Would the 750m aid in heavy computational research?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Jodles, Nov 27, 2013.

  1. Jodles macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    #1
    Hi all,

    I'm wondering whether there is any point in getting the high end MBP for computational research like MATLAB, MaxMSP, Mathematica, Python, etc.?

    If I understand correctly, the software would have to either be optimized for OpenCL (Iris Pro) or CUDA (Nvidia); and I believe MATLAB can take advantage of CUDA. But is there a significant performance jump to take advantage of here? Does anyone have particular experience with e.g. heavy MATLAB use with CUDA?

    Thanks!

    J
     
  2. Consultant macrumors G5

    Consultant

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
  3. Jodles thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    #3
    I'm asking whether anyone has experience with graphics processing in computational stuff, on the MBP, comparing the Iris Pro to the 750m, OpenCL and CUDA. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
     
  4. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #4
    I doubt you will get an answer here. I do not use MATLAB, so I can't help you either, but I can say that Kepler graphics (like 750M) are known for fairly low compute performance. If the software you use supports OpenCL, the Iris Pro will be most likely faster.
     
  5. Jodles thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    #5
  6. abta1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Location:
    Paris, France
    #6
    Have you also considered your RAM requirements? I work with Matlab a lot, with Medical Images in particular and my RAM requirements as well as processing time often far exceed what the Macbook Pro can provide which is why I mostly do processing on dedicated nodes.

    If you need to use CUDA then you will need the 750m no? Whereas if you are going the openCL route then you won't.
     
  7. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #7
    Yep, I know those slides. Basically, nowadays it matters less and less whether you use OpenCL or CUDA. Both APIs are virtually feature-equivalent, so in most cases, any performance difference comes down to the compiler performance. And modern compilers should be mature enough to perform good optimisation. There is a clear tendency towards more and more applications using OpenCL.
     
  8. Jodles thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    #8
    Yes, my work is in audio (blind source separation, music information retrieval), so I would assume there's much less RAM requirements than for Medical Images (16GB should be more than sufficient, I definitely don't need to use dedicated nodes.. Or if I do I'll sneak my way into the astrophysics department...:D).

    Whether I go CUDA or the openCL route is up to me.. I'm not locked in either way.. But it seems that openCL with the Iris Pro my be more than good enough for my purposes. Unless CUDA with the 750m would perform dramatically better. It's hard to compare without exact benchmarks on these two GPUs specifically...

    leman: Based on your post it seems I'd be fine with going the openCL route and the Iris Pro. Maybe rather use the money saved on some fast backup...

    Thanks guys!
     
  9. devilcm3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Location:
    South Melbourne, Australia
    #9
    I assume that research softwares does not have OSX version of it? ( or they do ? )

    If you want to maximize the performance, a gaming windows laptop will always be a better choice.
     
  10. Jodles thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    #10
    That's true about performance. However, so much of the audio software we use is OS X only, and literally the entire research department is using OS X. Which is good because I use Windows 7 at work and I much prefer OS X...!
     
  11. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #11
    If your software uses CUDA for compute, then the 750M would be your only option.

    If your software uses OpenCL for compute, then the Iris Pro can actually be faster based on the benchmarks.
     
  12. DarwinOSX macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #12
    Yep. See the benchmarks on the Bare Feats site.
     

Share This Page