A 13" with 16GB RAM and 1TB Storage is $2599 and a 15" is $3299 PLUS TAX. I put together my 2012 MBP with 1TB 7200RPM Drive and 16GB RAM for under $2K. Comparable Windows laptops are half the price.
The 13" still has an entry model that can take 1TB and 16GB 3rd party RAM for about $1399.
The 15" would be $2199 with 16GB and then you'd need something like this:
It's not ideal having the 2.5" storage external but it's not ideal having it internal either because it adds weight to the laptop and means opening it if it breaks. The SSD with no moving parts is much less likely to break.
Check and see if the rest of the games are the same. Check your own links above.
Here are all the benchmarks side by side with Iris Pro on the left, 750M on the right (don't quote the image as it's long):
There's an exception here and there where the 750M performs significantly better but the levels of playability (above 30FPS) are matched in the vast majority of the games so the experience is pretty much the same. It's unlikely you'll notice an extra 7FPS in Tomb Raider when you are already running at 35FPS.
Like I said, NVidia has an advantage with their anti-aliasing on higher quality settings as it runs with very low overhead but AA doesn't matter that much to the game. If people feel like paying $600 for the 750M, that's their choice but I don't see that it's going to be worth it.
Crysis 3 is here on the iMac with Iris Pro, high quality:
Really odd pricing on the UK store, £1,563.60 for the base 15" and £2,023.20 for the high end. Similarly odd pricing on the 13", don't think I've ever seen Apple price in this way.
Hey everyone, first time poster here. Hoping to not bog down the tech talk with this, but looking for an opinion, as I'm definitely going to pick up a rMBP in the coming days/weeks. I've been raised on Windows machines since I can remember, and this will be my first Apple computer.
I'm a musician/artist/whatever, and am interested in this tool to give me the best performance possible. I want the 15" display for sure, will max out the RAM and get an external drive rather than the 1TB option, but to be honest, I know nothing about the GPU situation between the Iris and the NVIDIA. I browsed the specs in the image above, and as I anticipate to be excited about using this machine to it's fullest extent, I'd consider a game or two for the experience, but really my needs are focused on creating music/visual art/video.
Anybody care to brief me on the ups and downs of the Iris vs NVIDIA in the 15"? Or at least point me to a thread that will help me out...
Without knowing what software you use, it's impossible to tell you whether the gpu would play a meaningful role or one at all beyond its basic operations within the operating system. If intel's drivers are stable, the latter concern is a non-issue. The other problem with analyzing the former is that too many people rely on benchmarks to tell them what they need. The reason that is nonsensical is that if you're specifically trying to benchmark gpu leveraged functions, it will exacerbate any difference when compared to real world use, where the difference must be applied as a percentage of the time you use such functionality. After Effects is a common example of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The 13" still has an entry model that can take 1TB and 16GB 3rd party RAM for about $1399.
The 15" would be $2199 with 16GB and then you'd need something like this:
It's not ideal having the 2.5" storage external but it's not ideal having it internal either because it adds weight to the laptop and means opening it if it breaks. The SSD with no moving parts is much less likely to break.
Here are all the benchmarks side by side with Iris Pro on the left, 750M on the right (don't quote the image as it's long):
The iris pro model is the one I would personally watch. While I seemingly always (almost) require maxed ram on every machine to do anything meaningful without stutters, I always disliked the graphics switching and the amount of heat produced. It'll be interesting to see intel's progression. Even then when it comes to notebooks specifically, I'm somewhat cost conscious and would wait for refurb models. It's often around a 15% discount compared to those that are sold as new.
Without knowing what software you use, it's impossible to tell you whether the gpu would play a meaningful role or one at all beyond its basic operations within the operating system. If intel's drivers are stable, the latter concern is a non-issue. The other problem with analyzing the former is that too many people rely on benchmarks to tell them what they need. The reason that is nonsensical is that if you're specifically trying to benchmark gpu leveraged functions, it will exacerbate any difference when compared to real world use, where the difference must be applied as a percentage of the time you use such functionality. After Effects is a common example of that.
The iris pro model is the one I would personally watch. While I seemingly always (almost) require maxed ram on every machine to do anything meaningful without stutters, I always disliked the graphics switching and the amount of heat produced. It'll be interesting to see intel's progression. Even then when it comes to notebooks specifically, I'm somewhat cost conscious and would wait for refurb models. It's often around a 15% discount compared to those that are sold as new.
