3 ms·
Many of us just want the 15" display preferring longer battery life and smaller size/weight to using a discrete GPU. I am at a university and the 15" rMBPs are
by davidf18 10y ago
Many of us just want the 15" display preferring longer battery life and smaller size/weight to using a discrete GPU. I am at a university and the 15" rMBPs are popular with students as well as researchers. I currently have the 2015 rMBP 15".
Thus, it is disappointing that there is not replacement for the version that uses only the integrated graphics. Also, the Intel 530 graphics of the 2016 rMBP 15" appears to be lower performing than the 2015 rMBP 15" integrated graphics. While there were benchmarks for the battery life of the iGPU, there were no performance benchmarks comparing the rMBP 15" 2016 iGPU vs. the 2015 iGPU.
I've looked online and it appears that the 530 is about 20% slower than the 2015 rMBP 15" iGPU.
EDIT: Source for Iris Pro 5200 vs. HD 530: 5200 about 20% faster than 530 for same resolution.
http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Iris-Pro-HD-5200-V2-Mobile-12-GHz-vs-Intel-HD-530-Desktop-Skylake/m8190vsm33102 http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Iris-Pro-HD-5200-...
- r00fus 10y agoDo you have a cite on the 20% slower?
- davidf18 10y agoAdded the source to my post.
- simonsarris 10y ago> I've looked online and it appears that the 530 is about 20% slower than the 2015 rMBP 15" iGPU. This is probably due to the increased screen resolution. If you make the resolutions of both models the same I suspect it will be comparable or faster in benchmarks. (2015 MBP default resolution of 2880×1800 vs new, 3360×2100) Something similar happened with iPads came out with retina displays. Pushing lots of pixels consumes more performance.
- merb 10y agoa little bit akward that they raised the resolution. 2880x1800 was just fine, having 3360x2100 also means that you again needs to tweak everything if you might use linux.