PDA

View Full Version : Retina MacBook Pro Pushes the Limits of its Graphics Capabilities




Pages : [1] 2 3

MacRumors
Jun 29, 2012, 01:15 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/29/retina-macbook-pro-pushes-the-limits-of-its-graphics-capabilities/)


Just after the launch of the Retina MacBook Pro earlier this month, AnandTech provided a first glimpse (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/12/a-closer-look-at-the-new-macbook-pros-retina-display/) of the machine's display performance, noting the various resolution options available to users and examining how its color and contrast compares to other notebooks.

After having more time to analyze the new machine, AnandTech last week published its full review (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/) of the Retina MacBook Pro, bringing its thorough and technically-detailed perspective to the report. While the whole review is definitely worth a read, the section on graphics performance (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/8) bears special attention.

With the integrated Intel HD 4000 and discrete NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M graphics units responsible for driving 2880x1800 pixels in standard Retina mode and as many as 3840x2400 pixels before downscaling to display 1920x1200 at its highest non-Retina resolution, Apple is clearly pushing the limits of the machine's graphics capabilities.At the default setting, either Intel's HD 4000 or NVIDIA's GeForce GT 650M already have to render and display far more pixels than either GPU was ever intended to. At the 1680 and 1920 settings however the GPUs are doing more work than even their high-end desktop counterparts are used to.AnandTech goes on to assess this graphics performance, noting that the Retina MacBook Pro at times struggles to maintain a "consistently smooth experience".At 2880 x 1800 most interactions are smooth but things like zooming windows or scrolling on certain web pages is clearly sub-30fps. At the higher scaled resolutions, since the GPU has to render as much as 9.2MP, even UI performance can be sluggish. There's simply nothing that can be done at this point - Apple is pushing the limits of the hardware we have available today, far beyond what any other OEM has done.Focusing on browser scrolling behavior, which also involves substantial CPU load, AnandTech notes that the resource-intensive Facebook news feed pages can display at over 50 frames per second on a 2011 MacBook Pro, but that the new Retina MacBook Pro struggles to hit 20 frames per second as it pushes so many more pixels.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/retina_macbook_pro_scrolling.jpg


Retina MacBook Pro at 21 frames per second while scrolling (See meter at top left)
The report notes that OS X Mountain Lion will help address some of these issues by leveraging Core Animation, but in AnandTech's testing it was still only able to achieve 20-30 frames per second under Mountain Lion. Further improvements in performance will have to wait for hardware capabilities to catch up with demands imposed by these new ultra-high resolution displays.

Article Link: Retina MacBook Pro Pushes the Limits of its Graphics Capabilities (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/29/retina-macbook-pro-pushes-the-limits-of-its-graphics-capabilities/)



Eidorian
Jun 29, 2012, 01:18 PM
On the desktop front you are looking at a GTX 670/680 for this kind of power in 3D. I know this is on the 2D/desktop rendering side but going from 1356 shaders down to 384 and at lower clocks is going have a large impact.

1440 x 900 or 900p is going to be the native turf for a GT 640/650M

Andy-V
Jun 29, 2012, 01:18 PM
This is why I feel like waiting for the 2nd revision really is a good idea.

wickerman1893
Jun 29, 2012, 01:19 PM
I hope in a couple years every tablet/phone/computer maker puts these high res screens on them. After using the iPad 3 and rMBP it's impossible to go back to something not retina.

O and A
Jun 29, 2012, 01:19 PM
I'm really curious to see when external GPUS via thunderbolt will become available.

derbothaus
Jun 29, 2012, 01:20 PM
Pretty much what I thought would happen. Ouch! Apple needs to nitrous cool a GTX680m or something. Can't have both extra super thin and extra super fast. I'm sticking with the phatty 0.9" Ivy Pro.

----------

I'm really curious to see when external GPUS via thunderbolt will become available.

Why? They wont help.

tomtom2234
Jun 29, 2012, 01:20 PM
Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.

Rizzn
Jun 29, 2012, 01:21 PM
So Apple released tech that wasn't ready yet. Awesome.

HurtinMinorKey
Jun 29, 2012, 01:21 PM
Maybe this will shut up the people clamoring for retina on the new iMac.

GREEN4U
Jun 29, 2012, 01:21 PM
Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.

Get the Air.

appleguy123
Jun 29, 2012, 01:21 PM
I want this computer really bad, but it looks like my MacBook Air will have to survive until Haswell at least. My bank account is breathing a sigh of relief.

Patriot24
Jun 29, 2012, 01:22 PM
This is why I feel like waiting for the 2nd revision really is a good idea.

Yep. Time will solve these issues.

A 13" Air with Retina display is probably still a ways off, but what I'm looking forward to.

tomtom2234
Jun 29, 2012, 01:23 PM
Get the Air.

I NEED a dedicated GPU also. I'm not sure. I may try using my current laptop or maybe my ipad 3 and just bring my desktop to college. I really wanted to leave it at home though.

hobo.hopkins
Jun 29, 2012, 01:24 PM
At least they're pushing the envelope, although doing so at the expense of user experience isn't very Apple-like. Fortunately it seems as though it isn't that large an issue for most users.

Konrad9
Jun 29, 2012, 01:25 PM
Maybe this will shut up the people clamoring for retina on the new iMac.

Why? A larger device will be able to suck up more power, have a more powerful CPU, GPU, and RAM. It will also be able to more efficiently cool everything.

DustinT
Jun 29, 2012, 01:25 PM
I'm just trying to figure out why MR is posting a week old review from Anandtech. This isn't news... or rumors...

lunarworks
Jun 29, 2012, 01:25 PM
This is why I feel like waiting for the 2nd revision really is a good idea.

Maybe with RAM slots of some sort.

(Probably not.)

Peace
Jun 29, 2012, 01:25 PM
"Whereas I would consider the rMBP experience under Lion to be borderline unacceptable, everything is significantly better under Mountain Lion. Donít expect buttery smoothness across the board, youíre still asking a lot of the CPU and GPU, but itís a lot better."

ML is very important when it comes to this.

musicpenguy
Jun 29, 2012, 01:25 PM
Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.

I wouldn't worry about it too much - actual users aren't complaining just people that are trying to get all analytical about it - none of the reviews I recall mention a bad experience due to lag - reviews mention Diablo 3 runs at native resolution lag free - many have mentioned you can run 2 thunderbolt displays without any noticeable lag - this is not a problem :)

Dr McKay
Jun 29, 2012, 01:26 PM
I wondered why they went with that GPU.

Sensation
Jun 29, 2012, 01:26 PM
I wonder how my sli 680s would cope with this. I imagine very well :eek:

Mundty
Jun 29, 2012, 01:26 PM
Give the new Mac Pro a 27" Thunderbolt Retina Display, and a killer graphics card to power it. I'll buy that in a heart beat.

wiz329
Jun 29, 2012, 01:27 PM
Pretty much what I thought would happen. Ouch! Apple needs to nitrous cool a GTX680m or something. Can't have both extra super thin and extra super fast. I'm sticking with the phatty 0.9" Ivy Pro.

----------



Why? They wont help.


Why not?

Fynd
Jun 29, 2012, 01:27 PM
There's no reason to believe this couldn't be sorted out through software.

Patriot24
Jun 29, 2012, 01:27 PM
"Whereas I would consider the rMBP experience under Lion to be borderline unacceptable, everything is significantly better under Mountain Lion. Don’t expect buttery smoothness across the board, you’re still asking a lot of the CPU and GPU, but it’s a lot better."

ML is very important when it comes to this.

My thoughts from another thread on this very issue

I tested a rMBP today in the store for the first time. Having read nothing at all about these issues, I noticed the unit having a hard time keeping up with many animations (swiping between spaces seemed to be the worst).

Minor issue due to fixes present in Mountain Lion? Perhaps to us folks that are in the know. To a general consumer, they could see this and think, "gee, for $2200 you'd think it would be smoother than my POS Dell at home."

I don't get why Apple didn't just hold onto the rMBP until ML is ready if it is that big of a difference. It would've been easy to say, "Available July 20th" (or whatever the date is for ML) and move on. Instead they sacrificed user experience to meet an artificial demand that they manufactured. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

-http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15117606#post15117606

phantasmagoria
Jun 29, 2012, 01:28 PM
"Whereas I would consider the rMBP experience under Lion to be borderline unacceptable, everything is significantly better under Mountain Lion. Donít expect buttery smoothness across the board, youíre still asking a lot of the CPU and GPU, but itís a lot better."

ML is very important when it comes to this.

If ML makes things even better then great, but I just don't have any problems with my rMBP under Lion. Maybe I'm just less sensitive to these things than other people, but I spend literally all day on mine as it's my main work machine. I'm enjoying every minute of it at the moment.

Fortimir
Jun 29, 2012, 01:28 PM
Listen.

This is a poor excerpt to put on the front page without any context or clarification. I suggest everyone who is actually in the market for a new MacBook Pro in the next 6-8 months should read the article. Anand awarded the MacBook Pro Retina a Bronze Editor's Choice award... the highest award he's ever given to *any* Mac.

Yes, future versions will address some of these little speed bumps, but they are merely pimples on a supermodel. Seriously, don't sweat it.

tomtom2234
Jun 29, 2012, 01:28 PM
I wouldn't worry about it too much - actual users aren't complaining just people that are trying to get all analytical about it - none of the reviews I recall mention a bad experience due to lag - reviews mention Diablo 3 runs at native resolution lag free - many have mentioned you can run 2 thunderbolt displays without any noticeable lag - this is not a problem :)

I'm going to get it and see how well it performs before I decide to wait. Hopefully ML and future updates fix the problem.

inket
Jun 29, 2012, 01:29 PM
I wouldn't worry about it too much - actual users aren't complaining just people that are trying to get all analytical about it - none of the reviews I recall mention a bad experience due to lag - reviews mention Diablo 3 runs at native resolution lag free - many have mentioned you can run 2 thunderbolt displays without any noticeable lag - this is not a problem :)
Exactly. People here are acting like it's the end of the world. "oh that's bad, 28fps isn't enough for a window animation. Guess I'm getting the worse, non-retina MacBook Pro for the same price, then."

jontech
Jun 29, 2012, 01:30 PM
I wouldn't worry about it too much - actual users aren't complaining just people that are trying to get all analytical about it - none of the reviews I recall mention a bad experience due to lag - reviews mention Diablo 3 runs at native resolution lag free - many have mentioned you can run 2 thunderbolt displays without any noticeable lag - this is not a problem :)

That

Fortimir
Jun 29, 2012, 01:31 PM
At least they're pushing the envelope, although doing so at the expense of user experience isn't very Apple-like. Fortunately it seems as though it isn't that large an issue for most users.

It's not even a large issue for *any* users. Anyone who is complaining, probably likes to complain. Facebook is an extreme example of a resource-hog of a website and in Mountain Lion it still achieves acceptable frame-rates with minor, albeit noticeable, hiccups.