I'd be interested in After Effects and Final Cut, maybe the Avid equivalent. Video is something new for me, but I want the option to get into it at full speed. Who do higher-end GPU's cater to? Gamers mostly? HD cinema? All of the above?
It's noteworthy that I currently do not have an HD camera for filming, but again, the option to work with it is what I'm looking for, as like anyone else, I want this machine to last me a good while.
maybe a more accurate response is that i'm not sure what i'll be running yet, but am looking for the pros and cons of each gpu to help me decide what might be best for me?
maybe a more accurate response is that i'm not sure what i'll be running yet, but am looking for the pros and cons of each gpu to help me decide what might be best for me?
If gpu performance was your highest priority, a notebook would not be the most effective route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk8585
I'd be interested in After Effects and Final Cut, maybe the Avid equivalent. Video is something new for me, but I want the option to get into it at full speed. Who do higher-end GPU's cater to? Gamers mostly? HD cinema? All of the above?
It's noteworthy that I currently do not have an HD camera for filming, but again, the option to work with it is what I'm looking for, as like anyone else, I want this machine to last me a good while.
Ehh..... I don't know what to suggest right now. Whether something lasts depends upon changes in demands. I can tell you that both options are still slower than desktop cards from 2010, so take that under consideration. Some features in after effects require cuda. Read to find out whether they matter to you. If they do, you need an NVidia card. The raytracer is painfully slow on cpu calculations. There are other raytracers out there, but they don't directly plug into after effects. What gpus cater to depends on the gpu. On OSX a lot of software vendors validate a pretty broad range of hardware whereas on Windows (only important if you use bootcamp) they'll often validate only workstation hardware. This isn't so much the case with Adobe. It's more like Autodesk, CATIA, etc. On OSX they cater to any application that is frequently performance bound that leverages OpenCL, OpenGL, or in the case of some software, CUDA. As mentioned CUDA only works with NVidia, and all of this depends upon software and how it's used. Software depends a lot on how you use it. In the case of After Effects, it only bogs down with a lot of layers. It does eat up lots of ram, as during rendering it tends to allocate per core. It's used in Premiere as well. I don't know the full details of how FCPX makes use of OpenCL or whether there is an appreciable difference between one card and another. Sometimes the only thing that is important is that it supports whatever version of OpenCL or CUDA. The reason for this is that massively parallel computation is slowly becoming the domain of the gpu whenever the amount of memory is a non-issue.
I will add not to purchase something on theoretical needs. You can't guarantee the machine will last forever simply because you spent a little extra. Any upgrades above stock are basically wasted unless you know why you are purchasing them. People make this same mistake all the time. The other fallacy is that computers are getting much faster every year and a 3 year old computer will feel like sludge. It's not really the case anymore. Most of the performance is on the gpu end, and many people will not perceive a difference from year to year changes.
If I was unsure, I would go very conservative on spending. Ideally go for a refurbished unit. If you find your needs differ later and have to upgrade with the next cycle, you'll be buying based on your needs. All machines do depreciate, but bleeding edge ones are the worst. Storage prices come down and integrated graphics slowly catch up to the performance of mid range mobile graphics. If you wanted the fastest possible gpu, I would say buy a used 2010 mac pro cheap (under $1000) and get a 680 or something like that.
Really odd pricing on the UK store, £1,563.60 for the base 15" and £2,023.20 for the high end. Similarly odd pricing on the 13", don't think I've ever seen Apple price in this way.
It's odd that they wouldn't round the educational models to whole figures at least. Maybe they have a new method of changing prices with the exchange rate.
Anybody care to brief me on the ups and downs of the Iris vs NVIDIA in the 15"? Or at least point me to a thread that will help me out...
What would be the best option for me?
If you were going for a model with the upgraded 2.3GHz CPU, 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD, it costs the same with or without the NVidia GPU so it would probably be best in that case to get it with one as you can disable it if you don't want it to drain the battery quicker or generate more heat.
If you only need the 16GB of RAM for $2199, the extra $400 just for the 750M is excessive. When it comes to video apps, if they use OpenCL, Iris Pro would be faster anyway. There are things that are CUDA-only but you'd have to check if there were any functions you'd rely on. NVidia showcases some software here:
OpenCL is the best solution to use because it doesn't even require a GPU. OpenCL on the CPU alone has given developers as much as 2x performance increase.
thanks for the input, guys. I'm interested in maxing out the CPU, so I'll be going for the NVIDIA option, especially if there is an option to disable it and run the iris pro.
thanks for the input, guys. I'm interested in maxing out the CPU, so I'll be going for the NVIDIA option, especially if there is an option to disable it and run the iris pro.
