Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Iris VS Iris Pro
Magiknight
Member CommonPosts: 782
HELLO!
I'm debating about whether I should get a new laptop with an Iris or Iris Pro. I can find benchmarks for both GPUs on separate pages. What I can't find, which would be helpful, is an article that compares the Iris and Iris Pro. From what I can find, the Iris and Iris Pro are the same card with the exception of the Iris Pro having 128MB of memory dedicated to it.
The reason for only considering an Iris or Iris Pro (because I know it will come up) is that I'm getting a macbook pro. My current macbook pro is dying (google early 2011 macbook pro gpu failure). SO. I'm going to be a tool and buy another laptop from a company that is obviously unreliable. I can't decide if the 13inch with the Iris or 15inch with the Iris Pro is right for me.
I don't game a whole lot anymore, but I do want the capability. For example, lately I've been using the Dolphin emulator for my Wii games. The last MMO I played was FFXIV.
Does anyone here play FFXIV with an Iris or Iris Pro? Or use the Dolphin with an Iris or Iris Pro?
THANK YOU!
Comments
If the goal of getting nicer graphics is to play games, I'd dismiss both out of hand as being obviously bad options. They're both Intel integrated graphics. They also come with extremely high monitor resolutions, and that will add a ton of load on very weak graphical chips. As a quick comparison, they have 160 shaders; AMD's current top end integrated graphics has 512, while both AMD and Nvidia offer discrete video cards with over 2800. Nvidia will even sell you a tablet with 192 shaders.
If you need a Mac but want to play games, you'd be better off getting a cheaper Mac together with a dedicated gaming rig with sensible gaming hardware. The combination of two machines will actually be cheaper than getting a single MacBook Pro with Iris Pro graphics.
Or you could just not get a Mac at all. $2000 will buy you a very, very nice Windows laptop (or better yet, a desktop) for whatever you want, unless it's something that requires Mac OS X. Is there some reason why you're set on a Mac?
My last mac was my first. I never had to worry about a virus and the system never crashed. It was a lot smoother than windows. And I just like how OS X is designed. I don't miss windows at all, but I've never used Windows 8.
I was looking at the refurbished macbooks, as opposed to the brand new ones. So I'm not spending 2K.
If the system never crashed, then how do you know it's dying? I've had a WIndows 7 desktop for over five years and it has literally crashed exactly twice in that time: one system lockup and one blue screen, both immediately fixed by rebooting. It certainly doesn't seem to be dying to me. The blue screen a day era of Windows 95/98/ME is long since over; that entire code base is completely deprecated. You can get mediocre Windows hardware that is likely to crash a lot or have various other problems, but that's a problem of getting mediocre hardware, not something intrinsic to Windows.
Having a Mac doesn't mean you don't have to worry about viruses. While there are a lot fewer viruses for Mac, your anti-virus protections are probably also much weaker. You're probably less likely to get a virus on Mac than Windows, but you can still get them if you assume you're immune and get reckless. Running Linux wouldn't make you completely immune to viruses, either, but it will get you closer than Mac OS X.
If you like the design of Mac OS X better than that of Windows 7, it's not likely that Windows 8 will change your mind. If you like OS X better than Vista, well, basically everyone likes Windows 7 better than Vista, too.
There are problems with a lot of games being awkward or impossible to run if you don't dual boot Windows. But you're presumably familiar with and accept that if you've just had a Mac for the last three years.
Why are you looking for a laptop in the first place? Laptops are intrinsically much less reliable than a properly built desktop. They're also more expensive for slower hardware, much harder or impossible to upgrade or repair, and a variety of other things. If you need the mobility of a laptop, then sure, get a laptop. But if you don't, then get a desktop.
If you're set on a Mac and want games to run decently in Mac OS X, then you should probably look for something that doesn't have an outlandish monitor resolution (1920x1080 or 1920x1200 is fine) and does have a discrete video card. Apple doesn't have anything like that in their current lineup, but you can probably get that in a refurbished model from a year or two ago. Do be warned that if you're doing to dual boot into Windows for games, discrete switchable graphics probably wouldn't work properly in WIndows.
Why so many whys? I was just wondering about Iris vs Iris Pro.....