Asclepio
Jun 29, 2012, 01:32 PM
vector UI is the thing.

alextheukrainia
Jun 29, 2012, 01:32 PM
I just recovered my password just to post this: yes, there was noticeable lag with Lion, but it's fixed in latest DP of Mountain Lion. I was shocked when I tested rMBP at an Apple Store, so waited for my friend's to get here, and it was just as laggy as in the Apple Store. But after installing Mountain Lion DP4 and updating it with latest patches, everything is super-fast. The scrolling is smooth and as fast as you'd expect it to be. There may still be some minor issues at high res, but with the amount of progress I've seen, I am sure it's all software at this point and will be optimized quickly post-release, if not by the time ML comes out.

So don't sweat it, new purchasers, the hardware is plenty enough to power rMBP. It was just a matter of optimizing the OS. I'm getting mine as soon as a local Apple Store has one in stock.

GREEN4U
Jun 29, 2012, 01:32 PM
I NEED a dedicated GPU also. I'm not sure. I may try using my current laptop or maybe my ipad 3 and just bring my desktop to college. I really wanted to leave it at home though.

DO you need one or just think you need one? Many colleges have dedicated computers and computer labs you can use for the applications the program/major requires.

Rmafive
Jun 29, 2012, 01:33 PM
I get about 20fps average when scrolling through websites such as Engadget and Macrumors. It still performs slightly better than my late 2008 MBP performed so I am still happy!

baleensavage
Jun 29, 2012, 01:33 PM
So much for the full retina version of Diablo 3. If this has lag scrolling on Facebook, I can't imagine the poor frame rates it will get in a game at full resolution...

Enectic
Jun 29, 2012, 01:34 PM
I'm not surprised. In the notebook market the 650m is considered a mid-range card. I'm somewhat disappointed they didn't outfit it with a more higher end GPU, especially with the price they charge.

tdream
Jun 29, 2012, 01:34 PM
I'm just trying to figure out why MR is posting a week old review from Anandtech. This isn't news... or rumors...

Yeah, it's fact.

Demosthenes X
Jun 29, 2012, 01:36 PM
I wonder what this means for the Mac mini in the long term? If they upgrade the ATD to retina, will they give the mini some real graphics grunt to drive it on the assumption people will pair the two?

In which case, could be see the mini become a competent gaming computer when paired with a non-retina display?

Mattgfx
Jun 29, 2012, 01:38 PM
Im feeling this is more a software issue then a hardware issue. According to Nvidia website the graphics card can handle up to 3840 x 2160.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gt-650m/specifications

dallas112678
Jun 29, 2012, 01:38 PM
I wondered why they went with that GPU.

Because they are so focused on making it thinner than everything else when it really isn't all that necessary. Slightly off topic, I always found it funny how TV companies keep touting super thing designs that just drive up the price...When you look at the TV straight on and not looking at the thickness whatsoever...Never understood it. You can only put so powerful of components into something so thin because of the heat and power they use. Anything else and the computer would not be able to cool the components.

This is probably the biggest reason why I'll wait a few years to get a rMBP. Simply because the mid range mobile graphics just aren't ready to push all those pixels for heavy graphics usage.

I can pretty much guarantee you that this is why there won't be an iMac with a retina display. Those also use mobile cards and the resolution needed to get the "retina" tag would be insane.

Piggie
Jun 29, 2012, 01:39 PM
And this is exactly the problem with Apple computers for, dare i say it Decades.

They pretty much always have fitted poor graphics cards.
Probably the main reason why the Mac almost died when the PC gaming was zooming ahead. Apple just did, and do fit poor sub par graphics to their consumer machines.

Even the top iMacs have laptop graphics are they are obsessed about saving the extra half an inch of thickness on a desktop machine.

It's been Apple computers weak spot for so many many years and STILL they never seem to get it. :(

adamfilip
Jun 29, 2012, 01:44 PM
Great display with a crap poor video card. Im surprised they let this ship like this.

Blackforge
Jun 29, 2012, 01:45 PM
Im feeling this is more a software issue then a hardware issue. According to Nvidia website the graphics card can handle up to 3840 x 2160.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gt-650m/specifications

That is just the maximum resolution supported. That is not saying it handles it "well". The old Nvidia 9400M in my Mac Mini supported my 30" monitor (2560x1600) and also multiple displays... however it did not do it very well.

JTToft
Jun 29, 2012, 01:46 PM
I really wish that Anandtech review was more specific about the performance of the Intel HD 4000 vs. the GeForce GT 650M in this regard. For instance, it isn't mentioned if the browser scrolling test was performed with the integrated or the discrete graphics...

Xian Zhu Xuande
Jun 29, 2012, 01:47 PM
Pretty interesting. I'm typing this on my RMBP right now with Photoshop, Illustrator, Parallels, iTunes, and a dozen other applications open, and I've not noticed any sort of graphics limitations which are giving me any real-world fuss. Scrolling web pages has actually been a pretty smooth experience (maybe I'm missing out on some of the pages that are causing trouble). Upon reading the article I did try CTRL-zooming in and out on the page and that's not buttery smooth, but definitely more than smooth enough.

I definitely expect that any small performance issues are going to be cleaned completely or mostly in Mountain Lion.

As for scrolling, when I first started using the computer I did notice that it seemed just a touch less responsive, but now I can't even notice it (even switching between my Mac Pro and the MacBook Pro I just replaced).

I can't say the same for my Cinema display. Switching back to that after using the RMBP for a month was... jarring.

If someone's interested in buying one of these machines I definitely wouldn't get hung up on this little MacRumors article. Nothing mentioned here has given me even the slightest bit of trouble. Using this computer is a dream. It is the most enjoyable Macintosh I've ever owned.

As for AnandTech, their articles on the RMBP are fantastic. If anyone's going to take something away from them, they should read the full articles, not just snippets turned into sub-stories by third-party sites.

rei101
Jun 29, 2012, 01:47 PM
I am a VJ, I do visuals for concerts, the video ram is so important because I am mixing layers of videos in real time.

If the video card is already maximized I have no room in video ram for the footage and real time composition since the same video card has to feed the computer monitor and the external video output.

The retina may be good for pictures but as I was expecting... no good for videos and real time rendering.

theoski
Jun 29, 2012, 01:48 PM
great display with a crap poor video card. Im surprised they let this ship like this.

+1

gloss
Jun 29, 2012, 01:48 PM
It's less a GPU issue than a CPU issue. Framerate drops occurred on CPU-dependent sites like Facebook.

RalfTheDog
Jun 29, 2012, 01:48 PM
There's no reason to believe this couldn't be sorted out through software.

While you are at it, software upgrade a moped to ride at 180 MPH. If you don't have enough hardware, no software will do the trick.

----------

Even if, they can improve performance a tiny bit by turning over some of the GPU acceleration back to the CPU, I can't picture using this with two external monitors.

iRCL
Jun 29, 2012, 01:48 PM
Listen.

This is a poor excerpt to put on the front page without any context or clarification. I suggest everyone who is actually in the market for a new MacBook Pro in the next 6-8 months should read the article. Anand awarded the MacBook Pro Retina a Bronze Editor's Choice award... the highest award he's ever given to *any* Mac.

Yes, future versions will address some of these little speed bumps, but they are merely pimples on a supermodel. Seriously, don't sweat it.

Listen.

It's kind of irritating to give your post an attention grabbing title. Also I think there's plenty of context in the front page article. Does this reaction have to do with the 'rMBP (Ordered)' in your sig perhaps?

marmotmammal
Jun 29, 2012, 01:49 PM
I'm not interested in seeing Fakebook at 1fps, let alone 50. It's the same bulls*hit at any speed. Very trite measuring reference for Anandtech, 'should use something important.

I don't know how the Retina fps relates to video fps, but if it's correlated, Retina should be fine for FCPX and watching movies.

gpzjock
Jun 29, 2012, 01:50 PM
Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, the uMBP is $400 cheaper than a rMBP if you buy the base spec RAM and HDD model then upgrade it yourself with 16gb RAM and 256gb or 512gb SSD.

iBug2
Jun 29, 2012, 01:52 PM
Do you actually believe that the GPU is capable of running a 3D game at retina resolution at great framerates but cannot scroll a webpage at the same framerate? Do you actually believe that a 2D webpage puts more work on the GPU than a fully featured 3D game like Diablo 3?

This is not about the GPU. The GPU is capable of pushing even more pixels at really high framerates than that. This is simply the software and scaling algorithms. It'll be faster in time due to optimisations in software.

My 9400M in 2009 MBP can even scroll Facebook at 1920*1200 resolution at smooth fps. GT650M is 4-5x faster than 9400M and yet it is trying to push 2.25X many pixels. So basically the GT650M performance should be more or less equivalent to 2x performance I get from 9400M.

koolmagicguy
Jun 29, 2012, 01:52 PM
There's no reason to believe this couldn't be sorted out through software.

Except for the fact that it's a hardware problem.

nagromme
Jun 29, 2012, 01:53 PM
I would say you could always (in rare cases where you see a performance issue you actually care about) run in 1440x900 and get GREAT performance, giving up retina sharpness for that specific task... but I donít think thereís any non-hack way to make the new MBP run in 1440x900. (Other than for games, at leastóthey give you lots of res options.)

20 fps is practically a motion picture anyway... Iíd accept that occasional ďproblemĒ in trade for the far better display.

Looked at another way... imagine if retina displays (usually fast and smooth but sometimes less so) were simply the norm for laptops. And then a new kind of laptop came along that was better: really super smooth framerates in ALL situations! But what if to do that, it had to disable retina mode and run low-res at certain times. People would be a LOT more upset about that! Theyíd rather have retina mode than an unfailing 60fps.

henjin
Jun 29, 2012, 01:55 PM
On the desktop front you are looking at a GTX 670/680 for this kind of power in 3D. I know this is on the 2D/desktop rendering side but going from 1356 shaders down to 384 and at lower clocks is going have a large impact.

1440 x 900 or 900p is going to be the native turf for a GT 640/650M

HP and DELL offer the same GPU from nVidia with 2GB of VRAM to Apple's 1GB of VRAM. I wonder if they had not had to limit the VRAM there would have been this problem?

But then the heat would have been a major problem as it is with HP's Dreamcolor screens.

I do not regard any of Apple's 2012 new MacBook Pros real mobile workstations but more suited for prosumer demographic.

Xian Zhu Xuande
Jun 29, 2012, 01:55 PM
Except for the fact that it's a hardware problem.
There's plenty that can be done to address whatever issue, along these lines, that people are actually experiencing through software. Though I'm definitely not seeing any real issues. Perhaps a few small things which can be smoothed up just a little bit, and that should fall in nicely with the kind of thing Apple normally does.

Nightarchaon
Jun 29, 2012, 01:56 PM
Listen.

It's kind of irritating to give your post an attention grabbing title. Also I think there's plenty of context in the front page article. Does this reaction have to do with the 'rMBP (Ordered)' in your sig perhaps?

Listen.

http://www.gamexplain.com/storyimages/1334614999navi.jpg

Kilamite
Jun 29, 2012, 01:57 PM
Are they measuring this using the Intel GPU or discrete graphics?

Thought animations etc were fine when the discrete graphics were being used?

iBug2
Jun 29, 2012, 01:58 PM
Except for the fact that it's a hardware problem.

Except that it's not a hardware problem.

lilo777
Jun 29, 2012, 02:00 PM
I'm just trying to figure out why MR is posting a week old review from Anandtech. This isn't news... or rumors...

