abelliveau
Level 1 (9 points)

Q: 2011 MacBook Pro and Discrete Graphics Card

I have an early 2011 MacBook Pro (2.2 GHz Intel Core i7, 8 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 memory) running OS 10.8.2.  It has two graphics components: an AMD Radeon HD 6750M and a built-in Intel HD Graphics 3000. Since I've had the computer, the screen would get a blue tint when the computer switched between them.

 

However, as of two days ago, the problem has become substantially more severe.  The computer was working fine, when all of a suddent the screen when completely blue.  I had to force restart the computer.  Since then, the screen has gone awry on numerous occassions - each time necessitating a hard reset.

 

I installed gfxCardStatus, and have discovered that the computer runs fine using the integrated card, but as soon as I switch to the discrete card - the screen goes .

 

I am just wondering what my options are (any input on any of these would be appreciated!):

 

1) Replace the logic board.  Would this necessarily fix the issue?

 

2) Is there any way to "fix" the graphics card? 

 

3) Keep using gfxCardStatus and only use the integrated graphics card.  This is definitely the easiest/cheapest option, but to have such a computer and not be able to use the graphics card seems like a real shame.

 

4) Is there any other alternative?

 


MacBook Pro, OS X Mountain Lion (10.8.2), 2.2 GHz Intel Core i7, 8 GB memory

Posted on Feb 1, 2013 4:45 PM

Close
abelliveau

Q: 2011 MacBook Pro and Discrete Graphics Card

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

first Previous Page 719 of 891 last Next

  • by kayazuki,

    kayazuki kayazuki Dec 22, 2014 3:54 PM in response to akamyself
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Dec 22, 2014 3:54 PM in response to akamyself

    Hold on, I'm not informed very well about the new model..

    I thought only the RAM was friend on the board.

    Are you telling me they didn't put an exchangeable drive in there, but just soldered the chips of theoretical SSD drive straight on the board?????

    Seriously?? ROFLMAO!!!!

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Dec 22, 2014 4:47 PM in response to kayazuki
    Level 9 (51,497 points)
    Desktops
    Dec 22, 2014 4:47 PM in response to kayazuki

    I'll take significantly increased bus speeds and significantly better space utilisation over replaceable drives any day.

  • by D3us,

    D3us D3us Dec 22, 2014 5:18 PM in response to Csound1
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Dec 22, 2014 5:18 PM in response to Csound1

    Csound1 wrote:

     

    I'll take significantly increased bus speeds and significantly better space utilisation over replaceable drives any day.

    With the "increased bus speed" maybe you'll see gigantic numbers on benchmarks.

    But what would the gain be in real work?

    Rendering a movie in 37 instead of 37:10 mins?

     

    What if it fails?

    Pay exorbitant prices to Apple to replace?

    Or just throw it away and buy a new one?

    Very environmental friendly.

    Only one that will benefit: Apple.

     

    I would prefer upgradeability/repairability.

  • by kayazuki,

    kayazuki kayazuki Dec 22, 2014 5:25 PM in response to D3us
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Dec 22, 2014 5:25 PM in response to D3us

    D3us wrote:

    Csound1 wrote:

    I'll take significantly increased bus speeds and significantly better space utilisation over replaceable drives any day.

    ...
    I would prefer upgradeability/repairability.

    No man, throwing away and buying new, or just not upgrade, or spend a fortune for an upgrade is much nicer, and ABSOLUTELY worth it for a machine that becomes probably at least 50x faster that way!

  • by D3us,

    D3us D3us Dec 22, 2014 5:26 PM in response to kayazuki
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Dec 22, 2014 5:26 PM in response to kayazuki

    kayazuki wrote:

     

    D3us wrote:

    Csound1 wrote:

    I'll take significantly increased bus speeds and significantly better space utilisation over replaceable drives any day.

    ...
    I would prefer upgradeability/repairability.

    No man, throwing away and buying new, or just not upgrade, or spend a fortune for an upgrade is much nicer, and ABSOLUTELY worth it for a machine that becomes probably at least 50x faster that way!

    Yeah, and breaks 50x times faster too?

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Dec 22, 2014 5:27 PM in response to D3us
    Level 9 (51,497 points)
    Desktops
    Dec 22, 2014 5:27 PM in response to D3us

    D3us wrote:

     

    Csound1 wrote:

     

    I'll take significantly increased bus speeds and significantly better space utilisation over replaceable drives any day.

    With the "increased bus speed" maybe you'll see gigantic numbers on benchmarks.

    But what would the gain be in real work?

    Rendering a movie in 37 instead of 37:10 mins?

     

    What if it fails?

    Pay exorbitant prices to Apple to replace?

    Or just throw it away and buy a new one?

    Very environmental friendly.

    Only one that will benefit: Apple.

     

    I would prefer upgradeability/repairability.

    If it fails I replace it, insurance pays, backup makes the transition painless.

     

    I would prefer not to be stuck with old technology

     

    You may think differently, but, and unlike you I have no vested interest in the prolonging of old technologies.

  • by D3us,

    D3us D3us Dec 22, 2014 5:40 PM in response to Csound1
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Dec 22, 2014 5:40 PM in response to Csound1

    They just use an exesting technology.

