The 2.7GHz model has a better iGPU?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Panini, Jul 12, 2012.

  1. Panini, Jul 12, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012

    Panini macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Location:
    Palo Alto, CA
    #1
    I'm pretty sure it doesn't, but I was looking over this thread where the OP claims he has no scrolling or UI lag while running in the scaled resolutions (i.e 1920x1200). None, whatsoever, and he's on Lion.

    The only thing that's different is that he has a 2.7GHz processor. Does that help? I know it has 8MB L3 cache (vs 6MB default) but I don't even know what that does.

    Bottom line: Does the 2.7 offer any significant performance boost (in terms of graphics) at all? It would help to know if you're a 2.7 user or not since the majority of people have 2.6 and they don't have 2.7 models in apple stores (at least on display).
     
  2. TheMacBookPro macrumors 68020

    TheMacBookPro

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #2
    Of course the 2.7GHz provides a performance boost. Enough to be noticeable? Generally, no. Especially not when performing basic UI tasks.
     
  3. Panini thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Location:
    Palo Alto, CA
    #3
    That's what I thought, but this guy has a 2.7 model and says it is perfectly smooth. Can he just not notice the lag?
     
  4. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #4
    2.7 gives you 10%-12% over the base 2.3, the only reason to go for the 2.6 is the 512 SSD for the majority. 16GB of RAM will be of more use as the 4000 uses system RAM.

    The 2.7 is really for those that absolutely need maximum performance in a portable, those that can moniterize the speed difference and of course the enthusiast.

    I went for a 2.3 base model for these very reasons, as at present the 512 SSD upgrade is pricey and offers little more. The base model will return a greater percentage and be easier in general to sell, once the Haswell Retina MBP`s launch. Apple`s expensive add on`s as a rule dont add too much to resale value, only making it a little easier to sell and pass on a nicer machine to someone else.

    The 2.3 base is also likely to have the best battery life which is a consideration for many. Once Haswell comes to MBP I will look again at the value, same senario as this year I will buy the base again. In general I always buy the high-end MBP, however for the next few years this may not be the best idea, until SSD pricing drops or the is a stronger differentiating factor between base and high end' GPU, RAM etc
     
  5. Panini thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Location:
    Palo Alto, CA
    #5
    Yes, but there is no iGPU difference between 8GB and 16GB.

    This says that 512mb is the max amount of memory partitioned to the iGPU, and that's with 8GB ram - thus anything higher than 8 doesn't offer a graphics upgrade. (Unless 16GB gives 1GB and they just didn't mention it, but I doubt it since it's official).
     
  6. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #6
    Good enough, I rather assumed it was based on a percentage of system RAM, personally I went with 8Gb as it`s more than enough for my usage for the next 12-24 months, as the add on`s wont return a fraction of cost. Those with 16GB can always look up VRAM in system info and see if it`s 512 or 1024.
     
  7. TheMacBookPro macrumors 68020

    TheMacBookPro

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #7
    I have a 2.6 and I don't notice the lag, though I'm not on Lion.
     
  8. Teo Morabito macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Location:
    Bali
    #8
    I'm on a 2.7 with 16gb of ram, and the lag is little, but it exist.
    I hope ML solves it :rolleyes:
     
  9. WarrenFields Guest

    #9
    I'm running the 2.6GHz with 16GB Ram on Lion and haven't noticed any lag ever. This whole lag issue is really strange :confused:
     
  10. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #10
    According to Anandtech's review, part of the 'lag' issue with Safari on 10.7 Lion is that it heavily uses the CPU for some rendering tasks. So in that case a faster CPU might help some.

    With 10.8 Mountain Lion, Safari leverages the GPU for much of that work.
     
  11. stevelam macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    #11
    according to what?
     
  12. TibookAktive macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    #12
    I have the 2.7 and 16gb RAM (512gb SSD too if that makes a difference) and I still have some (albeit slight) UI lag even under mountain lion. I can say that safari scroll lag was completely fixed by ML, but mission control with 5 desktops and 5 full screen apps is a bit laggy still.

    Btw, as you've prob already guessed I'm using scaled resolution - basically the middle options (is that 1680 x 1480 or something?)

    Hope this helps.
     