Maybe because not everyone reads Anandtech? Are you annoyed by the fact that MR published week long report or the fact that they published a report that exposes flaws in Apple hardware?

iBug2
Jun 29, 2012, 02:01 PM
I would say you could always (in rare cases where you see a performance issue you actually care about) run in 1440x900 and get GREAT performance, giving up retina sharpness for that specific task... but I donít think thereís any non-hack way to make the new MBP run in 1440x900. (Other than for games, at leastóthey give you lots of res options.)

20 fps is practically a motion picture anyway... Iíd accept that occasional ďproblemĒ in trade for the far better display.

Looked at another way... imagine if retina displays (usually fast and smooth but sometimes less so) were simply the norm for laptops. And then a new kind of laptop came along that was better: really super smooth framerates in ALL situations! But what if to do that, it had to disable retina mode and run low-res at certain times. People would be a LOT more upset about that! Theyíd rather have retina mode than an unfailing 60fps.

Basically it should run the fastest at the 2880*1800 resolution due to no scaling algorithms being used at all. What causes this "lag" is scaling when you use different resolutions. Lion renders the page at quadruple resolution and then downscales, which is a lot of work on the CPU. But if you run it at native resolution then it should be the fastest possible. I hope that the retina resolution through the HDPI mode is as fast as the native resolution as well because that's what most people will use.

Fortimir
Jun 29, 2012, 02:04 PM
Listen.

It's kind of irritating to give your post an attention grabbing title. Also I think there's plenty of context in the front page article. Does this reaction have to do with the 'rMBP (Ordered)' in your sig perhaps?

If that's all it takes to irritate you, I'd hate to be in a relationship with you.

And regardless of my personal vested interests, I was merely saying that if you read the article, which I have completely, it's not as bad as this post made it sound. It was semi-alarmist.

blow45
Jun 29, 2012, 02:04 PM
I'm just trying to figure out why MR is posting a week old review from Anandtech. This isn't news... or rumors...

Yeah me too, I was reading this and I said, wait a second I was reading this a week ago at the lalo shrimp page....

Xian Zhu Xuande
Jun 29, 2012, 02:05 PM
Basically it should run the fastest at the 2880*1800 resolution due to no scaling algorithms being used at all. What causes this "lag" is scaling when you use different resolutions. Lion renders the page at quadruple resolution and then downscales, which is a lot of work on the CPU. But if you run it at native resolution then it should be the fastest possible. I hope that the retina resolution through the HDPI mode is as fast as the native resolution as well because that's what most people will use.
For what it's worth I'm running in 1680x1050 (3360x2100) and the machine has been running beautifully (at least so far as I outlined in my comment earlier). So it definitely looks like at least this level of up/down scaling doesn't stop the machine from running extremely well. I can't speak for the higher resolutions. I tried it out, but I can't imagine being as productive beyond this.

derbothaus
Jun 29, 2012, 02:05 PM
Great display with a crap poor video card. Im surprised they let this ship like this.

You just summarized all Apple offerings ever.

HurtinMinorKey
Jun 29, 2012, 02:06 PM
Why? A larger device will be able to suck up more power, have a more powerful CPU, GPU, and RAM. It will also be able to more efficiently cool everything.

Whatever modest improvements in GPU you are talking about will be swamped by the increased number of pixels required to get retina on a iMac screen.

bharatgupta
Jun 29, 2012, 02:06 PM
i was right about this, i still like the older mb pro models and this thing is just a techno showcase for apple it is bound to face these lags

Fortimir
Jun 29, 2012, 02:07 PM
So much for the full retina version of Diablo 3. If this has lag scrolling on Facebook, I can't imagine the poor frame rates it will get in a game at full resolution...

Probably should do your research first. It's been discussed ad nauseam that Diablo 3 runs at full retina 2880x1880 resolution very well, aside from some of the more difficult parts late in the game, where even there it is still playable.

Lance-AR
Jun 29, 2012, 02:07 PM
I wonder if this will slumber the retina iMac supporters or just encourage the AIO with desktop graphics crowd?

iChrist
Jun 29, 2012, 02:08 PM
So Apple released tech that wasn't ready yet. Awesome.

Another early adopt fail

derbothaus
Jun 29, 2012, 02:09 PM
HP and DELL offer the same GPU from nVidia with 2GB of VRAM to Apple's 1GB of VRAM. I wonder if they had not had to limit the VRAM there would have been this problem?


Unfortunately yes they would still have this problem. Most likely it isn't VRAM it is 10.7's crap GPU (over) usage and underpowered shader processors on the chip they selected. If it plays better in 10.8 then there you go. EVERY user who has moved to 10.7 on ALL apple products notices a GPU slowdown with Lion. Why do you think so many are still using 10.6.8?

J.L.Photography
Jun 29, 2012, 02:09 PM
Just finished with apple, unfortunately for me, apple gave me the "apple is doing the best we can" when I asked about any type of compensation while I wait over the weekend for delivery...

Telp
Jun 29, 2012, 02:09 PM
I'm struck between two feelings here. I want to say, this is fantastic. To see Apple pushing the envelope again is great! Here's something that hasn't been done before and we're using the best technology currently to make it work. Imagine what will happen with future GPUs!

Then again, if the user experience is that poor, (is it? I haven't tested it out yet) then maybe they should have waited 6 months maybe and had a conference just for the rMBP.

In either case, Apple is trying to stay ahead and pushing current technology, and I think that is excellent!

Fortimir
Jun 29, 2012, 02:10 PM
Great display with a crap poor video card. Im surprised they let this ship like this.

You just summarized all Apple offerings ever.

The 650M is the highest-end graphics card that would meet size, energy, and heat criteria for this build-out. The 680, for example, is an energy-sucking furnace. As others have mentioned elsewhere, they really should call it the 660M, because it's been tweaked and overclocked to its limit out of the box, as well.

It's far from a crap poor video card. It's a massively graphics-intensive display. It will play many of the top 3D games out right now at full to near-full settings and resolution.

derbothaus
Jun 29, 2012, 02:12 PM
Why not?

Not enough PCI lanes in Thunderbolt right now. Maybe OK for node based GPGPU but not really real time screen usage. Would be like as fast as an AGP 4X card.

----------

The 650M is the highest-end graphics card that would meet size, energy, and heat criteria for this build-out. The 680, for example, is an energy-sucking furnace. As others have mentioned elsewhere, they really should call it the 660M, because it's been tweaked and overclocked to its limit out of the box, as well.

It's far from a crap poor video card. It's a massively graphics-intensive display. It will play many of the top 3D games out right now at full to near-full settings and resolution.

So TDP being what it is they should have waited or engineered a better cooling system. And really a 650M can play games at 2880x1880 at high settings? Clearly your joking. My 5870 is faster and starts chocking at 1920.

Shrink
Jun 29, 2012, 02:12 PM
I'm just trying to figure out why MR is posting a week old review from Anandtech. This isn't news... or rumors...

Possibly because not all of us have the time (or inclination) to read Anandtech or all of the other tech info sites.

My life does not depend on instantaneous knowledge of all things technological. The fact that this information appeared elsewhere is not, for me at least, a tragedy.

Sorry for being such an out-of-it old fart, but I appreciate MR providing me information, even if it is more than moments old.:D

pubwvj
Jun 29, 2012, 02:14 PM
I warned of this... More pixels takes more processing to drive. That in turn limits the available processing for real work and is going to burn more battery. Not good.

Xian Zhu Xuande
Jun 29, 2012, 02:15 PM
Then again, if the user experience is that poor, (is it? I haven't tested it out yet) then maybe they should have waited 6 months maybe and had a conference just for the rMBP.
It isn't.

CodeBreaker
Jun 29, 2012, 02:16 PM
Hmmm, I'm so confused. But this post is moving me more towards the higher end 15" non retina MBP.

nikhsub1
Jun 29, 2012, 02:16 PM
So Apple released tech that wasn't ready yet. Awesome.
They always do this... look at the first iPad, it is horribly slow and will be obsolete with iOS 6. You need mega GPU to push around that many pixels - it's not Apple's fault per se, they obviously can't put something more in the rMBP at this point.

BC2009
Jun 29, 2012, 02:17 PM
I NEED a dedicated GPU also. I'm not sure. I may try using my current laptop or maybe my ipad 3 and just bring my desktop to college. I really wanted to leave it at home though.

Get a Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover (smart cover keyboard) for your iPad for note-taking in class and then bring your desktop along. I'm not sure what the need is for a dedicated GPU (gaming?) but I think you won't have to wait more than 1 year for an improvement on this front and if the Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover helps curb your laptop needs for that year then you are only investing $100 and you can pickup the next generation of MBPR next year.

If you really need for dedicated GPU is gaming, then a desktop is going to do better on that front anyway. I went through most of college using the dorm room computers until my senior year when I bought a Mac clone with a bonus I made from an intern job (yes it has been many years since college).

Anyway, if the Air is not for you then try to avoid spending a large chunk of money until next year. Personally, I think the Air is the perfect college student machine. The MBRP is something I would use in my software engineering work, but is overkill for many tasks.


The best advice I can give to any college student is to try to avoid spending money if you can (unless, of course, you are loaded). The less debt you leave college with the better. I wish somebody had told me that, but it was a lesson I had to learn the hard way by paying off all my credit card debt after college. Another piece of advice -- if you sign up for a credit card on campus, use it sparingly to build credit by only carrying debt for short periods (one to six months) and never push the card's limits.

Aodhan
Jun 29, 2012, 02:22 PM
I am devoted to Apple, but I am not deluded. That's why I went with the mid 2012 non-retina.

ReallyBigFeet
Jun 29, 2012, 02:22 PM
Yep. Time will solve these issues.

A 13" Air with Retina display is probably still a ways off, but what I'm looking forward to.

This is the first time in 6 years I've not jumped on the latest and greatest Mac notebook release.

Looks like I made a good call to wait for this one.

Ryth
Jun 29, 2012, 02:24 PM
This is why I feel like waiting for the 2nd revision really is a good idea.

Agree...and I don't think a 1GB dedicated GPU is enough either...reason I didn't get one.

I think this is the test batch honestly.

Now, I'd get an iMac Retina if they came out.

RamGuy
Jun 29, 2012, 02:25 PM
What kind of misleading article is this? Did the Macrumours article author even read the Anandtech review?

The GPU has an easy time with its part of the process but the CPUís workload is borderline too much for a single core to handle. Throw a more complex website at it and things get bad quickly. Facebook combines a lot of compressed images with text - every single image is decompressed on the CPU before being handed off to the GPU. Combine that with other elements that are processed on the CPU and you get a recipe for choppy scrolling.


Of course the GPU will struggle with graphical demanding task, especially if you are running in scaled 1920x1200 etc... But the part which macrumours are referring too is pretty much CPU bottlenecked and not GPU limited.

wizard
Jun 29, 2012, 02:29 PM
I'm really curious to see when external GPUS via thunderbolt will become available.

TB simply isn't fast enough for this to be viable.

----------

So Apple released tech that wasn't ready yet. Awesome.

If anything the machine is more than ready, it is a true break through.

