Just to let you know, as you mentioned, the Intel® HD Graphics 4000 controller is under status of: End Of Interactive Support / Discontinued.

As an option you may want to try our Discontinued Products Community to get recommendations from fellow community members.:

//communities.intel.com/community/tech/discontinued-products

Or you may also find the Discontinued Products Website helpful to address your request:

//www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/discontinued-products.html

Additionally, Apple has requested that all questions regarding Apple systems and software be addressed directly with Apple support. We recommend checking the links below for troubleshooting assistance on your Apple computer:

For 13" models, always go for the Late 2013 models if you can. The Late 2013 are lighter, thinner, and the GPU is light years ahead of the HD 4000. This performance increase is important in regards to driving the retina display.

So the $1445 model would essentially be a better deal?

• 4

The late 2013 model has a Haswell CPU with better battery life and overall performance. And the Intel Iris is quite a bit better than the HD4000. I'd go with that one over the older model.

• 5

  The late 2013 model has a Haswell CPU with better battery life and overall performance. And the Intel Iris is quite a bit better than the HD4000. I'd go with that one over the older model.

Good to know & thanks!

• 6

  So the $1445 model would essentially be a better deal?

less than $150 for a significantly better machine? Definitely go for the Late 2013.

• 7

  So the $1445 model would essentially be a better deal?

It depends how you're using it. GPUs make a difference for non-trivial things. Some people mistake poorly optimized parts of OSX for lack of hardware capability. Anyway if the difference is affordable to you, I tend to personally go for more recent hardware rather than older if I intend to keep it for a while. It's often supported just a bit longer. The Iris gpu is enough to get you through some very light gaming, in case that is a concern. If the worst you do is watch videos on your computer, it won't make a difference one way or the other.

• 8

  It depends how you're using it. GPUs make a difference for non-trivial things. Some people mistake poorly optimized parts of OSX for lack of hardware capability. Anyway if the difference is affordable to you, I tend to personally go for more recent hardware rather than older if I intend to keep it for a while. It's often supported just a bit longer. The Iris gpu is enough to get you through some very light gaming, in case that is a concern. If the worst you do is watch videos on your computer, it won't make a difference one way or the other.

I am a graphic designer, so I tend to use the Adobe products quite often. I also do a little photography on the side. And I have over 1000+ songs that I like to listen to on iTunes. Occasional video streaming. Fortunately not much of a gamer. That's about it haha!

• 9

The GPU won't make too much of a difference for you. People actually exagerate the difference between those GPUs. You can compare real difference here by checking the HD 4000 and the HD 5100 respectively. //www.notebookcheck.com/Welche-Spiele-laufen-auf-Notebook-Grafikkarten-fluessig.13827.0.html

They range from about even to 30% difference sometimes twice as fast. Generally the HD 5100 is a big GPU with lots of theoretical potential from which not much is left in real situations as the TDP the memory bandwitdh and the CPU side limit it too much. Iris Pro is much faster [70%] because it does not have the bandwidth problem although it is otherwise the same GPU which cannot clock any higher. Most of the benchmarks on notebookcheck with the HD 4000 are also on older drivers. If they were on even drivers the difference would likely be smaller still.

The only reason the newer notebook is worth it is battery life. The Late 2013 has everything on one very power efficient chip, which means very low power consumption when it isn't doing much and less heat [it has only one fan because it doesn't need two anymore]. It pure performance the difference isn't all that big. Most of the Iris performance is purely theoretical. The HD 4000 makes up some performance by having to play with 35W rather than the 28W on the Iris, so it runs almost always close to its peak performance while Iris on reaches its peak performance for short bursts and mostly is far far away from peak performance. The CPU side is still on the same 22nm process and about as efficient and also needs to somehow fit into the 35/28W power envelope. HD 4600 is despite its name always faster than the HD 5000 on the Air and often faster than the HD 5100 in reality for the same reasons.

Buy it for battery life not performance.

• 10

  The GPU won't make too much of a difference for you. People actually exagerate the difference between those GPUs. You can compare real difference here by checking the HD 4000 and the HD 5100 respectively. //www.notebookcheck.com/Welche-Spiele-laufen-auf-Notebook-Grafikkarten-fluessig.13827.0.html

They range from about even to 30% difference sometimes twice as fast. Generally the HD 5100 is a big GPU with lots of theoretical potential from which not much is left in real situations as the TDP the memory bandwitdh and the CPU side limit it too much. Iris Pro is much faster [70%] because it does not have the bandwidth problem although it is otherwise the same GPU which cannot clock any higher. Most of the benchmarks on notebookcheck with the HD 4000 are also on older drivers. If they were on even drivers the difference would likely be smaller still.

The only reason the newer notebook is worth it is battery life. The Late 2013 has everything on one very power efficient chip, which means very low power consumption when it isn't doing much and less heat [it has only one fan because it doesn't need two anymore]. It pure performance the difference isn't all that big. Most of the Iris performance is purely theoretical. The HD 4000 makes up some performance by having to play with 35W rather than the 28W on the Iris, so it runs almost always close to its peak performance while Iris on reaches its peak performance for short bursts and mostly is far far away from peak performance. The CPU side is still on the same 22nm process and about as efficient and also needs to somehow fit into the 35/28W power envelope. HD 4600 is despite its name always faster than the HD 5000 on the Air and often faster than the HD 5100 in reality for the same reasons.

Great insight! I tend to move around a lot with my laptops. So extra battery life would definitely be a plus.