Well it's your money, but those cpus are not much different in real world use. The biggest X86 gains at the moment are always in the form of increased core counts. As Marvin points out, CTO upgrades always carry a higher markup.
Comments
The 13" still has an entry model that can take 1TB and 16GB 3rd party RAM for about $1399.
The 15" would be $2199 with 16GB and then you'd need something like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Passport-Ultra-Portable-External-Backup/dp/B00E83X9P8
It's not ideal having the 2.5" storage external but it's not ideal having it internal either because it adds weight to the laptop and means opening it if it breaks. The SSD with no moving parts is much less likely to break.
Here are all the benchmarks side by side with Iris Pro on the left, 750M on the right (don't quote the image as it's long):
There's an exception here and there where the 750M performs significantly better but the levels of playability (above 30FPS) are matched in the vast majority of the games so the experience is pretty much the same. It's unlikely you'll notice an extra 7FPS in Tomb Raider when you are already running at 35FPS.
Like I said, NVidia has an advantage with their anti-aliasing on higher quality settings as it runs with very low overhead but AA doesn't matter that much to the game. If people feel like paying $600 for the 750M, that's their choice but I don't see that it's going to be worth it.
Crysis 3 is here on the iMac with Iris Pro, high quality:
[VIDEO]
Hey everyone, first time poster here. Hoping to not bog down the tech talk with this, but looking for an opinion, as I'm definitely going to pick up a rMBP in the coming days/weeks. I've been raised on Windows machines since I can remember, and this will be my first Apple computer.
I'm a musician/artist/whatever, and am interested in this tool to give me the best performance possible. I want the 15" display for sure, will max out the RAM and get an external drive rather than the 1TB option, but to be honest, I know nothing about the GPU situation between the Iris and the NVIDIA. I browsed the specs in the image above, and as I anticipate to be excited about using this machine to it's fullest extent, I'd consider a game or two for the experience, but really my needs are focused on creating music/visual art/video.
Anybody care to brief me on the ups and downs of the Iris vs NVIDIA in the 15"? Or at least point me to a thread that will help me out...
What would be the best option for me?
Thanks!
What would be the best option for me?
Without knowing what software you use, it's impossible to tell you whether the gpu would play a meaningful role or one at all beyond its basic operations within the operating system. If intel's drivers are stable, the latter concern is a non-issue. The other problem with analyzing the former is that too many people rely on benchmarks to tell them what they need. The reason that is nonsensical is that if you're specifically trying to benchmark gpu leveraged functions, it will exacerbate any difference when compared to real world use, where the difference must be applied as a percentage of the time you use such functionality. After Effects is a common example of that.
The 13" still has an entry model that can take 1TB and 16GB 3rd party RAM for about $1399.
The 15" would be $2199 with 16GB and then you'd need something like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Passport-Ultra-Portable-External-Backup/dp/B00E83X9P8
It's not ideal having the 2.5" storage external but it's not ideal having it internal either because it adds weight to the laptop and means opening it if it breaks. The SSD with no moving parts is much less likely to break.
Here are all the benchmarks side by side with Iris Pro on the left, 750M on the right (don't quote the image as it's long):
The iris pro model is the one I would personally watch. While I seemingly always (almost) require maxed ram on every machine to do anything meaningful without stutters, I always disliked the graphics switching and the amount of heat produced. It'll be interesting to see intel's progression. Even then when it comes to notebooks specifically, I'm somewhat cost conscious and would wait for refurb models. It's often around a 15% discount compared to those that are sold as new.
Without knowing what software you use, it's impossible to tell you whether the gpu would play a meaningful role or one at all beyond its basic operations within the operating system. If intel's drivers are stable, the latter concern is a non-issue. The other problem with analyzing the former is that too many people rely on benchmarks to tell them what they need. The reason that is nonsensical is that if you're specifically trying to benchmark gpu leveraged functions, it will exacerbate any difference when compared to real world use, where the difference must be applied as a percentage of the time you use such functionality. After Effects is a common example of that.
The iris pro model is the one I would personally watch. While I seemingly always (almost) require maxed ram on every machine to do anything meaningful without stutters, I always disliked the graphics switching and the amount of heat produced. It'll be interesting to see intel's progression. Even then when it comes to notebooks specifically, I'm somewhat cost conscious and would wait for refurb models. It's often around a 15% discount compared to those that are sold as new.