Allegrotechie
Jun 29, 2012, 02:30 PM
Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.
Well, I have the base model and I play COD 4, Diablo 3. I use Apature 3 and i don't have any problems. So maybe that problem is just for some people. Never does mine stutter or freeze or lag. I love it! I would recommend you get it! If you really don't want to, get the Air, but if you have the money, get the rMBP.

markieg
Jun 29, 2012, 02:31 PM
and everyone down voted me on the press day because I said the second revision of a new product is always worth waiting for.....

brutusvimes
Jun 29, 2012, 02:32 PM
This is characteristic of the current generation of Apple products. After all, the iPad, featuring a beautiful retina display, is both hotter and heavier than its predecessor as well.

There's nothing inherently bad about this, and you can see why Apple is pushing out these features now to stay ahead of the competition. But it requires the machinery to work to the max to push all these pixels. Hopefully, the next generation will have an easier time coping and finding a better balance between presentation and graphic capabilities.

2crazy
Jun 29, 2012, 02:32 PM
Another early adopt fail

Who let the trolls in? :rolleyes:

alexkywalker
Jun 29, 2012, 02:36 PM
:( I was really excited about the Retina display for graphic applications but given those limitations I am thankful I held off buying one of those just yet.

apolloa
Jun 29, 2012, 02:39 PM
I played with a Retina MB Pro for the first time yesterday, I have to say it's damn fast! But that's the SSD etc. I also thought the screen looked like my iPhone 4 in it's clarity etc, which is fantastic! But I have been worried about the resolution being pushed by the 650gt, I thought it was enough, but obviously this report states otherwise.
I would say wait for next years model in this case, the new case design is great and I would rather have that then make it thicker again to accommodate a more powerful GPU like a 675gtx.

wizard
Jun 29, 2012, 02:41 PM
Except for the fact that it's a hardware problem.

It isn't. ML should address these issues just fine.

gagaliya
Jun 29, 2012, 02:41 PM
At the higher scaled resolutions, since the GPU has to render as much as 9.2MP, even UI performance can be sluggish. Thereís simply nothing that can be done at this point

I have a brilliant idea... How about upgrading to a better gpu than this piece of crap?

Thunderhawks
Jun 29, 2012, 02:41 PM
and everyone down voted me on the press day because I said the second revision of a new product is always worth waiting for.....

Same here:-)

Will replace my current MBP with an October 2011 MBP and wait until Apple Care expires on that one.

By then we should be on Version 2.5 or 3 around the corner.

We'll have repair records, heating info, battery info etc.etc.

cyberlocke
Jun 29, 2012, 02:41 PM
How does this report jive with an earlier article?

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/20/retina-macbook-pro-can-run-three-external-displays-simultaneously/

vampyr
Jun 29, 2012, 02:43 PM
I think Anandtech missed the point on the article.

Apple has ALWAYS been pushing the limits of their hardware. I think that's what makes Apple so innovative.
We wouldn't have the technology we have today if it wasn't for software pushing the limits of hardware.

Fortunately, Apple's latest invention will once again make other manufacturers take note and we are one full step closer to making those images on our screen seem even more life like.

Way to go Apple! Keep pushing the limits! :D

kmanmx
Jun 29, 2012, 02:46 PM
Maybe this will shut up the people clamoring for retina on the new iMac.

This problem very likely would not exist on a new iMac. An iMac is plugged into AC power, Apple can put any GPU in their they like with little concern over power consumption. Higher end GPU's can and do cope with resolutions in excess of 4K fine on the desktop.

My GPU uses 1% at 1920x1080 on desktop use. Even at 10x the pixel count, it would likely never get above 15% usage.

jwhite878
Jun 29, 2012, 02:46 PM
I've been absolutely loving every minute of using my Retina Macbook Pro. It's simply the best computer I've ever owned Ė or used. If this report is discouraging you, and you don't mind spending the money on it, let me just say you won't regret your purchase (unless you plan on doing heavy gaming, which I don't).

wizard
Jun 29, 2012, 02:46 PM
Just finished with apple, unfortunately for me, apple gave me the "apple is doing the best we can" when I asked about any type of compensation while I wait over the weekend for delivery...

Poor baby can't handle a weekend alone without his MBP?

ThrawnTHX
Jun 29, 2012, 02:51 PM
I've been a MacRumors reader for years and I think this is the absolute worst article they've ever posted. The snippets taken from the Anandtech review are taken completely out of context and focus entirely on what were described as minor issues that don't have an impact on day-to-day use.

My advice is that if you were on the fence about buying one, get it. You won't regret it. Besides, you have 14 days to return.

I think this article should be revised with a different title and include more of the positive aspects included in the source material like say for instance, the bronze award, the first ever given to a mac by Anandtech.

aristotle
Jun 29, 2012, 02:52 PM
Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.
You need to take the review with a grain of salt. It is more than good enough even in retina mode for your "college" work and if you want "faster" performance, you can downgrade to the 1440X900 non-retina mode. You don't have to use one of the scaled modes all the time or even retina mode.

You are still getting a better display panel even if you have it in double res with no scaling.

iQuit
Jun 29, 2012, 02:52 PM
It sound likes the product was rushed a little bit... but looking back first revision Apple products are always like a beta. Remember the first revision Intel MBP?

Misaki
Jun 29, 2012, 02:53 PM
I'm really curious to see when external GPUS via thunderbolt will become available.

You're planning on carrying around a device larger than the laptop? No, I didn't think so.

I amazes me how many people just don't understand what the TB port is. The TB port is a 4-lane PCIe path, at best. Graphics cards are 16 lane. So unless you are planning on only utilizing 25% of the bandwidth, this is a failure. This is also why a Retina external monitor is likely going to come with stickers "for direct connection to the computer only" Go take a look at benchmarks where the benchmark user saturates the TB bus and has the monitor running at maximum resolution.

The TB port, as-is, is not in a state where you're going to be able to just dump anything on it and get 100% of the performance. Adding a retina display goes from 5.8Gbit/sec at 1920x1200 to 21.4Gbit/sec at 3840x2160. Display port supports only 17Gbit/sec of video bandwidth. The TB interface only supports 40Gbits of half duplex communications. So where are you going to get the bandwidth to run a video card when it can't even push the pixels required for the retina display?

The reason for Safari's performance to be pretty poor on a high resolution display, lies in the underlying way web browsers render things. They are not natively using the video card at all. All of it is done on the CPU. Things like Adobe flash, even when they are GPU aware don't even scale beyond 720p because of limitations of the flash platform. Go take any old flash cartoon made with Flash 8 or earlier, newgrounds has plenty of them, maximize the flash animation. You'll see several issues:
1. If it contains flash video, it will tear into "bands" across the number of cpu cores in the system
2. If it contains vector animation, it will drop frames at all quality levels once it gets past 720p. Expanding it to 1080p or the Retina display will likely see it drop into single-digit framerates. This is because Flash, is only as fast as a single core in the system, which we've gone from 3Ghz cores in the Pentium 4 down to 1.7Ghz cores in Ivy Bridge.

As a result, Webkit is also only as fast as a single core in the system. You may get separate threads working on different tabs, or separate threads working on separate flash animations in the page, but ultimately, only one thread is ever used to render a web page. Even Javascript implementations in other browsers have gone from supporting multiple threads to only a single thread (http://blog.mozilla.org/luke/2012/01/24/jsruntime-is-now-officially-single-threaded/) , so the reason facebook gets slower with the larger the screen real estate, comes back to only one thread being used for a script. Little of the page can be rendered directly on the GPU since it has to interact with the web browser DOM anyway.

So you're seeing the slow down because more has to be done by the CPU. Not the GPU. 4 cores don't render a page, only one does. When you make that page 4 times larger in area, you don't magically get that for free.

Dr McKay
Jun 29, 2012, 02:54 PM
If that's all it takes to irritate you, I'd hate to be in a relationship with you.

Everyone has their little quirks. I for one harbor a secret desire to punch slow moving people in the back of the head.

Eidorian
Jun 29, 2012, 02:56 PM
HP and DELL offer the same GPU from nVidia with 2GB of VRAM to Apple's 1GB of VRAM. I wonder if they had not had to limit the VRAM there would have been this problem?

But then the heat would have been a major problem as it is with HP's Dreamcolor screens.

I do not regard any of Apple's 2012 new MacBook Pros real mobile workstations but more suited for prosumer demographic.Apple has always had a pathetic amount of VRAM over the years but you also have to take into account the tiny logic boards. VRAM densities are up but how much PCB space does Apple have when compared to Dell or HP for the GPU + VRAM?

ThrawnTHX
Jun 29, 2012, 02:56 PM
Steve Jobs wouldn't have let this product ship.

I'd speculate he oversaw most of the rMBP development and implementation of the display. But let's for a moment assume that this idea never even occurred to Apple until after Jobs' passing. Even if that were the case your comment is a typical bash that I expect to see against every product release from this company for as long as I live.

Thanks for your remarkable insight.

Rocketman
Jun 29, 2012, 02:57 PM
This is why I feel like waiting for the 2nd revision really is a good idea.Having bought Macs for many years now, they are always graphics crippled or marginal. Since the technology exists to add some variant of Crossfire to laptops, this is clearly a cost saving feature. I have been posting here for over a decade that Apple should put far better graphics in all computers and devices as that one part improves the overall experience and supports advanced features such as external displays for various purposes.

I would like to see Apple come out with a 4 core GPU ASAP (A6G). They finally addressed I/O with TB, albiet at delayed and high cost and limited accessory availability, but be careful what you wish for. Apple is clearly leading displays, production features and even supplier availability issues.

Now a little graphics love please?

Rocketman

RoboCop001
Jun 29, 2012, 02:57 PM
Big things start with laggy beginnings.

AbSoluTc
Jun 29, 2012, 02:57 PM
There's no reason to believe this couldn't be sorted out through software.

Lol, software doesn't fix everything. It's sad how a lot of Apple people think this is the case. :(

50548
Jun 29, 2012, 02:58 PM
Does this mean that the rMBP is crap at least until its second rev launches? Guinea pigs anyone?

nserp
Jun 29, 2012, 02:58 PM
I'd saved up waiting for the new MBP to arrive, but because I needed it for my business I couldn't risk the lack of repair options, and the spec I needed would have cost more that I could easily afford. My 2008 MBP is creaking, and I needed to do something. So I popped into the local PC World and they're having a clearance sale of the late 2011 models. £350 knocked off the 15" i7 2.2 Ghz. Not the highest spec, but another £50 bought be 8GB of RAM, the screen colour saturation is much improved over my old model, and I still have my optical drive. A wise decision and a bargain to boot. I realised I could have got it, plus the top of the range MBA for the same price as the MBP Retina 512GB with an upgraded 16GB of RAM. Two years from now, I'll go for the retina, but I think version 1 is maybe just too much of a risk and way too expensive.

wizard
Jun 29, 2012, 02:59 PM
I played with a Retina MB Pro for the first time yesterday, I have to say it's damn fast! But that's the SSD etc. I also thought the screen looked like my iPhone 4 in it's clarity etc, which is fantastic! But I have been worried about the resolution being pushed by the 650gt, I thought it was enough, but obviously this report states otherwise.

Actually the article is crap, read the source material instead.

Beyond that there is a thing called Mountain Lion coming which greatly expands GPU usage, performance of all Macs should be better with Mountain Lion.

