 2.5GHz processor!
I know the new processors are faster, even if the GHz rating is lower, but I still wouldn't have thought that the computer I'd be looking at five years after my last one would have a (substantially) lower GHz number. Amazing.
malch

Higher clock rate = more heat. They reached a pinnacle in which they couldn't reach above 4GHz without substantial cooling such as liquid nitrogen. They have invented multi-core/multi-threaded processing. A quad core may have 4 physical and 4 virtual cores = 8 total threads * clock rate + they have turbo boost which allows a processor to temporarily 'overclock' to a higher rate when temperatures permit.

 

[sarcosis]

Because, if you'd paid attention and read my post, HE IS NOT PAYING FOR ANYTHING. IT IS 100% COST-FREE. For like the millionth time, you are getting the 2.3/16/512 configuration anyway, getting the dGPU costs you $0.00.

And yes, again, if you read my post, I named you something that wasn't a game or CAD where a dGPU made a difference—Apple's own OS. Granted, that was because of crappy software development, but it still proves my point. Sometimes, hardware can be a great crutch to rest on.

Also, here's another one: Parallels.

Another set of programs that use dedicated gpu acceleration is the Adobe CS line of products. It helps with video and photo processing since the glu far more efficient at that kind of task than the cpu. Apples own os uses the gpu to render the windows and effects that are flying around using OpenCL. So is the extra horsepower needed, now, but it will make things work better and help the Macbook last longer in the future as more and more stuff takes advantage of the gpu.

 

[Scott7975]

Why pay for something the OP is unlikely to ever need, can you name non game or CAD programs that would benefit from the dGPU vs the Iris Pro? Some folks just spend all their time fussing over benchmarks.

He wouldn't be paying anything for it. The OP intends to upgrade the specs. Upgrading the specs of the base model would cost the same as the high end model.

Not taking the dGPU for free, in my opinion, is stupid. The only reason not to have it is to save a little battery time while under bootcamp windows. I think that's silly.

 

[blueroom]

True, didn't notice that. Yes take the dGPU since with that configuration.

 

[nateo200]

inb4 GHz Nazi's, angry monster sipping GPU gamers, and another uniformed buyer...oh wait never mind. Please research. My God this section is turning into a garbage...

Your problem is that you're reading the garbage here on the forums. This place is littered with sofa jockeys with little to no technical knowledge whatsoever, but who speak with authority.

GPUs do the lion's share of your graphics work, and do so in conjunction with your CPU. See a tech overview for OS X here:
https://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/graphics-and-animation.html

The whole reason why you see people talking about dGPUs being "for gamers" is that iGPUs have not been up to the task, historically. That said, you'll also find plenty of threads on here of people complaining about things like scrolling and OS UI performance at different times. For example, the HD4000 under Mountain Lion wasn't quite up to snuff for rMBPs.

The point is, though, that you don't know for sure what you'll be doing in one or two years from now, nor do you know what apps might want to take advantage of the (significantly) superior OpenGL performance, among other things, afforded by the 750M.

It's not so much that I "like" the dGPU as much as I think the idea of intentionally gimping yourself when there's no cost to have it is insane. If you don't like how the OS is switching your GPUs, you can turn it off via gfxCardStatus. That's an option. If you choose not to take the dGPU now, you don't have that option later on.

And a lot of this junk about power consumption and heat with the dGPU is a straw man argument. If you ramp up an Iris Pro, it sucks about as much power as the 750M does. If the laptop has selected the 750M, there's a reason it did so. Sometimes that reason isn't very good, but more often than not, it is.

In short, it's all about option value. There's almost no downside to having it on there, and potential downside to not. In fact, the ONLY real downside comes from people who run Boot Camp, as it doesn't switch dynamically and instead will just use the dGPU, which is a power drain. (And if you're confused about how this matches up with my statement above, at high loads, Iris Pro and 750M power consumption are comparable, but at low loads, Iris Pro consumption is lower.)

Does this make sense?

Wow...an informed poster! My thoughts exactly...

 

[john123]

inb4 GHz Nazi's, angry monster sipping GPU gamers, and another uniformed buyer...oh wait never mind. Please research. My God this section is turning into a garbage...

What the..?