I'd be interested in After Effects and Final Cut, maybe the Avid equivalent. Video is something new for me, but I want the option to get into it at full speed. Who do higher-end GPU's cater to? Gamers mostly? HD cinema? All of the above?
It's noteworthy that I currently do not have an HD camera for filming, but again, the option to work with it is what I'm looking for, as like anyone else, I want this machine to last me a good while.
maybe a more accurate response is that i'm not sure what i'll be running yet, but am looking for the pros and cons of each gpu to help me decide what might be best for me?
maybe a more accurate response is that i'm not sure what i'll be running yet, but am looking for the pros and cons of each gpu to help me decide what might be best for me?
If gpu performance was your highest priority, a notebook would not be the most effective route.
Quote:
I'd be interested in After Effects and Final Cut, maybe the Avid equivalent. Video is something new for me, but I want the option to get into it at full speed. Who do higher-end GPU's cater to? Gamers mostly? HD cinema? All of the above?
It's noteworthy that I currently do not have an HD camera for filming, but again, the option to work with it is what I'm looking for, as like anyone else, I want this machine to last me a good while.
Ehh..... I don't know what to suggest right now. Whether something lasts depends upon changes in demands. I can tell you that both options are still slower than desktop cards from 2010, so take that under consideration. Some features in after effects require cuda. Read to find out whether they matter to you. If they do, you need an NVidia card. The raytracer is painfully slow on cpu calculations. There are other raytracers out there, but they don't directly plug into after effects. What gpus cater to depends on the gpu. On OSX a lot of software vendors validate a pretty broad range of hardware whereas on Windows (only important if you use bootcamp) they'll often validate only workstation hardware. This isn't so much the case with Adobe. It's more like Autodesk, CATIA, etc. On OSX they cater to any application that is frequently performance bound that leverages OpenCL, OpenGL, or in the case of some software, CUDA. As mentioned CUDA only works with NVidia, and all of this depends upon software and how it's used. Software depends a lot on how you use it. In the case of After Effects, it only bogs down with a lot of layers. It does eat up lots of ram, as during rendering it tends to allocate per core. It's used in Premiere as well. I don't know the full details of how FCPX makes use of OpenCL or whether there is an appreciable difference between one card and another. Sometimes the only thing that is important is that it supports whatever version of OpenCL or CUDA. The reason for this is that massively parallel computation is slowly becoming the domain of the gpu whenever the amount of memory is a non-issue.
I will add not to purchase something on theoretical needs. You can't guarantee the machine will last forever simply because you spent a little extra. Any upgrades above stock are basically wasted unless you know why you are purchasing them. People make this same mistake all the time. The other fallacy is that computers are getting much faster every year and a 3 year old computer will feel like sludge. It's not really the case anymore. Most of the performance is on the gpu end, and many people will not perceive a difference from year to year changes.
If I was unsure, I would go very conservative on spending. Ideally go for a refurbished unit. If you find your needs differ later and have to upgrade with the next cycle, you'll be buying based on your needs. All machines do depreciate, but bleeding edge ones are the worst. Storage prices come down and integrated graphics slowly catch up to the performance of mid range mobile graphics. If you wanted the fastest possible gpu, I would say buy a used 2010 mac pro cheap (under $1000) and get a 680 or something like that.
It's odd that they wouldn't round the educational models to whole figures at least. Maybe they have a new method of changing prices with the exchange rate.
If you were going for a model with the upgraded 2.3GHz CPU, 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD, it costs the same with or without the NVidia GPU so it would probably be best in that case to get it with one as you can disable it if you don't want it to drain the battery quicker or generate more heat.
If you only need the 16GB of RAM for $2199, the extra $400 just for the 750M is excessive. When it comes to video apps, if they use OpenCL, Iris Pro would be faster anyway. There are things that are CUDA-only but you'd have to check if there were any functions you'd rely on. NVidia showcases some software here:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/media-and-entertainment.html
but they mention things like Speedgrade and more and more apps are moving towards OpenCL:
http://fireuser.com/blog/adobe_premiere_pro_speedgrade_and_media_encoder_get_more_opencl_amd_firepro/
OpenCL is the best solution to use because it doesn't even require a GPU. OpenCL on the CPU alone has given developers as much as 2x performance increase.
thanks for the input, guys. I'm interested in maxing out the CPU, so I'll be going for the NVIDIA option, especially if there is an option to disable it and run the iris pro.
Well it's your money, but those cpus are not much different in real world use. The biggest X86 gains at the moment are always in the form of increased core counts. As Marvin points out, CTO upgrades always carry a higher markup.