I would say wait for next years model in this case, the new case design is great and I would rather have that then make it thicker again to accommodate a more powerful GPU like a 675gtx.

You can wait if you want but there is no certainty that lower power GPUs will arrive in that time frame. TSMC has or is having enough problems at its current node.

Mac Rumors is apparently trolling for page hits or something because the article isn't balanced at all. Give Mountain Lion a chance when it comes out.

ericinboston
Jun 29, 2012, 03:02 PM
Yikes...Apple's getting a LOT of bad PR on the new, ultra expensive laptop.

Releasing a product that can't even do what it is touted/flaunted by the CEO of the company is just bad. Not to mention you have to wait 6+ weeks for delivery which is an eternity in the technology and computer worlds.

Apple likely should have beefed the system up even more and cut Apple's profits by a few percentage points in order to be the first Retina laptop in the world...rather than try to build seemingly the bare minimum to get the technical hurdles done.

I know the tech specs and equations for # pixels, resolution, and all that fun stuff...but it makes you wonder, as a consumer, how Apple can achieve Retina on a $499 10" screen but not a $2200+ 15" screen.

wizard
Jun 29, 2012, 03:04 PM
Lol, software doesn't fix everything. It's sad how a lot of Apple people think this is the case. :(

However there are enough people running Mountain Lion right now that one can say it will make a big difference.

In any event what people need to realize is that it could be a couple of years before significantly faster hardware can be had.

blueicedj
Jun 29, 2012, 03:05 PM
Is there really no way a software update could fix this?!? I'm really worried about this laptop I just bought =(

Fortimir
Jun 29, 2012, 03:05 PM
Actually the article is crap, read the source material instead.

Be careful! I got many downvotes for speaking such heretical musings. :rolleyes:

ThrawnTHX
Jun 29, 2012, 03:06 PM
I agree with what "wizard" said above me. It's unfortunate how many people are taking this article at face value and passing on what is the best Apple notebook ever produced.

MacRumors is doing its readers a great disservice by posting this one-sided steaming pile of crap.

Read the source article on Anandtech before you folks draw any conclusions, please.

ericinboston
Jun 29, 2012, 03:06 PM
Beyond that there is a thing called Mountain Lion coming which greatly expands GPU usage, performance of all Macs should be better with Mountain Lion.



So let me get this straight...Apple releases a product that doesn't work right as advertised/promised and expects its customers to upgrade the OS months down the road in order to (supposedly) perform the way it was supposed to perform in the first place. Mmmmmm, sorry...that's either misleading advertising or if it's a bug, Apple should claim it a bug and address it.

uknowimright
Jun 29, 2012, 03:07 PM
Blizzard makes games that are benchmark worthy?

Fortimir
Jun 29, 2012, 03:07 PM
Is there really no way a software update could fix this?!? I'm really worried about this laptop I just bought =(

Calm down. Breathe. The situation is fine. Once you've upgraded to Mountain Lion, you probably wouldn't notice a problem unless someone pointed it out. The fact there is a front page article about it shows the issue is overblown. It's a great computer and is very fast.

Rocketman
Jun 29, 2012, 03:07 PM
Mac Rumors is apparently trolling for page hits or something because the article isn't balanced at all. Give Mountain Lion a chance when it comes out.Huh? They reported news about a reputable testing site and picked out probably the only area where the RMBP is less than stellar.

Mountain Lion is not today tech, so your comment is silly. Twice.

That was definitely page one news for two reasons. The latest performance news on the newest poster child for Apple going forward. Honest reporting about its limitations. Hmmm FB at 20fps instead of 50fps. Shocking!

It couldn't possibly be spotty FB coding . . . . .

Rocketman

iViking
Jun 29, 2012, 03:10 PM
Maybe I'm just less sensitive to these things than other people, but I spend literally all day on mine as it's my main work machine. I'm enjoying every minute of it at the moment.[/QUOTE]


I agree! If Apple is pushing the envelope they can push it all they want because this user experience is great and the screen is crispy clear! Will be hard to go back to anything else. Old screens look fuzzy by comparison.

50548
Jun 29, 2012, 03:10 PM
So let me get this straight...Apple releases a product that doesn't work right as advertised/promised and expects its customers to upgrade the OS months down the road in order to (supposedly) perform the way it was supposed to perform in the first place. Mmmmmm, sorry...that's either misleading advertising or if it's a bug, Apple should claim it a bug and address it.

With the passing of SJ, it's clear that Apple no longer has the long-term vision to REALLY innovate. Every product launch in Cook's era is just an incremental update of existing things, rMBP included (i.e., a crippled retina display and nothing else new).

Time to sell your Apple shares, because the company will be moribund in less than two years...you reat it here first. ;)

Ryox
Jun 29, 2012, 03:10 PM
Hardware just isn't easy for the rMBP's resolution. I dont think 2nd revision will be good enough, will Nvidia be able to produce chips fast enough to meet the resolution requirements? maybe 3rd revision we would start to catch up?
Maybe we need quad core graphics like the iPad?

wizard
Jun 29, 2012, 03:11 PM
Yikes...Apple's getting a LOT of bad PR on the new, ultra expensive laptop.

Most of it is garbage.

Releasing a product that can't even do what it is touted/flaunted by the CEO of the company is just bad. Not to mention you have to wait 6+ weeks for delivery which is an eternity in the technology and computer worlds.

It does exactly what it is claimed to do. Where did you get this non sense?

Apple likely should have beefed the system up even more and cut Apple's profits by a few percentage points in order to be the first Retina laptop in the world...rather than try to build seemingly the bare minimum to get the technical hurdles done.

you don't know what you are talking about.

I know the tech specs and equations for # pixels, resolution, and all that fun stuff...but it makes you wonder, as a consumer, how Apple can achieve Retina on a $499 10" screen but not a $2200+ 15" screen.

Can you not read for content? The machine is fine at its native Retina resolution, it is when doing other resolutions that the system needs to work harder.

Fortimir
Jun 29, 2012, 03:12 PM
Blizzard makes games that are benchmark worthy?

Starcraft 2 is fantastic for benchmarking the CPU. Diablo 3 is a good mid-level benchmark. But it's certainly no Crysis 2, ArmA II, or Metro 2033...

Aco Strkalj
Jun 29, 2012, 03:12 PM
Told ya.

bdavis89
Jun 29, 2012, 03:12 PM
I NEED a dedicated GPU also. I'm not sure. I may try using my current laptop or maybe my ipad 3 and just bring my desktop to college. I really wanted to leave it at home though.

I know right? First world problems. :rolleyes:

IPlayFair
Jun 29, 2012, 03:13 PM
This is why I feel like waiting for the 2nd revision really is a good idea.

YouTube review videos aren't showing these concerns. Remember, you have 14 days to use it and then return it if you are not satisfied.

deannnnn
Jun 29, 2012, 03:14 PM
Don't regret my purchase. Not even a little bit.

Fortimir
Jun 29, 2012, 03:14 PM
With the passing of SJ, it's clear that Apple no longer has the long-term vision to REALLY innovate.

Wut? Shoving a desktop computing experience with the finest computer screen on earth into a near-ultrabook... all while doing it elegantly is bad vision... how?

What would be "innovation" to you?

Eidorian
Jun 29, 2012, 03:16 PM
I think Anandtech missed the point on the article.

Apple has ALWAYS been pushing the limits of their hardware. I think that's what makes Apple so innovative.
We wouldn't have the technology we have today if it wasn't for software pushing the limits of hardware.

Fortunately, Apple's latest invention will once again make other manufacturers take note and we are one full step closer to making those images on our screen seem even more life like.

Way to go Apple! Keep pushing the limits! :DThinner and unable to push the display smoothly? Apple has months to design these things. The display panel is one thing but nVidia gives OEMs months to play with new GPUs for a design. Apple stuck with the midrange GT 650M. We also have claims that Mountain Lion is better on the Retina Macbook Pro. Higher end Kepler GPUs is just now trickling into the market and Mountain Lion if those claims are true. Why release this today?

We have known about Apple's fetish for anorexic computers but they have to draw the line somewhere. It feels like MacBook Air release 1.0 v. 2.0.

But it's so thin!

You're planning on carrying around a device larger than the laptop? No, I didn't think so.

I amazes me how many people just don't understand what the TB port is. The TB port is a 4-lane PCIe path, at best. Graphics cards are 16 lane. So unless you are planning on only utilizing 25% of the bandwidth, this is a failure. This is also why a Retina external monitor is likely going to come with stickers "for direct connection to the computer only" Go take a look at benchmarks where the benchmark user saturates the TB bus and has the monitor running at maximum resolution. You are in for a surprise at x4 2.0. Even with a little overhead.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI-Express_Scaling/

ericinboston
Jun 29, 2012, 03:17 PM
With the passing of SJ, it's clear that Apple no longer has the long-term vision to REALLY innovate....

Well I'm no fanboy but your comment is beginning to hit home....for almost a year now we've been hearing 2 main rumors:

1)right before SJ died he stated he finally "cracked" the tv problem.

2)Apple folks since Nov 2011 have been talking about the next greatest super secret thing that Apple will release....I still hear the crickets.


My guess is their will be some kind of tv thing...not sure how that will impact/replace all the Apple TV lovers out there...or the folks that already own beautiful 50" tvs that they can't/won't simply toss in the trash.

I secretly think #1 is just a joke that SJ pulled...when I'm near my deathbed, maybe I'll say something like "I finally figured out who killed JFK...it was <last breath>"

:)

Overall I think we'll see what Apple introduces to consumers before end of 2013...if it's just the same old iOS upgrade stuff (ipods, ipads, iphones) and some Mac updates, Apple can only ride that train so far (as I've stated a lot). Great products right now, but it's getting old and soon there won't be anyone to sell to since anyone who wants one already has one (like an iPod that's been around for 10 years).

CapnJackGig
Jun 29, 2012, 03:17 PM
I'd like to say thanks to all the guinea pigs that paid huge money to test this computer out for Apple.

prfrma
Jun 29, 2012, 03:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnw0Shqt8sU

Fortimir
Jun 29, 2012, 03:18 PM
Huh? They reported news about a reputable testing site and picked out probably the only area where the RMBP is less than stellar.

It couldn't possibly be spotty FB coding . . . . .

THIS. I took a lot of flack for saying this exact thing. A lot of people here commenting about the article without reading it based on the MacRumors commentary.

2IS
Jun 29, 2012, 03:19 PM
Haswell can't come soon enough!

nxent
Jun 29, 2012, 03:19 PM
Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.

interesting. my mbp08 is still running like a champ, though i did just upgrade the hd to a T. once you actually play around with the rmbp in the apple store, you'll find it's quite usable and the differences aren't that noticeable.

theOtherGeoff
Jun 29, 2012, 03:19 PM
My thoughts from another thread on this very issue

I think this was all about getting the HW out there in a steady stream... we're talking probably 1000 units a day sales (300K a year), why delay the hardware that is amazingly sweet, when the OS that adds the butter (caramel? ;-)

Between that and college back to school sales (my son is looking at this... his 15" 2006 Core DuoMBP has a dead fan (or thermostat)), it makes sense.

Apple devices sell when you 'see them' Getting them sold now leverages 'wow, look at that screen' sales references.