  13. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #13
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/8
     
  14. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #14
    I believe it very much depends on the sites you visit and for some the lag is simply not as apparent. For my own usage on a 2.3 base retina I have only observed lag when looking at some of the sites people are talking about.

    ML will go a long way to eradicate this issue, bearing in mind we are talking about the first comercial release of 10.8, so it will only improve over time...

    Anandtech.com
    "The good news is Mountain Lion provides some relief. At WWDC Apple mentioned the next version of Safari is ridiculously fast, but it wasn’t specific about why. It turns out that Safari leverages Core Animation in Mountain Lion and more GPU accelerated as a result. Facebook is still a challenge because of the mixture of CPU decoded images and a standard web page, but the experience is a bit better. Repeating the same test as above I measured anywhere from 20 - 30 fps while scrolling through Facebook on ML’s Safari."
     
  15. Nomad110 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    #15
    Please allow me to clarify that the sites that I use may not be the ones you use. I will verify that there is a bit of lag when scrolling fast at the top of the the verge.com because of the flash elements.
     
  16. ra004e macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    #16
    This is intel's info on all three processors used in rMBP if anyone needs it, as you can see there is a little bump in speed on iGPU between 2.3 and 2.6/2.7. Has been said maybe not noticeable.

    http://ark.intel.com/compare/64900,64891,64889

    What I love is price difference between 2.3 and 2.6. :)
     
  17. 01mggt macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    #17
    That's some hefty multitasking :)

    ----------

    From glancing at that site, it says that all 3 cpu's iGPU operates at 650mhz.
     
  18. ra004e macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    #18
    "From glancing at that site, it says that all 3 cpu's iGPU operates at 650mhz."

    That is base, under load Graphics Max Dynamic Frequency would come into consideration.

    Intel® Turbo Boost Technology Graphics FrequencyThe graphics render frequency is selected dynamically based on graphics workload demand as permitted by the processor turbo control. The processors can optimize both processor and integrated graphics performance through power sharing. The processor cores and the integrated graphics core share a package power limit. If the graphics core is not consuming enough power to reach the package power limit, the cores can increase frequency to take advantage of the unused thermal power headroom. The opposite can happen when the processor cores are not consuming enough power to reach the package power limit. For the integrated graphics, this could mean an increase in the render core frequency (above its rated frequency) and increased graphics performance. Both the processor core(s) and the graphics render core can increase frequency higher than possible without power sharing.

    Note:The processor Utilization of turbo graphic frequencies requires that the Intel Graphics driver to be properly installed. Turbo graphic frequencies are not dependent on the operating system processor P-state requests and may turbo while the processor is in any processor P-states.

    From http://www.intel.com/content/www/us...d-gen-core-family-mobile-vol-1-datasheet.html
     
  19. 01mggt macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
  20. Slivortal macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    #20
    Most of this is heavy sampling bias. There are far more 2.3 users than 2.7 users to begin with. Additionally, we don't know if 2.7 users for some reason would be less likely to come up with their problems, or lack of them than the 2.3 users. We don't even know if you are more drawn to forums/sites in which people complain about 2.3s but not about 2.7s.

    Honestly, saying "I saw one guy with 2.7 working perfectly and I haven't seen anyone with a 2.3 working perfectly" does not constitute 2.7s working any better than 2.3s.

    I've personally seen about the same percentage of 2.7s having issues as 2.3s, but that doesn't prove anything. Because that was all in my realm of personal experience.

    The difference between 2.7 and 2.3 is minimal, and the only reason the 2.7 would be ANY better than the 2.6 would be the increased L3 cache, and even that should have minimal impact on the GPU.

    Tl;dr - A YouTube video by one guy does not allow you to make sweeping generalizations about a set of computer systems. Basing your findings upon such a video is ludicrous, especially when all other evidence points otherwise.
     
  21. tninety macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    Location:
    Banned!
    #21
    The only differences between the 2.6 and 2.7 are:

    100 MHz higher base speed
    100 MHz higher turbo speed
    2 MB more L3 cache.

    The most significant improvement for this expensive upgrade is the cache, but Apple doesn't really advertise this :rolleyes:

    There's a non-notable clock increase from the 2.3 to the 2.6 processor in the iGPU but no clock difference between the 2.6 and the 2.7.
     

Share This Page