Retina 13 - does i7 over i5 affect HD4000?? + idle speeds?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by freeeman, Feb 25, 2013.

  1. freeeman, Feb 25, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2013

    freeeman macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    #1
    Hi there.

    I'm considering a retina 13'' and I wonder if i would choose the i7 option. I wouldn't really if the 13'' would have some kind of discrete GPU.

    1. Since it's not the case and I think have read that integrated graphics like HD4000 speeds are related to the CPU you have, am I right that the i7 which runs quickier will also feature a speedier Hd4000 ? Since its the only graphic power we can have it's a good reason to consider the upgrade isn't it, apart from the extra cache?

    2. If so, would those speeds be configurable to be "overclocked" later anyway, therefore breaking a bit this reason to buy the i7 over the i5..

    3. Also, does the i7 which is labeled at higher speed clocks, will at idle be systematicly running quickier ? Will it affect temperature?

    4. I also saw that the i7 fan runs at 3400rpm min VS 2000rpm for the i5. Is it true and is it noticeable really?
    Is it tweakable later like putting it to 2000rpm also on the i7 and limiting the max speed so it will not get too hot?


    Thanks a lot for your answers.
     
  2. Laco macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    #2
    The choice of processor will have virtually no impact on the integrated graphics in the Macbook Pro. If you need a dedicated GPU to play the latest games or do other graphics intense tasks then you will need to buy the 15 inch model. Intel HD 4000 is not that bad. For example, I just completed playing Assassins Creed Brotherhood on medium graphics settings and I have a 13 inch Macbook Pro.
     
  3. bolen macrumors 6502

    bolen

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Location:
    Sweden
    #3
    Source? I have very hard to believe that the idle speed would differ at all, yet alone this much!




    On the topic, yes going for the i7 could potentially yet probably very marginally affect the GPU speed as the GPU in the i7 have a higher dynaminc frequency limit compared to the i5 (1.3 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). I don't think this would affect gaming performance as the dynamic frequency usually only covers "bursts" and not sustained high load (as in gaming).

    http://ark.intel.com/products/72164/Intel-Core-i5-3230M-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz-rPGA
    http://ark.intel.com/products/71255/Intel-Core-i7-3540M-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz

    If you need high performance GPU you will be disappointed going with the HD4000. You should at least wait for the Intel Haswell generation you must have 13" and want GPU performance. Otherwise go with the 15" with nvidia graphics.
     
  4. xmichaelp macrumors 68000

    xmichaelp

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    #4
    HD 4000 is just fine for gaming

    I can play all valve source games minimum ~80 fps on high in OS X

    Black Ops 2 ~40-80 fps on high (it jumps a lot but is usually around 60)

    Battlefield 3 ~40 fps on lowish setting
     
  5. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #5
    #1 since the GPU and CPU share the same TDP in some rare cases the i7 might actually deliver worse GPU performance because the higher clocking CPU needs so much of the total TDP. Generally the GPU gets priority and clocks are always the same for the GPU. Zero difference.
    Different speeds of the HD 4000 you can find if you look at different TDP CPUs. Like the Airs 17W CPU (regardless if it is the i5 or i7) will be slower than the one in the 35W CPU as found in the MBP. The GPU is set to the exact same clocks on all CPUs in the same TDP basket (i3-i7 makes no difference).

    #2 No there is no way to overclock anything with those mobile locked down intel chips.

    #3 Idle Clock speeds are the same on both CPUs. The i7 only has higher bins to clock up on demand. On the low end they are one and the same.

    #4 As mentioned there should not be any difference idle. Under load more likely when the load is CPU heavy.
     
  6. freeeman, Feb 26, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013

    freeeman thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    #6
    Thanks a lot for your answers.

    I read this on this post : http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=16176497&postcount=27 and the whole thread seems to imply something like that. It is wrong you think?

    I really can't make up my mind between the i5 3m cache and the i7 4m cache..mmmh

    Thanks a lot again.
     
  7. vatter69 macrumors 6502a

    vatter69

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    #7
    I just got mine finally yesterday, using IStatMenu, Idle for fans is 2000 and 2200 (with Core i7 3.0 Ghz). Even with my ear on the keyboard, i can not hear the fans.
     
  8. freeeman thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    #8
    Thanks for your answer!
    Do you know if you have a way to tweak volts and speeds of the HD4000 a bit??

    Also, technically, the i7 would have slightly less battery charge life span.. did it not upset you for your choice? Thanx again!!
     