Remember... MOST people don't push HW like people like us (you... I'm looking at a 13" MBA to replace my 2009 MacBook Uni... If I need power, I carve out a VM on my frame;-), so they won't see the artifacts at the highest resolutions like we do... especially for 2-3 weeks.

Ozy
Jun 29, 2012, 03:20 PM
I know reviews are good, but I am glad I bought one. All this talk may have had me worried, and honestly, if no one wrote anything about this, I would never have noticed it. This screen is jaw dropping and a pure joy to use at any resolution.

This last week with this machine has really excited me about the future of HiDPI on every platform. This really is a game changer, again with Apple at the forefront to motivate the industry.

swagi
Jun 29, 2012, 03:20 PM
It sound likes the product was rushed a little bit... but looking back first revision Apple products are always like a beta. Remember the first revision Intel MBP?

Oh - the oh so famous "whining issue". I remember that one :rolleyes:

The wisdom of being victim to some flaky PITA issues when striving to early adopting Apple products should be in your buying decision 101s.

But sometimes the urge of a new product is so groundshaking that you accept it - like with the first iPhone. It was technically not even close to its competitors but I haven't had any regret using one.

Those Rev A Intel iMacs - gee, don't get me started.

Yet I still feel the urge to get this RevA rMBP - but I'm not in desperate need for a new laptop and will definitely wait for RevB. But this one will be ordered Day1 :D

wizard
Jun 29, 2012, 03:21 PM
Huh? They reported news about a reputable testing site and picked out probably the only area where the RMBP is less than stellar.

Exactly, they picked out the most negative part of the article and carefully reworked it into an article that attacks the performance of the rMBP.

Mountain Lion is not today tech, so your comment is silly. Twice.

It isn't silly when you have everbody and their brother booming the GPU hardware. Blaming the GPU hardware is kinda bogus anyways because the CPU is a factor too.

That was definitely page one news for two reasons. The latest performance news on the newest poster child for Apple going forward. Honest reporting about its limitations. Hmmm FB at 20fps instead of 50fps. Shocking!

It isn't even honest as to much in the article was glossed over or apparently misunderstood.


It couldn't possibly be spotty FB coding . . . . .

Rocketman

People need to read the entire Anandtech article. It better explains what is going on than this piece. The web site viewed does play a significant part in the experience.

Fortimir
Jun 29, 2012, 03:22 PM
Thinner and unable to push the display smoothly? Apple has months to design these things. The display panel is one thing but nVidia gives OEMs months to play with new GPUs for a design. Apple stuck with the midrange GT 650M.

Web scrolling is CPU (and one core, at that), not GPU. Chalk that up to a combination of bad coding (Facebook, cough) and the limitations of the sheer number of pixels with current browser tech.

The 650M in the retina is also, jokingly, referred to as the 660M since it is tweaked and overclocked out of the box. They didn't go to a 680 because it's an energy-sucking furnace.

GorgonPhone
Jun 29, 2012, 03:24 PM
I'm not surprised. In the notebook market the 650m is considered a mid-range card. I'm somewhat disappointed they didn't outfit it with a more higher end GPU, especially with the price they charge.

apple always goes with lower specs and ram they should .. they did the same with ipad 3... but some devs are figuring it out as seen in the new game dead trigger that is the pest looking retina game so far..

50548
Jun 29, 2012, 03:24 PM
Well I'm no fanboy but your comment is beginning to hit home....for almost a year now we've been hearing 2 main rumors:

1)right before SJ died he stated he finally "cracked" the tv problem.

2)Apple folks since Nov 2011 have been talking about the next greatest super secret thing that Apple will release....I still hear the crickets.


My guess is their will be some kind of tv thing...not sure how that will impact/replace all the Apple TV lovers out there...or the folks that already own beautiful 50" tvs that they can't/won't simply toss in the trash.

I secretly think #1 is just a joke that SJ pulled...when I'm near my deathbed, maybe I'll say something like "I finally figured out who killed JFK...it was <last breath>"

:)

Overall I think we'll see what Apple introduces to consumers before end of 2013...if it's just the same old iOS upgrade stuff (ipods, ipads, iphones) and some Mac updates, Apple can only ride that train so far (as I've stated a lot). Great products right now, but it's getting old and soon there won't be anyone to sell to since anyone who wants one already has one (like an iPod that's been around for 10 years).

Indeed. And I believe that SJ's comment was more related to Apple TV's future interaction with existing screens, NOT about a huge screen launched by Apple itself.

People can't forget that it's MUCH harder to replace your TV, especially a large one. So NO ONE will be changing 50" screens every year, forget about it.

Bottom line: Cook is a GREAT executor and supply-chain manager, but a MISERABLE innovator. Sell your shares while you still can, I am telling ya...Apple stock is gonna tank to the 50s in no time - it's Sculley era all over again - dividends, less secrecy, increments instead of major leaps.

APPLE IS DEAD.

AbSoluTc
Jun 29, 2012, 03:25 PM
However there are enough people running Mountain Lion right now that one can say it will make a big difference.

In any event what people need to realize is that it could be a couple of years before significantly faster hardware can be had.

Mountain Lion won't fix the problems. Only mask them.

Fortimir
Jun 29, 2012, 03:26 PM
It isn't silly when you have everbody and their brother booming the GPU hardware. Blaming the GPU hardware is kinda bogus anyways because the CPU is a factor too.

The browser rendering is entirely a single core on the CPU. Blame the high resolution, current browser technology, and shoddy/bloated coding of many sites.

----------

Mountain Lion won't fix the problems. Only mask them.

What does this even mean?

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 03:26 PM
I like the hater's reasoning. So because of a tiny bit of lag on a few exceptional websites, it is best to avoid buying this product entirely?

Also, to everyone complaining about the GPU, it is the fastest one for it's power foot print, so unless you want 3 hour battery life, this is as good as it gets on a laptop with decent battery.

Finally, the scrolling lag is entirely a limit of the CPU and has nothing to do with the GPU, so again for everyone saying Apple should have done more, please explain, did you expect them to build a CPU better than what Intel has to offer?

Eidorian
Jun 29, 2012, 03:27 PM
Web scrolling is CPU (and one core, at that), not GPU. Chalk that up to a combination of bad coding (Facebook, cough) and the limitations of the sheer number of pixels with current browser tech.

The 650M in the retina is also, jokingly, referred to as the 660M since it is tweaked and overclocked out of the box. They didn't go to a 680 because it's an energy-sucking furnace.Yeah, Facebook's coding is questionable at best but on an Ivy Bridge Core i7? I agree though, try it on another website.

notyourattorney
Jun 29, 2012, 03:28 PM
I have been using mine for 4 days now. Love it. I have noticed some UI lag with Mission Control perhaps twice, both times with 4-5 Mac apps and 4-5 Windows apps (using Parallels) open, hooked up to a VPN, etc. But that is nothing I wouldn't see on my Air sometimes too. The overwhelming majority of websites scroll fine. NYT, MacRumors, Reddit are flawless. ESPN has some jumpiness, but pretty good. The only one I've seen be really laggy is Facebook, Anand is right that it is a mess. (Using Lion)

As I just posted in another thread, Word and other "legacy" apps display text that appears fuzzy, except at native 2880 res, where they are butter. Tiny, tiny butter.

Sure, I can't run Starcraft II at 2880x1440 and Ultra settings. I've got got a Windows gaming rig I built myself last year with a Radeon 6950 2GB, and I am skeptical whether it could do that either--but I don't have a 2880x1440 monitor to test it on.

TL/DR: I'm sure the rMBP does push the limits of its graphics hardware. But general operations are within those limits.

J.L.Photography
Jun 29, 2012, 03:29 PM
Poor baby can't handle a weekend alone without his MBP?

Nope :p

Besides, a new huge upgrade of my current dell c2d POS!!!!

Kludge420
Jun 29, 2012, 03:30 PM
This is fairly typical of Apple; you never want to buy the first version of anything they make since it will be lacking.

They have this obsession with underpowered graphics too. Just look at the "new" Mac Pro with a three year old graphics card slower than the display on your phone.

MH01
Jun 29, 2012, 03:31 PM
I wonder how my sli 680s would cope with this. I imagine very well :eek:

Lol.... My gtx 690 thrives at those res..... Was always suspect of the lightweights in the HD 4000 and GT650...

notyourattorney
Jun 29, 2012, 03:31 PM
Originally Posted by AbSoluTc
Mountain Lion won't fix the problems. Only mask them.

----------



What does this even mean?

Usain Bolt isn't faster than me, he just gets to the finish line first.

Fortimir
Jun 29, 2012, 03:32 PM
Yeah, Facebook's coding is questionable at best but on an Ivy Bridge Core i7? I agree though, try it on another website.

That's what FOUR TIMES the pixels will do. ;)

macnerd93
Jun 29, 2012, 03:36 PM
frankly as long as the screen is bright, free from dead pixels, and at least offers HD resolutions I'm really not bothered about a retina display, at least until GPU's can drive them flawlessly. To me it seems like a ton of wasted power, which could go more for rendering and video encoding etc.

wizard
Jun 29, 2012, 03:37 PM
So let me get this straight...Apple releases a product that doesn't work right as advertised/promised

Don't be an ignorant troll the machine works just as advertised.

and expects its customers to upgrade the OS months down the road in order to (supposedly) perform the way it was supposed to perform in the first place.

The upgrade gives you better performance, as it currently is the retina MBP works fine. Maybe you haven't noticed that past Mac OS updates often improve performance, Mountain Lion is the same story.

In any event read the article referenced instead of relying on Mac Rumors yellow journalism. The actual comments about the machine are far more positive than this bit from Mac Rumors.

Mmmmmm, sorry...that's either misleading advertising or if it's a bug, Apple should claim it a bug and address it.

Bull crap, show me one example of a retina MBP not working correctly! You can't say it isn't working correctly simply because a frame rate in one app doesn't meet some odd performance metric. On both my gen 3 iPad and my old MBP, I can find all sorts of web sites that bring them to a crawl that doesn't imply that either machine is broken. Further if it is understood correctly the problem appear to be with Safari and it's ability to render 4X graphics fast enough for one mode of operation of the screen. That is a CPU / Safari problem, interestingly Safari gets a major update in ML.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 03:37 PM
Lol.... My gtx 690 thrives at those res..... Was always suspect of the lightweights in the HD 4000 and GT650...

Comparing a desktop class GPU to a mobile one, that's your idea of intelligent conversation?

mr.bee
Jun 29, 2012, 03:39 PM
You're planning on carrying around a device larger than the laptop? No, I didn't think so.

I amazes me how many people just don't understand what the TB port is. The TB port is a 4-lane PCIe path, at best. Graphics cards are 16 lane. So unless you are planning on only utilizing 25% of the bandwidth, this is a failure. This is also why a Retina external monitor is likely going to come with stickers "for direct connection to the computer only" Go take a look at benchmarks where the benchmark user saturates the TB bus and has the monitor running at maximum resolution.

The TB port, as-is, is not in a state where you're going to be able to just dump anything on it and get 100% of the performance. Adding a retina display goes from 5.8Gbit/sec at 1920x1200 to 21.4Gbit/sec at 3840x2160. Display port supports only 17Gbit/sec of video bandwidth. The TB interface only supports 40Gbits of half duplex communications. So where are you going to get the bandwidth to run a video card when it can't even push the pixels required for the retina display?

