HD4000 vs. HD5000 vs. Broadwell GPU?

[Eug]

I'm planning on waiting for the next laptop release, hoping for a Retina ultrabook (lighter than Pro), but the current 13" Retina Pro refurb deals are very good so I'm tempted by a refurb.

HD4000 machines (early 2013) are really cheap now but I've ruled them out because the Haswell HD5000 machines (late 2013) reportedly have MUCH betters battery life (and PCIe SSD as a bonus) for only $120-$130 more.

The late 2013 Haswell 13" Retina Pro with 8 GB RAM and 256 GB PCIe SSD is CAD$1279 or US$1189. Much cheaper than current models even with the education store discount.

However I'm curious, will the HD4000, 5000, and Broadwell GPUs behave any differently with regards to Retina OS X smoothness?

 

[postmortemIA]

macbook pros 13" 2013 have iris 5100 graphics, these are bit faster than HD versions

 

[Eug]

Noted. Yeah not 5000.

However does it make much real world performance if you're not gaming? I would've asked about Aperture as well, but Apple has now officially killed Aperture. Then again the future Photos application might be important here too.

 

[JAG87]

Noted. Yeah not 5000.

However does it make much real world performance if you're not gaming? I would've asked about Aperture as well, but Apple has now officially killed Aperture. Then again the future Photos application might be important here too.

No, not really. If you play games then of course the 5100 is worth it, heck at this point even Broadwell is worth waiting for since it's just around the corner. But if you don't, there's no point. I have the late 2012 model with HD4000 and have no UI lag (in both 10.9 and 10.10), with the only exception being when resizing windows. The UI frame rate when resizing windows is so bad that I don't think a faster GPU fixes that. I can't be certain because haven't tested a newer machine, but to me it seems like a software issue (similar to the initial scrolling lag the webkit had). No big deal for me, I almost never resize windows.

And also a side note, the late 2013 machines don't really have better battery life. They shipped with Mavericks which improved battery life across the board, that's why they are specced with longer battery life, but Mavericks (and Yosemite) brought the same energy improvements in the late 2012 and early 2013 machines.

 

[Eug]

And also a side note, the late 2013 machines don't really have better battery life. They shipped with Mavericks which improved battery life across the board, that's why they are specced with longer battery life, but Mavericks (and Yosemite) brought the same energy improvements in the late 2012 and early 2013 machines.

I didn't get an enormous improvement in battery life going from 10.8 to 10.9, on my 13" 2009 Pro non-Retina. Probably some improvement, but like I said not a huge one.

OTOH, just about every review I've seen has said it's a night and day improvement in battery life going from the MacBook Pro 13" Retina 2012 to the MacBook Pro 13" Retina late 2013.

One review had the battery life almost doubling.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/29/macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review-13-inch-2013/

 

[vbuggy]

If you test for the improvement, you will get the improvement. Just the same as if you e.g. target a video test to favour the Macs, or idle tests with high spikes of unrealistic-IRL actual total idle activity, you will get runtimes that favour Macs.

I'd get the late 2013. I'd actually advice anyone to get the latest revision within their budget, as revisions are being made constantly for functional issues that other notebooks just don't have (or don't have to the same extent - or if they do, the tech press does its best to scream about it over anything but a Mac).