Well other than the issue I'm having now I never had any trouble with it. It IS dying. Google "2011 macbook pro GPU failure." I'm left with a Intel HD3000 that crashes and gives weird images all the time.
I wouldn't think a couple crashes means a system is dying either...... I'm glad your Windows 7 computer worked out for you.
I've probably had 7 windows systems in my life. Been there, done that. No thanks.
I do keep a copy of Windows on my current macbook and might do so on my next one. The discrete switchable graphics always worked (until the GPU failure).
I want a laptop because I travel sometimes. And I like to take my laptop places that are local.
I buy a lot of Macs. For personal and work use.
If your gaming (as most people on this site are) - anything Intel is bad, and you need to step up to one of the discrete cards in the Pro lines (pretty much just the top end Retina 15" any more). You won't play FFXIV on anything by Intel - even under Boot camp (since there is no native OS X client... yet) - without turning down every single option and running it on pathetic low.
If you are doing serious graphic work: Photoshop, Illustrator, CAD, video creation, etc. You should really consider stepping up to one of the discrete cards.
If your just using a Mac because you love OS X, and use it for typical Mac laptop things (surfing web, Office-type stuff, i-Suite software, etc), you won't notice the difference between Iris or Iris Pro anyway, and discrete graphics just means your battery gets about 2/3 of the run time it otherwise would.
I love my Macbook Pro, it has Iris Pro graphics. I use it for 6-8 hours a day. I also play FFXIV. I would never, ever play FFXIV on my Macbook. Seriously. Get the 13" Macbook, use the extra $1000-$1500 you would have spent on the Macbook Pro to build a gaming desktop PC that can play FFXIV very well. You get both then.
Your logic for desiring a MacBook is not based on function or budget, apparently. Quizzical is just trying to help you understand the products and offering alternatives which may help you save money while achieving the same goals.
The biggest problem with Macs is that the selection of games is limited. If you buy a Mac and install Windows on it just to gain access to games, you might as well buy a Windows computer in the first place. If you have some other program you must run on a Mac, then you will need a Mac. Otherwise, Macs are only for the uneducated consumers who pay extra for equivalent hardware they could get for half the price if they didn't care about the Apple logo.
The price difference between the 13in and 15in macbook pro I'm looking at is $300, not $1000 - $1500
I am getting a refurb.....
If I spend $1000 on a macbook and then over $1000 on a second gaming laptop I'm spending well over 2K, which I'm not doing.
I understand them already.
I already said I don't play a whole lot of games anymore. Just because I set up a windows partition to play a couple programs does not mean that I should only use Windows..... How does that make sense?
Why so many windows fan boys? Why can no one stick to a subject on these forums? The subject was Iris or Iris Pro?
Someone said their Iris Pro wouldn't play FFXIV, but youtube has videos of people playing FFXIV on a Intel HD5000 (specifically, a macbook air).
The problem is that you're asking the wrong question, and that leads to not accepting the right answer to whatever question you should have asked.
It sounds like gaming is not the primary purpose of your machine. Mac OS X might well make sense for you, and if you like OS X because you like OS X and don't like Windows, that's fine.
The problem comes when you'd like to be able to play some games on the same device. I need both a microwave and a refrigerator in my apartment, but it doesn't follow that I need a single device that functions as both a microwave and a refrigerator. What I need (and have) is two separate appliances for the two separate functions.
If you're a business traveler who spends a few months per year in hotels and wants to play games there, then you likely need a gaming laptop. If you take a laptop with you for various purposes but only play intense games at home, then the combination of a laptop not suited for gaming together with a gaming desktop is probably the right way to go. This lets you get both a more portable laptop that is better for non-gaming purposes and also a gaming-oriented desktop that is better for gaming. And it isn't necessarily more expensive than just getting a single device that can manage to be mediocre at both. (Actually, what you're looking at will be nice for many non-gaming purposes, but won't even rise to the level of mediocre for gaming.)
If you're mostly playing games from hotel rooms and set on getting a Mac, then the thing to do is to avoid both Iris and Iris Pro, but instead get an older generation model that had a discrete video card and didn't have an outlandish monitor resolution. That will probably be cheaper than the Iris and certainly cheaper than the Iris Pro, still be nice for non-gaming purposes, and will make gaming viable on a Windows partition.