The reason for Safari's performance to be pretty poor on a high resolution display, lies in the underlying way web browsers render things. They are not natively using the video card at all. All of it is done on the CPU. Things like Adobe flash, even when they are GPU aware don't even scale beyond 720p because of limitations of the flash platform. Go take any old flash cartoon made with Flash 8 or earlier, newgrounds has plenty of them, maximize the flash animation. You'll see several issues:
1. If it contains flash video, it will tear into "bands" across the number of cpu cores in the system
2. If it contains vector animation, it will drop frames at all quality levels once it gets past 720p. Expanding it to 1080p or the Retina display will likely see it drop into single-digit framerates. This is because Flash, is only as fast as a single core in the system, which we've gone from 3Ghz cores in the Pentium 4 down to 1.7Ghz cores in Ivy Bridge.

As a result, Webkit is also only as fast as a single core in the system. You may get separate threads working on different tabs, or separate threads working on separate flash animations in the page, but ultimately, only one thread is ever used to render a web page. Even Javascript implementations in other browsers have gone from supporting multiple threads to only a single thread (http://blog.mozilla.org/luke/2012/01/24/jsruntime-is-now-officially-single-threaded/) , so the reason facebook gets slower with the larger the screen real estate, comes back to only one thread being used for a script. Little of the page can be rendered directly on the GPU since it has to interact with the web browser DOM anyway.

So you're seeing the slow down because more has to be done by the CPU. Not the GPU. 4 cores don't render a page, only one does. When you make that page 4 times larger in area, you don't magically get that for free.

Thank u,
Best post i have read on this site in weeks! Thank you! It puts the rmbp in a whole other perspective. I don't believe this is a rev A product. This is an evolution, not a revolutionary product.

Eidorian
Jun 29, 2012, 03:40 PM
Basically it should run the fastest at the 2880*1800 resolution due to no scaling algorithms being used at all. What causes this "lag" is scaling when you use different resolutions. Lion renders the page at quadruple resolution and then downscales, which is a lot of work on the CPU. But if you run it at native resolution then it should be the fastest possible. I hope that the retina resolution through the HDPI mode is as fast as the native resolution as well because that's what most people will use.

That's what FOUR TIMES the pixels will do. ;)Maybe it is time to take a look at the CPU usage too? Try it out on Windows 7/8 where you are not playing the scaling game for "non-native" applications? I remember them dropping the line for "non-Retina" applications but the scaling game, load, and UI responsiveness is a patch job that is not like Apple.

doelcm82
Jun 29, 2012, 03:43 PM
This is why I feel like waiting for the 2nd revision really is a good idea.

My plan is to wait for the third or fourth revision. The 2nd revision will not be perfect, and anything less than perfect is completely and utterly useless.

While I wait, I'm going to enjoy my mid-2012 Retina MBP. It's the third generation of the MBP. Generations are better than revisions.

What if they add a new feature to the next revision? You won't be able to buy that one because the new feature is too new. You'll have to wait until the next revision, and pray they don't do anything new: "Optical Thunderbolt? I guess that means I can't buy this one. It's too cutting edge!"

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 03:44 PM
Maybe it is time to take a look at the CPU usage too? Try it out on Windows 7/8 where you are not playing the scaling game for "non-native" applications? I remember them dropping the line for "non-Retina" applications but the scaling game, load, and UI responsiveness is a patch job that is not like Apple.

If you read the Anandtech review, what you call the "patch job" is actually praised for being highly innovative and quite good all things considered. That is precisely what is pushing the hardware limits, it is too cutting edge, and the payoff is huge. There is absolutely nothing that compares to this screen. Even my iPad 3 doesn't look as crisp and sharp as this screen, even though it too technically qualifies as "Retina".

mono1980
Jun 29, 2012, 03:45 PM
Why? A larger device will be able to suck up more power, have a more powerful CPU, GPU, and RAM. It will also be able to more efficiently cool everything.

But do you realize how much larger iMac screens are?

bedifferent
Jun 29, 2012, 03:45 PM
I understand that the smaller display of a notebook may be ideal for a "retina" display, but a desktop card would seem to be more appropriate. I know notebook sales are higher for Apple, though I'm surprised they didn't produce a desktop system (a smaller iMac model, perhaps a 21", which isn't much larger than a MacBook Pro) with retina first as this seems to be pushing the limits (as apparent with the current iPad).

blueicedj
Jun 29, 2012, 03:46 PM
can't they update safari to use more than one core?

djzapp
Jun 29, 2012, 03:46 PM
I am looking to get the rMBP for my DJ set up. Right now I have a 09 MBP with only 256mb Intergrated, but I need the extra graphics ability to play Videos. With the rMBP I was assuming that the 1gb video ability would be ok but the playback needs to be buttery smooth and in HD (720P). Would this be cause for concern I would be assuming the rMBP would be under a heavier load when doing video mixing with 2 videos being mixed. Any Thoughts?

Thanks, Mike

Eidorian
Jun 29, 2012, 03:48 PM
If you read the Anandtech review, what you call the "patch job" is actually praised for being highly innovative and quite good all things considered. That is precisely what is pushing the hardware limits, it is too cutting edge, and the payoff is huge. There is absolutely nothing that compares to this screen. Even my iPad 3 doesn't look as crisp and sharp as this screen, even though it too technically qualifies as "Retina".I am all for higher resolution displays. It is just that the stopgap penalty is too high.

I also know what kind of hardware is required for pushing pixels on these panels. It is not what the GT 650M is meant to deliver.

jav6454
Jun 29, 2012, 03:48 PM
If you read the Anandtech review, what you call the "patch job" is actually praised for being highly innovative and quite good all things considered. That is precisely what is pushing the hardware limits, it is too cutting edge, and the payoff is huge. There is absolutely nothing that compares to this screen. Even my iPad 3 doesn't look as crisp and sharp as this screen, even though it too technically qualifies as "Retina".

I tried the Retina, it has some issues with lag. The work done was patch work. Just trying to make it work enough to sell. Of course, in store it worked beautifully for websites employees and preloaded. I of courses tested several websites that were not in history and I knew had some regular usage work in terms of rendering and loading.

I was not surprised to find lower responsiveness compared to my current MacBook and also, even though it was pre-loaded, Facebook still struggled a bit. The retina is beautiful, no doubt. But this is something that should have waited. The GTX650M is not for this work. It is already stressed as is.

IMHO, Apple should look a step higher than the GTXx50M cards, most definitely the GTX x60M series and quite possibly the GTX x65M or x70M.

albertsw
Jun 29, 2012, 03:48 PM
What software are they using to measure the fps. I want to try it on my computer.

Eidorian
Jun 29, 2012, 03:50 PM
I tried the Retina, it has some issues with lag. The work done was patch work. Just trying to make it work enough to sell. Of course, in store it worked beautifully for websites employees and preloaded. I of courses tested several websites that were not in history and I knew had some regular usage work in terms of rendering and loading.

I was not surprised to find lower responsiveness compared to my current MacBook and also, even though it was pre-loaded, Facebook still struggled a bit. The retina is beautiful, no doubt. But this is something that should have waited. The GTX650M is not for this work. It is already stressed as is.

IMHO, Apple should look a step higher than the GTXx50M cards, most definitely the GTX x60M series and quite possibly the GTX x65M or x70M.The GT 640/650/660M are all the same GK107 core with varying clock speeds and VRAM types/densities.


Just trying to make it work enough to sell.Which makes for a fine commercial and marketing material. Disregard the anyone that can read a benchmark.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 03:50 PM
I am all for higher resolution displays. It is just that the stopgap penalty is too high.

Stopgap penalty? What the hell are you talking about? Only a few exceptional websites like Facebook present any problem whatsoever on ML. And the lag/jerkiness is pretty minor. I know I have the machine. This complaint is seriously blown way out of proportion, and I suspect precisely because so many can't afford to get this new laptop. When you actually poll or ask people if they are satisfied with their RMBP, you get a ratio of 5-1. That's 83% satisfaction using, presumably, mostly Lion, that isn't nearly as optimized as ML.

Eidorian
Jun 29, 2012, 03:52 PM
Stopgap penalty? What the hell are you talking about? Only a few exceptional websites like Facebook present any problem whatsoever on ML. And the lag/jerkiness is pretty minor. I know I have the machine. This complaint is seriously blown way out of proportion, and I suspect precisely because so many can't afford to get this new laptop. When you actually poll or ask people if they are satisfied with their RMBP, you get a ratio of 5-1. That's 83% satisfaction using, presumably, mostly Lion, that isn't nearly as optimized as ML.I would lie about my satisfaction to save face after spending that much. I can afford one but why again? Maybe I read too much into the hardware before I reach the display panel and the safety of my lap in the summer.

Newyorkjsw
Jun 29, 2012, 03:53 PM
I do notice some glare from the glass screen. Why apple could not offer a genuine matt screen like they do for every other 15" MBP defies logic.
they did evolve a lot though but not having the matrix situuated;) behind a chunk of glass, but it is the glass itself that displays the image!

screen also look a bit dark compared to my 2010 higher res matt screen.

i read about the video issues playing 60fps and i don't doubt it.
also that the 2800 res is NOT native out of the box!

r.harris1
Jun 29, 2012, 03:53 PM
With the passing of SJ, it's clear that Apple no longer has the long-term vision to REALLY innovate. Every product launch in Cook's era is just an incremental update of existing things, rMBP included (i.e., a crippled retina display and nothing else new).

Time to sell your Apple shares, because the company will be moribund in less than two years...you reat it here first. ;)

I have no words to describe your insight and eloquence.

airsks
Jun 29, 2012, 03:54 PM
I just got my RMBP2.7 a couple days ago, and I am very satisfied about it so far. I haven't felt any noticeble lag at all using Lion, and I have tested with Diablo 3 for the graphical performance, and the default resolution is great already and super smooth, I tried to crank it up to the maximum resolution with everything set at high, then the I started to feel some lag but it is probably still close to 20fps I think ( I could't monitor the actual fps due to the patch of D3). I will have to test my RMBP on various software to really make comments on the performance. That being said, I m not a device testing personnel, so as long as I enjoy the new technologies, and my RMBP can do the job fast enough before frustration builds up, I am happy about it.

Can't mention this enough, the display is really pleasing to look at. But I know that this superb clarity comes with a cost, everything that runs perfectly without Retina will now need much more power to achieve the same performance. For people who demand video performance, this clarity might not be something that necessary. So I guess the non-Retina MBP will still be purchased over the years. But for me, the Retina is one of the major reasons I buy my new MBP.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 03:54 PM
Snip

You indicate you don't know what you are talking about. Preloading the page doesn't matter since the issue is that when you scroll on your trackpad that uses up 100% of the single core that is rendering the webpage and which has to display all the pixels. Again this has nothing to do with the HD4000 or the GT 650 card. It has everything to do with the CPU. I don't get what's so hard to comprehend here. Perhaps people have hidden agendas? That's the only reason I can see why someone wants to distort things so poorly. Yes the machine has a little bit of lag, that is undeniable, but the question is how serious is it?