  9. vatter69, Feb 28, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013

    vatter69 macrumors 6502a

    vatter69

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    #9
    I can tell you flat out this is by far the best laptop i have ever owned. It gets warm when you stress it, i actually managed to hear the fans 5 mins ago when i was installing Diablo 3 on Mac and installing SP1 for Win7 in a VM at the same time. Turned out the Diablo 3 installer runs a process at 200% CPU time forwhatever reason ;)

    Bottom line - i don't care if the battery life will be shortened by 5 mins or 15 mins. You are not going to run major stuff without power anyways. 7h Battery life is plenty in my book.

    Just did the test - stopped the VM, unplugged the cord and with basic apps (Safari, Mail, Messages,Activity Monitor and a cpl of other stuff) -> 7:44h.

    I did not fiddle around with brightness settings. Mountain Lion itself adjusted the brightness a bit, not much though. I think thats rock solid!

    Edit: 8005 Geekbench Score with 32bit Trial version.
     
  10. freeeman thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    #10
    Thanks for your answer.. I went for the i7 indeed :p
     
  11. nando4 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    #11
    Or consider a Thunderbolt eGPU and enjoy the smaller 13" chassis and better battery life it offers in Windows. It well and truly outbenches a 15" MBP. See my sig for details.
     
  12. w00t951 macrumors 68000

    w00t951

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #12
    BS. I don't know what settings or resolution, but BO2 won't run past 60FPS on my AMD 6750M OC'd by 25%. BF3 barely runs (20FPS) on my friend's Asus Zenbook, and that has a discrete NVIDIA GT620M, which is twice as fast as the HD4000.

    I can't say anything about Source engine games, but the Source 2 engine is really old. So I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. But honestly, anyone with an Internet connection can Google benchmarks for the HD4000 - why lie about it? In fact, here's the benchmarks. All BS.

    But only the low end i5's and i3's have a different iGPU. The current is the HD4000, but the low end chips can come with an HD3500. In the Sandy Bridge generation, the high and medium end CPUs came with HD3000s, and the low end chips came with an HD2500.
     
  13. ayasinsk macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    #13
    I absolutely agree. Intel 3000 or 4000 is crap for gaming, unless you enjoy gaming with a lowest video setting with a decent frame rate. I have an early 2011 MacBook Pro 13 with intel 3000 and 8gb of ram (makes my video memory to be 500mb instead of 384mb with 4gb ram) and the only game I play is Starcraft 2. Let me tell you that in order to get a good frame rate going I basically have to use lowest video settings. Bottom line is that if you want to game on your MacBook Pro you have to have a dedicated video card, period. Integrated cards are all bad for gaming. Anyone who says otherwise is just clueless. I think it is ridiculous that apple only offers dedicated video cards in 15 pros. This should be as an option across the board for pros and airs. For how much apple is charging people should get more bang for the buck.
     
  14. vatter69 macrumors 6502a

    vatter69

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    #14
    It's all about heat generation. The 13 inchs just dont offer enough body to get rid of the generated heat.

    For that very reason, i bought a 13". 1 hear generator is enough ;)

    Diablo3 and Halflife2/Source engine games run very well on this machine btw.
     
  15. xmichaelp macrumors 68000

    xmichaelp

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    #15
    Don't know what to tell ya.. not sure why you think i'd lie

    I play BO2 at 1280x800 with graphics / textures on high and AA and FXAA off. I probably should have even put "40-80" as it never plays consistently at 80 it will just shoot up there for a split second. It plays consistently at 45-55 and never drops below 40 however.

    BF3 on the recommended setting which puts it at 1280x800, low for graphics quality and medium for everything else, and AA and all that is off.

    40 fps may have been a little optimistic because there isn't an fps counter on bf3 (that i'm aware of) so i'm really not sure but all I know is it's fluid enough to the point where extra fps wouldn't really be noticeable to me. it's probably around 30 - 40, 25 at the lowest. At the least console quality and still very playable.

    To the link you posted, I don't really know what to say, other than it's wildly inaccurate compared to what i've been getting. Maybe the drivers are a lot more mature now? I got the macbook about 2 months ago, which is over half a year after the hd4000 has been out. It doesn't look like it specifies what res they are testing it on, I'm guessing 1080p, keep in mind i'm running 1280x800 (max for my MBP)

    Again, I have absolutely no idea why you'd think i'd lie, take this post how you'd like, I don't really care if you don't believe me. (I'm too busy playing these games perfectly fine on my HD4000 :D:p)

    Sorry for the bump, I haven't signed in on here for a couple weeks
     
  16. vatter69 macrumors 6502a

    vatter69

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    #16
    StarCraft II runs decently on this 13" machine, too. Not sure what serious gamers play these games, but im more than satisfied with the games im playing (occasionally).

    Granted, if i was an avid gamer, i'd take something with a dedicated graphics card.
     

Share This Page