New 13" rMBP got discrete GPU?

[AkumaX]

How are you using the integrated GPU in Windows? I thought that it didn't work correctly?

? i see what you're asking. i'm probably on my discrete GPU (650M) right now.

there's probably a way to force integrated HD4000, but i never bothered.

 

[runawayprisoner]

? i see what you're asking. i'm probably on my discrete GPU (650M) right now.

there's probably a way to force integrated HD4000, but i never bothered.

Nope. There is no way to force integrated in Bootcamp. In fact, there is no way to even gain access to integrated graphics for Bootcamp. Apple has forced users to constantly run dedicated GPU in Bootcamp.

 

[Subyman]

it has to have a discrete GPU, thunderbolt won't output another monitor with integrated

(well, i haven't tried a low-res monitor. that might work..)

ex: w/ rMBP, i can't use integrated to output to my 2560x1440 monitor (in OSX or windows) - discrete has to be on

That answers the question, thanks for your post. No high resolution monitors + retina with HD4000. Can you use the high resolution monitor in clamshell mode with the HD4000? Might be possible, but I doubt it.

 

[runawayprisoner]

The Thunderbolt connector uses DP pipelines for video, so they are equal from that stand point.

My point was that you can still connect an external graphics processor to Thunderbolt. Sort of like how we have USB 3.0 graphics adapters that support outputting to HDMI.

Thunderbolt is still a PCIE connection after all.

The Sony Vaio Z had a graphics docking station that supported an external HD 6650M graphics processor for video output both to the internal display and to external displays using the same principle.

 

[Subyman]

My point was that you can still connect an external graphics processor to Thunderbolt. Sort of like how we have USB 3.0 graphics adapters that support outputting to HDMI.

Thunderbolt is still a PCIE connection after all.

The Sony Vaio Z had a graphics docking station that supported an external HD 6650M graphics processor for video output both to the internal display and to external displays using the same principle.

Yeah, but I wouldn't say that is a step in the right direction. If you have to buy a 400+ dollar thunderbolt GPU to run your current monitor, you may as well just get a 15" rMBP. It is a limitation to consider when making a 13" purchase and it will be interesting to see what decision Apple made tomorrow.

 

[dagamer34]

The HD4000 supports up to 3 display devices (2 DP and 1 DVI/HDMI/VGA.) It supports 2560x1600 for DP and up to 1920x1200 with an aux DP plus another 1920x1200 via DVI. So in theory, you could have three monitors like this:

DP port 1: 2560x1600
DP port 2: up to 1920x1200
DVI port: up to 1920x1200

All running concurrently. That is what it "supports", I doubt you would get smooth performance when running intensive tasks though. So that's your answer. Apple will have to limit the external resolution that the MBP can output OR step down the resolution of the MBP's built in monitor when a high resolution monitor is hooked up OR require the MBP be in clamshell mode when hooked to a high resolution external monitor.

Unless they figured out some trickery to make it work.

Running a display at native resolution is a LOT easier than running a display at 2x a custom resolution then scaling down to a native resolution. When you are dealing with screen resolutions that are 3360x2100, that's a lot of pixels to deal with and still maintain a solid 60fps frame rate.

Granted, even if Apple could do all of this smoothly in software, you'd much rather have fixed function hardware do this stuff as it would be more power efficient.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Yeah, but I wouldn't say that is a step in the right direction. If you have to buy a 400+ dollar thunderbolt GPU to run your current monitor, you may as well just get a 15" rMBP. It is a limitation to consider when making a 13" purchase and it will be interesting to see what decision Apple made tomorrow.

And that's how Apple sells the 15" rMBP.

You gotta make the tradeoff between bigger, heavier, but more capable, or smaller and lighter but less capable.

The 13" rMBP will end up being as thin as the MacBook Air. Even if you don't think so, it's quite a tall order to keep the thing from overheating. It's not just a consideration of the cost, it's also a consideration of the overall package.

Running a display at native resolution is a LOT easier than running a display at 2x a custom resolution then scaling down to a native resolution. When you are dealing with screen resolutions that are 3360x2100, that's a lot of pixels to deal with and still maintain a solid 60fps frame rate.

