MacBook Pro 15 with GPU or without?

[Collider]

Deciding which Macbook Pro 15 to go with, and whether I actually need the dedicate GPU.

Here's my use case:
- software development
- photoshop, illustrator, etc.
- Parallels VM, Windows 7 or 8

I dont plan to do much gaming, but instead worried about lag when having multiple windows open and running and external monitor. Typically I would assume that the on-chip intel video will be sufficient, but with retina resolution not sure how it holds up.

Basically is it worth getting the higher model with GPU if you dont plan to do any gaming or video editing?

Thanks!

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Basically is it worth getting the higher model with GPU if you dont plan to do any gaming or video editing?

No, it's not. The Iris is quite adequate for everything you've mentioned.

Then again, if you configure the base model with the same 2.5GHz CPU and 512GB SSD, it's only an extra $100 for that GPU, which, frankly, is peanuts at this price point. So if I had the scratch, I'd probably get the dGPU version on the off chance I found out in a year or two that I could make use of it.

 

[smackababy]

No, it's not. The Iris is quite adequate for everything you've mentioned.

Then again, if you configure the base model with the same 2.5GHz CPU and 512GB SSD, it's only an extra $100 for that GPU, which, frankly, is peanuts at this price point. So if I had the scratch, I'd probably get the dGPU version on the off chance I found out in a year or two that I could make use of it.

Pretty much this. If you are specing it out to the same, minus the GPU, you're not saving a ton of money by leaving it off.

Personally, I wouldn't get the dGPU, but I also wouldn't get 512GB SSD or processor upgrade either.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Pretty much this. If you are specing it out to the same, minus the GPU, you're not saving a ton of money by leaving it off.

Personally, I wouldn't get the dGPU, but I also wouldn't get 512GB SSD or processor upgrade either.

I don't see much benefit to the CPU either. The SSD capacity is tougher since they're kind of not-upgradeable - might be better to buy too much that to buy too little. But, like you said, "personally" - it depends on your needs.

 

[JavaMomma]

I just went through the same decision making process ...
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2393115

I also, do development, VMs, etc..
I went with Iris Pro over dGPU. On my old MBPr the dGPU died and since I don't need it I figured why add an extra part that can fail. It's also extra heat / power and it doesn't add that much performance anyway. I believe in Canada it was $200 difference.

I did upgrade the SSD to 512GB and took the CPU upgrade to 2.8Ghz.

 

[Collider]

I just went through the same decision making process ...
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2393115

I also, do development, VMs, etc..
I went with Iris Pro over dGPU. On my old MBPr the dGPU died and since I don't need it I figured why add an extra part that can fail. It's also extra heat / power and it doesn't add that much performance anyway. I believe in Canada it was $200 difference.

I did upgrade the SSD to 512GB and took the CPU upgrade to 2.8Ghz.

Hmm.. I wouldnt want extra heat since this machine will be heavily used.

Is GPU failing a common thing w/ Macs ?

 

[Collider]

I just went through the same decision making process ...
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2393115

I also, do development, VMs, etc..
I went with Iris Pro over dGPU. On my old MBPr the dGPU died and since I don't need it I figured why add an extra part that can fail. It's also extra heat / power and it doesn't add that much performance anyway. I believe in Canada it was $200 difference.

I did upgrade the SSD to 512GB and took the CPU upgrade to 2.8Ghz.

Thanks for sharing the link. Read through the posts and have to agree with your choice, dGPU would just be additional heat in our use case.

Likely will be going for 2.5Ghz & 512 drive.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Hmm.. I wouldnt want extra heat since this machine will be heavily used.

Is GPU failing a common thing w/ Macs ?

Oh yeah. The pre-unibody macbook pros had defective nvidia gpus which were guaranteed to fail. The 1st gen unibody 2008 also had a nvidia chip prone to failure. The 2010 clarkdale was an exception in which it was the intel igpu which was defective. Finally even the AMD gpus in the 2011 sandy bridge mbp are also prone to failure in which they're trying to get a class action suit going. In other words mbp with dGPU are much more prone to logic board failure. Luckily the 2012/2013/2014 nvidia gt650/750 have been pretty reliable so far.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Oh yeah. The pre-unibody macbook pros had defective nvidia gpus which were guaranteed to fail.

That was an nVidia problem. Dell, HP, etc., all were effected.

The 1st gen unibody 2008 also had a nvidia chip prone to failure. The 2010 clarkdale was an exception in which it was the intel igpu which was defective.

Can't do much about that, it's built into the CPU.

Finally even the AMD gpus in the 2011 sandy bridge mbp are also prone to failure in which they're trying to get a class action suit going. In other words mbp with dGPU are much more prone to logic board failure. Luckily the 2012/2013/2014 nvidia gt650/750 have been pretty reliable so far.

Running parts at their thermal limit is a bad idea anyway - personally, I usually end up underclocking my laptops, dGPU or not, just so they're more comfortable to use on my lap.

But I think you're emphasizing the wrong angle if you say, "Macbooks are more prone to dGPU failure." Compared to what? If you're comparing them to Macbooks with iGPU, yes. If you're comparing them to Dells with dGPUs, they're not.