    Only difference is it isn't replaceable.

    Tie-in, golden cages.

     

    Nope, thanks, not for me.

     

    Csound1, you get a lifetime insurance on those things ?

  • by kayazuki,

    kayazuki kayazuki Dec 22, 2014 5:49 PM in response to Csound1
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Dec 22, 2014 5:49 PM in response to Csound1

    Csound1 wrote:

    You may think differently, but, and unlike you, I have no vested interest in the prolonging of old technologies.

    Who does? Me neither.

    But newer is NOT per definition BETTER. Not in this case at least.

    What do you think you're going to gain in possible bus speed by removing a socket for the RAM modules?

    Do you think the socket is the bottle neck?

    Check this out:

    http://hexus.net/tech/news/ram/58797-gskill-reclaims-worlds-fastest-ddr3-memory- title-44ghz/

    Memory running at 4,404MHz via ordinary sockets. And that's even an old article..

    And now you're bringing this comment about the latest Macs that run RAM on a bus speed of ... 1600 MHz..?

    Do me a favour and explain me at which point a bottleneck for socket speed-limitations is removed when using non-removable RAM...?

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Dec 22, 2014 6:03 PM in response to kayazuki
    Level 9 (51,497 points)
    Desktops
    Dec 22, 2014 6:03 PM in response to kayazuki

    SATA buses run at a maximum of 6Gb/s PCie buses run at a maximum 32Gb/s

     

    You seem confused about the bus service.

  • by kayazuki,

    kayazuki kayazuki Dec 22, 2014 6:11 PM in response to Csound1
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Dec 22, 2014 6:11 PM in response to Csound1

    Ok, you're discarding the RAM part then, but you're right about the SATA limitation (of which didn't make a claim that the connector wouldn't be a limitation, so I'm not that confused).

    Anyway, I hope we can agree in the middle that it is indeed be a super speed increase to solder SSD chips directly to the board but that it would at least be decent + much desired to also offer a SATA connector to connect any SSD for expansion.

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Dec 22, 2014 6:15 PM in response to kayazuki
    Level 9 (51,497 points)
    Desktops
    Dec 22, 2014 6:15 PM in response to kayazuki

    kayazuki wrote:

     

    Ok, you're discarding the RAM part then,

    I replied to your post about the drive, I didn't "abandon" the Ram part then. It was not what you asked. (see below for what you asked)

    kayazuki wrote:

     

    Hold on, I'm not informed very well about the new model..

    I thought only the RAM was friend on the board.

    Are you telling me they didn't put an exchangeable drive in there, but just soldered the chips of theoretical SSD drive straight on the board?????

    Seriously?? ROFLMAO!!!!

    I'll answer any question, but when you mean Ram why specify drives?

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Dec 22, 2014 6:18 PM in response to kayazuki
    Level 9 (51,497 points)
    Desktops
    Dec 22, 2014 6:18 PM in response to kayazuki

    kayazuki wrote:

     

    Anyway, I hope we can agree in the middle that it is indeed be a super speed increase to solder SSD chips directly to the board but that it would at least be decent + much desired to also offer a SATA connector to connect any SSD for expansion.

    Afraid not, with modern Macs having external interfaces much faster than the internal ones  I see no reason for an outdated (and slow) Sata connection to be retained internally.

  • by kayazuki,

    kayazuki kayazuki Dec 22, 2014 6:31 PM in response to Csound1
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Dec 22, 2014 6:31 PM in response to Csound1

    Csound1 wrote:

    I replied to your post about the drive, I didn't "abandon" the Ram part then. It was not what you asked.

    I'll answer any question, but when you mean Ram why specify drives?

    Oh oh, you're right.. I misread your reply, entirely my bad.

     

    Csound1 wrote:

    Afraid not, with modern Macs having external interfaces much faster than the internal ones  I see no reason for an outdated (and slow) Sata connection to be retained internally.

    You're talking abt the new Thunderbolt 20GB/s connections I presume.. Yea, that even outruns the SATA 3.2 (16Gb/s) speed indeed..

    It might be practical to have your drive on your desk, connected with a cable. Not in all cases I guess (when travelling).

    Time to sleep for me, have a good one.

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Dec 22, 2014 6:35 PM in response to kayazuki
    Level 9 (51,497 points)
    Desktops
    Dec 22, 2014 6:35 PM in response to kayazuki

    The fastest SATA bus in a Mac is SATA3. 6Gb/s, no more.

     

    USB 3.1 (10Gb/s) Thunderbolt (10Gb/s) Thunderbolt2 (20Gb/s), even USB3 is not very far behind (5Gb/s) and that's a cheap common connection.

     

    We outgrew IDE then SCSI, and now SATA is becoming the bottleneck.

     

    FYI

     

    The PCie drives in the MBP's are not 'soldered' they fit in a connector and OWC already sell replacement options up to 1TB.

     

    Things change fast.

  • by kayazuki,

    kayazuki kayazuki Dec 22, 2014 6:39 PM in response to Csound1
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Dec 22, 2014 6:39 PM in response to Csound1

    Csound1 wrote:

    Things change fast.

    You're very right there indeed.. Developments go crazy fast in IT-world..

first Previous Page 719 of 891 last Next