• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

MacBook Pro 15 with GPU or without?

Collider

Collider

Senior member
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!
 
avp2306 said:
Basically is it worth getting the higher model with GPU if you dont plan to do any gaming or video editing?
Click to expand...

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.
 
dave_the_nerd said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
smackababy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
JavaMomma said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Is GPU failing a common thing w/ Macs ?
 
JavaMomma said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
avp2306 said:
Hmm.. I wouldnt want extra heat since this machine will be heavily used.

Is GPU failing a common thing w/ Macs ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pneumothorax said:
Oh yeah. The pre-unibody macbook pros had defective nvidia gpus which were guaranteed to fail.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Pneumothorax said:
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.
Click to expand...

thanks for this.

def wont be going dGPU route, esp as I have no real use for it.
 
JavaMomma said:
It's also extra heat / power and it doesn't add that much performance anyway.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Wuunderbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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"
 
JavaMomma said:
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"
Click to expand...

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?
 
Wuunderbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JavaMomma said:
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.
Click to expand...

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..
 
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.
 
Last edited:
avp2306 said:
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..
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top