(Save your effort reaching for the calculator - this new rig is just 0.03-inches thicker than the MBA’s thickest point.) To boot, Apple dropped the entry price for its smallest pro-grade machine to just $1,299, placing it just $200 north of the baseline 13-inch MacBook Air. If you want me to run additional tests, let me know.How thin? At its rear, the 13-inch MacBook Air measures 0.68-inches, whereas the new 13-inch rMBP measures 0.71-inches. This why when not playing, I am disabling the discrete GPU thanks to a nifty little tool called gfxCardStatus that you get from: This helps save battery life and reduce heat.
While this is just a first impression, so far I didn’t find much reason to use the discrete GPU unless I play the Iris Pro does a good job for everyday tasks. When deciding between the high-end and the normal version, there isn’t much reason to opt for the high-end unless you are interested in gaming or want more storage/ram.
#Macbook pro late 2013 retina upgrade
The new generation is a worthy upgrade from the first generation, especially if you are a gamer. However the heat seems more spread out when the Iris is used vs when the 750m is used. Overall I dont feel there is a clear winner in term of heat which is expected as both GPU draw about the same amount of power (~35W). On the other hand when the Iris is used the upper left is significantly less hot.
#Macbook pro late 2013 retina mac
As visible on the last column the CPU and the right side of the Mac is cooler when the 750M is used which is not surprising as the GPU is located on the upper-left. To establish a baseline, I reported the sensors temperatures when the computer is idle in column 1. I let about 9h so the first run dont affect the second one. To try to answer this question, I ran the heaven benchmark (again!) for 15 minutes to see how hot the mac will be. TemperatureĪ question I got in the comments was is there a difference in term of temperature when running with the Iris vs the 750m. If we assume that the Voltage and the Amperage are correctly report (0.84V, 0.25A), the GeForce consume about the same as the Iris idle (but I am really not sure it is accurate) so take this with a grain of salt. I have no idea how much the GeForce consume, exactly. When running at fully capacity the Iris consume ~35W which is about what the NVidia max power consumption is as well according to GpuZoo. When Idling the CPU Package Gfx (the Iris) consumption is ~0.24W. Surprisingly, the integrated GPU of the new version is slower than the first version. The new version is twice as fast as the first generation: the integrated GPU (Iris Pro vs HD 4000) is 52% faster. Both my laptop and his laptop have 16 GB of RAM, though hes running OS X 10.7.5.
As visible on the chart below, on this benchmark the Iris Pro does a good job and is only 33% slower than the GeForce 750m. He bought his laptop, equipped with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M and Intel HD Graphics 4000 graphics card, in mid-2012. I asked a friend to run it on his Macbook Pro Retina (15) first generation (2.3GHz Intel Core i7) to get a comparison point. The first benchmark I ran is the well-known Heaven benchmark in extreme settings. Added Starcraft 2 lower resolution as requested.
10/31: added temperature measures as requested in the comments.
Edits:ġ0/27: added a GPU power consumption measure as requested in the comments. Overall the new Macbook Pro with its gorgeous screen and good graphic cards is an excellent gaming laptop (but, alas, a little bit pricey). Don’t let the synthetic benchmarks fool you: as we will see on Starcraft 2, the Nvidia is almost 50% faster. The bottom line: the integrated GPU does a good job for everything but gaming. Since no one has, at least so far, published benchmarks comparing the real-world performance of the integrated graphics chip (Iris Pro) vs the discrete one (NVIDIA GeForce 750M), I thought Id run a few to help people decide if they need the integrated one. On a personal level, Im also pretty interested in how its gaming performance compares with its predecessors. I was lucky enough to get the new 2013 high-end Macbook Pro Retina (15) yesterday and started wondering about how it compares to the mid-2012 Retina (15) model.
0 kommentar(er)