If you only play games at home, then the sensible thing to do is to save some money on the Mac by ignoring graphics performance entirely and not installing Windows, then use that money to get a Windows gaming desktop. Unlike most laptop vendors, Apple cares about graphics performance and won't even offer really low end junk that will struggle with tasks like displaying the desktop or watching videos. Apple just doesn't care about graphics performance enough to care if games run well.
For the gaming desktop, $600 will get you something viable if you can keep your old peripherals. That includes $100 for a Windows license, which you'd have to pay to install Windows on your Mac, anyway.
Seems you already know what you are going to do - we offered our advice - it's your money. It has absolutely nothing to do with OS X vs Windows Software - it's all about the hardware.
I wouldn't say the biggest problem with OS X/Apple is limited game selection. You mention the reason why that isn't the problem - you can run all OS X games, all Linux games, and all Windows games on an Apple computer - it's probably the only machine that can do that.
I won't even say the Apple tax is the problem. That's just money - it's important, but people still buy boutique gaming rigs all the time that cost as much or more than anything Apple puts out.
The problem is that Apple OS X hardware isn't geared towards gaming. They don't make a single laptop/desktop machine that is really suitable to game on - even those with discrete graphics cards. They are engineered well, and built with nice components, they just aren't engineered with gaming in mind.
Can you run games on a Mac? Certainly. You can even play some games pretty well on a Mac. But I'm sorry, the highest end current iteration of Macs for any amount of cash can't compete with even a moderate and modest gaming PC when it comes strictly to gaming performance. So it shouldn't be a surprise at all when the OP says "I want to play games" anywhere in the priority list at all that everyone recommends a Windows machine.
Since performance doesn't seem to matter to the OP - Iris Pro is better than Iris, but your also driving a Retina display with it, which largely negates the speed benefit. The most significant difference between the two is that Iris Pro has some additional cache which helps speed up the use of system memory instead of having dedicated graphics RAM.
Gaming on Intel graphics anything is just not a good idea, be it PC, Mac or anything. I wouldn't expect significant changes from your existing HD3000. All but the very lowest most basic GPU chips from the current crop of AMD/nVidia beat everything Intel has pretty much ever put out. But if the OP is dead set on it, and sees some Youtube videos where people are running it at whatever level and believes that's good enough for them, it's their money.
I DONT know what I'm going to do! That's the entire point of me posting.......omg
I don't know if I'm getting an Iris or Iris Pro..... holy cow
If you know that you're getting a used MacBook Pro of the current generation with either Iris or Iris Pro graphics, then you've basically decided everything that matters before coming here and this thread has no reason to exist. In that case, my recommendation would be to pick whichever is cheaper. If you're happy with Iris graphics, you saved some money as compared to Iris Pro. If you later decide that Iris graphics aren't good enough, you wouldn't have been happy with Iris Pro either, as it's not a mistake of failing to get Iris Pro instead. It's a mistake of limiting yourself to two bad options and ignoring all good options in the universe, whether Apple or otherwise.
Iris and Iris Pro are just marketing names for Intel HD Graphics 5100 and 5200, respectively. The graphics chip between the two is the same as each other and as Intel HD 5000. The difference between 5100/5200 and 5000 is the clock speed; the latter is clocked extremely low for the sake of power consumption. The difference between 5100 and 5200 is a 128 MB L4 cache so that things that the GPU is constantly accessing from memory can be stored in the L4 cache, freeing up system memory bandwidth for other things. That could allow higher frame rates in games, or it could allow higher monitor resolutions. Apple has chosen to use it for the latter, and because it comes with a higher resolution monitor, it probably won't change frame rates.
Apple's dilemma is that for the sake of power consumption, they want to use integrated graphics. They want both a good CPU and a good GPU. Intel offers a good CPU and a bad GPU, while AMD offers a bad CPU and a good GPU. Nvidia offers no CPU and a good GPU. You can't cut a chip in half to have a single chip with an Intel CPU and AMD or Nvidia GPU. Apple convinced Intel to offer the 128 MB L4 cache so that Intel graphics would be less bad; Intel charges a fortune for it, and Apple passes on the cost to their customers. Iris Pro costs so much not because it's good (it isn't), but because Intel charges a fortune for it and that always gets passed on to consumers.