 

[Collider]

Oh yeah. The pre-unibody macbook pros had defective nvidia gpus which were guaranteed to fail. The 1st gen unibody 2008 also had a nvidia chip prone to failure. The 2010 clarkdale was an exception in which it was the intel igpu which was defective. Finally even the AMD gpus in the 2011 sandy bridge mbp are also prone to failure in which they're trying to get a class action suit going. In other words mbp with dGPU are much more prone to logic board failure. Luckily the 2012/2013/2014 nvidia gt650/750 have been pretty reliable so far.

thanks for this.

def wont be going dGPU route, esp as I have no real use for it.

 

[note235]

You could wait for the incoming update (though that might be a while)

 

[Emulex]

using the integrated gpu will reduce thermal limits for the cpu side of things!

 

[Zodiark1593]

In lieu of gaming, the only thing you'd lose is CUDA, if you care about that in the slightest.

 

[Wuunderbar]

It's also extra heat / power and it doesn't add that much performance anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 750M only kick in when needed? I would assume the described activities by OP would not warrant the 750M activating. And therefore no unnecessary, excess heat.

 

[Collider]

You could wait for the incoming update (though that might be a while)

I thought only Macbook pro retina 13 was due for an update. Whats coming ?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I thought only Macbook pro retina 13 was due for an update. Whats coming ?

15" was refreshed last fall. New CPUs have come out since - it's due.

 

[JavaMomma]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 750M only kick in when needed? I would assume the described activities by OP would not warrant the 750M activating. And therefore no unnecessary, excess heat.

I think the key word is "only" which isn't the case. The dGPU is used when you plug in an external monitor. It kicks in when you start a VM, apparently VMWare doesn't like to have switchable graphics so it just turns the dGPU on and leaves it on. I'm sure there are other cases when the dGPU is powered up even though it isn't "needed"

 

[Collider]

I think the key word is "only" which isn't the case. The dGPU is used when you plug in an external monitor. It kicks in when you start a VM, apparently VMWare doesn't like to have switchable graphics so it just turns the dGPU on and leaves it on. I'm sure there are other cases when the dGPU is powered up even though it isn't "needed"

Thank you for that last detail.

I run Parallels at all times, any clue if it's the same w/ VM's or just limited to VMWware?

 

[Collider]

15" was refreshed last fall. New CPUs have come out since - it's due.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought current Macbook Pro line up uses latest Intel CPU and Intel isn't due to announce new processors until end of year.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought current Macbook Pro line up uses latest Intel CPU and Intel isn't due to announce new processors until end of year.

Oh, yeah - it was refreshed last month. Forgot about that.

*facepalm*

 

[GregGreen]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 750M only kick in when needed? I would assume the described activities by OP would not warrant the 750M activating. And therefore no unnecessary, excess heat.

Hopefully they've tweaked it be used less, but even opening Chrome, Skype, or 1Password Mini will switch it to the dedicated chip on my mid-2010 15" Macbook. I've resorted to using software to prevent that from happening to avoid my lap from burning and battery life going way down while using on the couch.

If you can't tell, if I was to buy a new Retina MBP, I'd go integrated.

 

[Collider]

I just went through the same decision making process ...
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2393115

I also, do development, VMs, etc..
I went with Iris Pro over dGPU. On my old MBPr the dGPU died and since I don't need it I figured why add an extra part that can fail. It's also extra heat / power and it doesn't add that much performance anyway. I believe in Canada it was $200 difference.

I did upgrade the SSD to 512GB and took the CPU upgrade to 2.8Ghz.

I got the 2.5 Ghz version, and it just runs too hot, simple web browsing would easily get it to 70-80c, this is all staying below 10% CPU usage.

The thing is a huge $2000 oven, just switched from Air and can't believe Apple is ok with these things running so hot..

To get around this had to disable Turbo, and tweak fan speeds. But disabling Turbo had the biggest impact. Also browsing in Safari only seems to keep cpu usage down. But still I feel these i7 MacBooks run just too hot.

Just wondering how your 2.8 is doing..

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I disabled Turbo on mine as well. While browsing I typically see temps in the 30s. (2.0 GHz model from last fall.) prior to disabling, 60s was common. Gaming would punt it into the mid-90s.

I have Flash and Javascript disabled, so my CPU us actually idle while reading a static web page, and not at 30% load just displaying a couple ads. God, I dislike Flash.

My understanding is that it's how Turbo works - the chip will throttle at its thermal limit, but until then IT'S A RACE!!! So high temps would be expected from any consistent load, even something like web browsing, which is usually more CPU intensive than people think it will be.

Seems like bad behavior for something sitting on your balls.

 

[JavaMomma]

I got the 2.5 Ghz version, and it just runs too hot, simple web browsing would easily get it to 70-80c, this is all staying below 10% CPU usage.

The thing is a huge $2000 oven, just switched from Air and can't believe Apple is ok with these things running so hot..

To get around this had to disable Turbo, and tweak fan speeds. But disabling Turbo had the biggest impact. Also browsing in Safari only seems to keep cpu usage down. But still I feel these i7 MacBooks run just too hot.

Just wondering how your 2.8 is doing..

Mine is doing well. I don't check temps at all, so I'm just going by subjective feel on my legs. It for sure runs cooler than my 2013 MBPr with dGPU. I noticed it does get hot when charging. Otherwise it's just warm to the touch with normal use. Even right now the bottom side is just a little warm while connected to power and connected to a thunderbolt display.