Granted, even if Apple could do all of this smoothly in software, you'd much rather have fixed function hardware do this stuff as it would be more power efficient.

There is no fixed function hardware that can help draw the interface. You can offload the animations to the GPU, but to you still need to use the GPU to read and decode graphics files and lay them into the interface.

It's inevitable.

 

[Subyman]

It seems we still do not have a clear answer on external monitor resolutions. Here is what the website says:

Dual display and video mirroring: Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display and up to 2560 by 1600 pixels on up to two external displays, at millions of colors

Too many "up to" qualifiers to know the specifics. Also, do they mean display mirroring? So you could see the same image on the retina and an external monitor? That means the HD4000 wouldn't have to compute both monitors, it would simply output two signals. I'm wondering if the 13" will do the retina display along with a 2560x1600 screen without mirroring. From the specs, a HD4000 will not do that.

 

[manly]

It seems we still do not have a clear answer on external monitor resolutions. Here is what the website says:



Too many "up to" qualifiers to know the specifics. Also, do they mean display mirroring? So you could see the same image on the retina and an external monitor? That means the HD4000 wouldn't have to compute both monitors, it would simply output two signals. I'm wondering if the 13" will do the retina display along with a 2560x1600 screen without mirroring. From the specs, a HD4000 will not do that.

"Dual display and video mirroring" is pretty clear-cut IMO, despite the "up to" qualifiers.

So either the HD4000 can do more than we knew, or the Apple specs are inaccurate. Pretty big mistake if Apple screwed this feature up (even if few people pack WQXGA monitors).

 

[runawayprisoner]

Just because the 15" rMBP carries a $400 'premium' over the regular 15" doesn't mean that this will as well. And who's to say that they keep the regular 13" around anyway? The rMBPs are the MacBook Pro, and then you have the lower cost, lower spec MacBook Airs. But I suppose we'll know for sure in a few days.

Or not.

Well, now we know the extent of Apple's greed. If you factor the 256GB SSD, it means the rMBP 13" carries almost $600 premium over the last generation. Looks like those MacBook Pros ain't going fast enough.

 

[kLy]

Well, now we know the extent of Apple's greed. If you factor the 256GB SSD, it means the rMBP 13" carries almost $600 premium over the last generation. Looks like those MacBook Pros ain't going fast enough.

Ouch yeah. I was really looking forward to this 13" rMBP but the crazy high price for a puny 128GB drive and no proper GPU has totally put me off the purchase. Likely wait to see what Apple does with it's Air lineup for Haswell next year but, golly that's a long time to wait and my current Penryn 13" sure isn't getting any younger :/

 

[runawayprisoner]

Too many "up to" qualifiers to know the specifics. Also, do they mean display mirroring? So you could see the same image on the retina and an external monitor? That means the HD4000 wouldn't have to compute both monitors, it would simply output two signals. I'm wondering if the 13" will do the retina display along with a 2560x1600 screen without mirroring. From the specs, a HD4000 will not do that.

I'm sure the 13" will do the Retina Display along with at least 1 more display at 2560 x 1600 just fine. Really, you are getting paranoid.

According to Intel's own information:

If eDP (from CPU port) is used, eDP supports 1920 x 1200 at 60Hz, and two external displays using 2560 x 1600 at 60Hz.

Source: http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intelhdgraphics4000_2500/sb/CS-033714.htm

Basically it can drive the internal Retina Display + at least one more display with 2560 x 1600 resolution. And the 3rd one is limited to 1920 x 1200.

Ouch yeah. I was really looking forward to this 13" rMBP but the crazy high price for a puny 128GB drive and no proper GPU has totally put me off the purchase. Likely wait to see what Apple does with it's Air lineup for Haswell next year but, golly that's a long time to wait and my current Penryn 13" sure isn't getting any younger :/

Aside from the price, Apple has also slipped up on many other things (thickness, battery density, CPU performance, no RAM upgrade)...

Wait... did I just say no RAM upgrade? That's right. No 16GB upgrade option here, folks. None. Zip. Nada...

 

[Subyman]

The price is definitely disappointing seeing that you can get a 15" normal MacBook Pro for around the same price and those are a lot more computer. Paying 1699 for a dual-core i5 and 128GB of storage is a hard sell unless you HAVE to have the latest novelty. Hopefully, the price slowly lowers as they phase out the standard resolution MBPs.

If Apple runs a $200 dollar educational discount on them, then that seems like a decent buy for college students, but it is still a hard buy for me over an upgraded standard-def 13".

Looking at the Apple store, Apple wants $300 dollars for a 256GB SSD upgrade on the rMBP 13" o_o

 

[Subyman]

I'm sure the 13" will do the Retina Display along with at least 1 more display at 2560 x 1600 just fine. Really, you are getting paranoid.

According to Intel's own information:

Paranoid? I just find it interesting to see what they do and how they solve the problem.

BTW, eDP is embedded Display Port. I think what that quote from Intel means is if the embedded DP is supplying the built-in monitor with 1920x1200, then it can power two external 2560x1600 displays. However, the MBP is powering a 2560x1600 internal display through eDP and "up-to" two external displays via traditional DP.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Paranoid? I just find it interesting to see what they do and how they solve the problem.

The actual problem is... they haven't "solved" anything. The rMBP 15" still has its own shares of software problems that I'd seriously hound Apple for if I had the time. (their headquarter is really just 1 hour away from where I live)

But either way, I think you either expect too much from Apple, or you don't really know what to expect. I think the rMBP 13" will be fine performance-wise. It's only when you try to push the extremes that we have a problem, but... I don't think it's realistic to expect anyone shelling out $1700 for a 13" high resolution notebook display only to plug it into 2 external monitors...

As an aside, I'm sure you can ask around to see if any rMBP 15" owner "dares" to plug theirs into a Cinema Display. The difference in display quality is so large that moving to an external display feels very lacking... and can get annoying.

 

[Subyman]

The actual problem is... they haven't "solved" anything. The rMBP 15" still has its own shares of software problems that I'd seriously hound Apple for if I had the time. (their headquarter is really just 1 hour away from where I live)

But either way, I think you either expect too much from Apple, or you don't really know what to expect. I think the rMBP 13" will be fine performance-wise. It's only when you try to push the extremes that we have a problem, but... I don't think it's realistic to expect anyone shelling out $1700 for a 13" high resolution notebook display only to plug it into 2 external monitors...

Hmmm, I think we are talking about two different things. I'm only curious as to if they can support the retina display + two 2560x1600 displays via DP on an HD4000 even though Intel's Hd4000 spec tells a different story. No need to read into it further than that. It is a hardware limitation, so if they somehow manage to make it happen, then they "solved" the problem of moving to a 1600p display while still offering 1600p external connectivity without moving to a discrete GPU.

I'm not expecting anything from them, I'm just curious to see what they end up doing.

 

[runawayprisoner]

It might be that the chip Apple is using is a custom order from Intel with some slight tweaks to make it able to push more pixels.

Apple overclocked the dedicated GPU in the 15" rMBP after all... I'm not surprised they won't try to pull the same trick on the 13".

 

[Ciber]

Hmmm, I think we are talking about two different things. I'm only curious as to if they can support the retina display + two 2560x1600 displays via DP on an HD4000 even though Intel's Hd4000 spec tells a different story. No need to read into it further than that. It is a hardware limitation, so if they somehow manage to make it happen, then they "solved" the problem of moving to a 1600p display while still offering 1600p external connectivity without moving to a discrete GPU.

I'm not expecting anything from them, I'm just curious to see what they end up doing.

No issues driving the 13" retina display + two 27" Cinema's at native res.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mxgvgd6gjr4x7oa/photo.JPG

 

[runawayprisoner]

So I guess Apple did custom order the Intel HD 4000 GPU in the rMBP 13" after all.

Confirm one thing for me, will you? Does it say Intel HD 4000 768MB in "About This Mac"?

 

[Ciber]

So I guess Apple did custom order the Intel HD 4000 GPU in the rMBP 13" after all.

Confirm one thing for me, will you? Does it say Intel HD 4000 768MB in "About This Mac"?

13" rMBP: Graphics Intel HD Graphics 4000 768 MB

Intel HD Graphics 4000:

Chipset Model: Intel HD Graphics 4000
Type: GPU
Bus: Built-In
VRAM (Total): 768 MB
Vendor: Intel (0x8086)
Device ID: 0x0166
Revision ID: 0x0009
Displays:
Color LCD:
Display Type: LCD
Resolution: 2560 X 1600
Retina: Yes
Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888)
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes
Built-In: Yes
Connection Type: DisplayPort

 

[runawayprisoner]

Yeah, so just like I thought, they actually modified the Intel HD 4000 slightly. Just like they overclocked the GT 650M in the 15" rMBP.

 

[Zink]

The 13" air has 80-90% of the cpu/gpu performance of this machine and as high of a resolution as you'd need without retina x2 scaling. 128GB, 8GB RAM and $400 cheaper. All of the extra cost is to have a few ports or ultra res and IPS. Not worth it for most people, I guess that's why it it is a MB Pro.

 

[AkumaX]

So I guess Apple did custom order the Intel HD 4000 GPU in the rMBP 13" after all.

Confirm one thing for me, will you? Does it say Intel HD 4000 768MB in "About This Mac"?

that's cool, and whack at the same time. i force integrated in 10.8.2, and it doesn't output to 1 x 2560x1440. i turn on discrete 650m, and i can drive 2 x 2560x1440 + the rmbp's 2880x1800. whack.

 

[TheStu]

The 13" air has 80-90% of the cpu/gpu performance of this machine and as high of a resolution as you'd need without retina x2 scaling. 128GB, 8GB RAM and $400 cheaper. All of the extra cost is to have a few ports or ultra res and IPS. Not worth it for most people, I guess that's why it it is a MB Pro.

Exactly, IMO the elephant in the room now is the standard, fat, old, 13" MacBook Pro. I wasn't that crazy about it (though apparently Apple's sales prove me wrong there!) before the rMBP13, but now??

Yeah, so just like I thought, they actually modified the Intel HD 4000 slightly. Just like they overclocked the GT 650M in the 15" rMBP.

The did it with the first MacBook Air. A custom chip from intel, an older Core 2 Duo on their newer process. The newer process chips weren't ready for release when Apple wanted them, so they got intel to custom fab some cpus for them.

 

[runawayprisoner]

The 13" air has 80-90% of the cpu/gpu performance of this machine and as high of a resolution as you'd need without retina x2 scaling. 128GB, 8GB RAM and $400 cheaper. All of the extra cost is to have a few ports or ultra res and IPS. Not worth it for most people, I guess that's why it it is a MB Pro.

Actually, the base MBA 2012 model is 47% to 24% (Turbo Boost taken into account) slower than the Pro model. The max upgrade of the Air model is 45% to 12.5% (again, Turbo Boost taken into account) slower than the i7 Pro model once again, so it's actually quite slow. Turbo Boost does not kick in except for short intervals because the thermal profile of the MacBook Air is not adequate to sustain the load for a longer period of time.

Not to mention Intel HD 4000 in the air is 80% slower than Intel HD 4000 in the Pro when it doesn't get a boost from Turbo.

So the Pro machine is still worth it if you want a faster Integrated GPU and a higher resolution screen. Anyone who cares enough about the Pro machine would take their time to research and look things up.

that's cool, and whack at the same time. i force integrated in 10.8.2, and it doesn't output to 1 x 2560x1440. i turn on discrete 650m, and i can drive 2 x 2560x1440 + the rmbp's 2880x1800. whack.

It's likely the Thunderbolt ports were routed through GT 650M in the rMBP, so when you force Intel HD 4000, it can't reach them to display anything.

The did it with the first MacBook Air. A custom chip from intel, an older Core 2 Duo on their newer process. The newer process chips weren't ready for release when Apple wanted them, so they got intel to custom fab some cpus for them.

I'm actually thinking Apple also requested Intel to increase the base clocks of the Intel HD 4000 in the rMBP 13"... judging from the fact that they pushed more VRAM to it.

Say... the ULV models have 350MHz base clocks, the regular volt models have 650MHz base clocks.

I'd say it's not unlikely to see a 800MHz base clocks in the modified cores... but then... I may just be grabbing at straws, and Apple really just increased VRAM.