So far as I can see, the overwhelming majority of people complaining are people who don't own the machines and haven't worked on them for sustained periods of time.

iVoid
Jun 29, 2012, 03:55 PM
Yeah, this is why I doubted the retina iMac rumors. Just too much processing power needed to drive these hi-dpi panels at the moment.

In time, it'll be practical, but I'd suspect 1-2 years at least.

Maybe Apple dropped the 17" because they knew a retina version wasn't likely to work well.

Eidorian
Jun 29, 2012, 03:57 PM
You indicate you don't know what you are talking about. Preloading the page doesn't matter since the issue is that when you scroll on your trackpad that uses up 100% of the single core that is rendering the webpage and which has to display all the pixels. Again this has nothing to do with the HD4000 or the GT 650 card. It has everything to do with the CPU. I don't get what's so hard to comprehend here. Perhaps people have hidden agendas? That's the only reason I can see why someone wants to distort things so poorly. Yes the machine has a little bit of lag, that is undeniable, but the question is how serious is it?

So far as I can see, the overwhelming majority of people complaining are people who don't own the machines and haven't worked on them for sustained periods of time.Which is why I suggested we take a look at the CPU load. Single threaded browsers in 2012? Ugh...

This is a Core i7 3xxxQM with 4C/8T and Turbo Boost.

mrsir2009
Jun 29, 2012, 03:57 PM
Best wait for the 2nd gen if you don't want to encounter any of these problems....

jav6454
Jun 29, 2012, 03:57 PM
You indicate you don't know what you are talking about. Preloading the page doesn't matter since the issue is that when you scroll on your trackpad that uses up 100% of the single core that is rendering the webpage and which has to display all the pixels. Again this has nothing to do with the HD4000 or the GT 650 card. It has everything to do with the CPU. I don't get what's so hard to comprehend here. Perhaps people have hidden agendas? That's the only reason I can see why someone wants to distort things so poorly. Yes the machine has a little bit of lag, that is undeniable, but the question is how serious is it?

So far as I can see, the overwhelming majority of people complaining are people who don't own the machines and haven't worked on them for sustained periods of time.

Pre-loading does matter. You have cache'd part of the page. That means pre-calculated parts of the page already.

The CPU is more than enough for Facebook, more than enough for heavy applications in Engineering. The page scrolling is not CPU bound, but GPU bounded.

I have a Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz CPU and guess what? It is still enough for today's web pages. When I have issues, it is due to the GPU (The 9400M).

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 03:58 PM
I would lie about my satisfaction after spending that much. I can afford one but why again? Maybe I read too much into the hardware before I reach the display panel and the safety of my lap in the summer.

You are right, these surveys are inherently unreliable. But surely you can concede that many of these news sources are also inherently unreliable, selectively picking only the criticisms from reviews that give the Machine editor awards. Also, safety of your lap? More hyperbole. This is by far the coolest laptop I have ever used. Under normal usage, what you will typically do on your lap, the laptop remains quite cool and noiseless.

doelcm82
Jun 29, 2012, 03:59 PM
Best wait for the 2nd gen if you don't want to encounter any of these problems....The Retina MBP is 3rd gen.

You can also buy the 2nd gen today, and there's no wait time.

mrsir2009
Jun 29, 2012, 04:01 PM
The Retina MBP is 3rd gen.

You can also buy the 2nd gen today, and there's no wait time.

No, I mean the 2nd generation of Retina MacBook Pros.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 04:01 PM
Pre-loading does matter. You have cache'd part of the page. That means pre-calculated parts of the page already.

The CPU is more than enough for Facebook, more than enough for heavy applications in Engineering. The page scrolling is not CPU bound, but GPU bounded.

I have a Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz CPU and guess what? It is still enough for today's web pages. When I have issues, it is due to the GPU (The 9400M).

The CPU is sufficient for low DPI machines, not for the HiDPI ones. And the scrolling in Safari is not sufficiently GPU bound, that is precisely the problem here.

doelcm82
Jun 29, 2012, 04:02 PM
I would lie about my satisfaction to save face after spending that much. I can afford one but why again? Maybe I read too much into the hardware before I reach the display panel and the safety of my lap in the summer.

You would also claim that other people are lying, to save you own face.

jav6454
Jun 29, 2012, 04:02 PM
The GT 640/650/660M are all the same GK107 core with varying clock speeds and VRAM types/densities.


Which makes for a fine commercial and marketing material. Disregard the anyone that can read a benchmark.

Then the GTX x70M should be used... clearly, the current GPU technology is lacking. A more of a boost should help out.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 04:02 PM
Which is why I suggested we take a look at the CPU load. Single threaded browsers in 2012? Ugh...

This is a Core i7 3xxxQM with 4C/8T and Turbo Boost.

Well, if that can be fixed, we'd have a very nice software fix now wouldn't we? I suspect the task of coding for a multi-threaded browser is easier said than done though.

jav6454
Jun 29, 2012, 04:04 PM
The CPU is sufficient for low DPI machines, not for the HiDPI ones. And the scrolling in Safari is not sufficiently GPU bound, that is precisely the problem here.

You've got to be kidding me....

Are you seriously suggesting that the CPU is responsible for display issues? Do you know what powers and drives the display in these machines?

HiDPI does not matter when it comes to the CPU... it is the GPU! Why? think pixels... there are many more pixels to push now. The GPU will choke, the CPU is not responsible for any graphic stuff, this isn't pre-2001.

rufwork
Jun 29, 2012, 04:07 PM
Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.

Oh noes! I can't see Facebook in 50 fps when I have things set for full retina resolution! How can I research journals and write papers and run MAPLE and SAS on my MacBook Pro?!!!

Oh yeah, the quad-core i7.

Look, the only complaint here is that scrolling can be choppy. Don't tell me you haven't played WoW on your 08 MBP when it was running less than 30 fps, kk? :D

The thing's plenty ready, son. As another has said, if you don't want to throw down the cash, buy an Air.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 04:07 PM
You've got to be kidding me....

Are you seriously suggesting that the CPU is responsible for display issues? Do you know what powers and drives the display in these machines?

Yes, and that is exactly the conclusion Anandtech came to, which is far more knowledgeable on these matters than either of us. Again, read the actual review before spewing your half-baked criticisms.


HiDPI does not matter when it comes to the CPU... it is the GPU! Why? think pixels... there are many more pixels to push now. The GPU will choke, the CPU is not responsible for any graphic stuff, this isn't pre-2001.

If that were true you'd see far more lag on the HD4000 than the GT 650 as the latter is substantially stronger. Truth of the matter though is the lag issue is not any different no matter which GPU you are using, which again suggests the problem lies elsewhere. Anyway, go read the actual review where all this is explained in technical detail.

Xian Zhu Xuande
Jun 29, 2012, 04:10 PM
I would lie about my satisfaction to save face after spending that much. I can afford one but why again? Maybe I read too much into the hardware before I reach the display panel and the safety of my lap in the summer.
Hehe. If someone's going to ignore the experiences of people who have actually used a product based on the possibility that they might lie about that experience to safe face, instead turning to the criticism of people who have not used that product for information, they're going to be cutting out the most credible source of information available.

The RMBP runs like a dream.

pesos
Jun 29, 2012, 04:10 PM
You've got to be kidding me....

Are you seriously suggesting that the CPU is responsible for display issues? Do you know what powers and drives the display in these machines?

HiDPI does not matter when it comes to the CPU... it is the GPU! Why? think pixels... there are many more pixels to push now. The GPU will choke, the CPU is not responsible for any graphic stuff, this isn't pre-2001.

You are uninformed, sir. Read the review and you might start to understand.

Fandongo
Jun 29, 2012, 04:10 PM
Maybe this will shut up the people clamoring for retina on the new iMac.

Or force them to put a real graphics card in it.

No point in making the iMac so thin anyway...
Fat for power, fat for upgradability, and fat for sound dampening.

Or they could release a Mac Pro.

I want to take my business elsewhere...
but i can't bring myself to buy from computer companies that don't know how to organize their damn website.
...or their product lines
Look at our laptop models:
Z91241
Z248651
Z54
ZZzzzzz.....

It's a damn shame I can't buy a 1920x1080 17" expresscard fatbook pro w/2x thunderbolt ports and 3x USB 3's...
AND FIREWIRE!! (where the hell are the alleged "adapters")
RAID 0 the hell out of it.
Glorious.

Blaine
Jun 29, 2012, 04:13 PM
Yes, and that is exactly the conclusion Anandtech came to, which is far more knowledgeable on these matters than either of us. Again, read the actual review before spewing your half-baked criticisms.



If that were true you'd see far more lag on the HD4000 than the GT 650 as the latter is substantially stronger. Truth of the matter though is the lag issue is not any different no matter which GPU you are using, which again suggests the problem lies elsewhere. Anyway, go read the actual review where all this is explained in technical detail.

Word :)

Blaine
Jun 29, 2012, 04:14 PM
You are uninformed, sir. Read the review and you might start to understand.

Yeah, jav6454 really is struggling with this. :/

Eidorian
Jun 29, 2012, 04:15 PM
You are right, these surveys are inherently unreliable. But surely you can concede that many of these news sources are also inherently unreliable, selectively picking only the criticisms from reviews that give the Machine editor awards. The more the better.

Also, safety of your lap? More hyperbole. This is by far the coolest laptop I have ever used. Under normal usage, what you will typically do on your lap, the laptop remains quite cool and noiseless.Well you are talking to someone that has suffered just short of first degree burns from laptop exhaust in the summer and whenever a new notebook comes out hops over to NoteBookCheck for thermograph readings at idle and load. This is regardless of brand. At this rate I am never getting a new notebook, still.

Well, if that can be fixed, we'd have a very nice software fix now wouldn't we? I suspect the task of coding for a multi-threaded browser is easier said than done though.Endless beta but in retail. It works for Google.

jav6454
Jun 29, 2012, 04:17 PM
Yes, and that is exactly the conclusion Anandtech came to, which is far more knowledgeable on these matters than either of us. Again, read the actual review before spewing your half-baked criticisms.

If that were true you'd see far more lag on the HD4000 than the GT 650 as the latter is substantially stronger. Truth of the matter though is the lag issue is not any different no matter which GPU you are using, which again suggests the problem lies elsewhere. Anyway, go read the actual review where all this is explained in technical detail.

It is both, but the GPU is the one doing the heavy lifting

Whereas I would consider the rMBP experience under Lion to be borderline unacceptable, everything is significantly better under Mountain Lion. Donít expect buttery smoothness across the board, youíre still asking a lot of the CPU and GPU, but itís a lot better

thekev
Jun 29, 2012, 04:19 PM
I'm really curious to see when external GPUS via thunderbolt will become available.

It's pointless to be reliant on something like that for even basic functions. The value in a notebook is that it can be easily moved and transported. Even if they do catch on (would require real support on the Windows side more than OSX) you wouldn't want it to be a necessity outside of heavy use. Otherwise you're dragging around an additional item.

You've got to be kidding me....

Are you seriously suggesting that the CPU is responsible for display issues? Do you know what powers and drives the display in these machines?

HiDPI does not matter when it comes to the CPU... it is the GPU! Why? think pixels... there are many more pixels to push now. The GPU will choke, the CPU is not responsible for any graphic stuff, this isn't pre-2001.

Most of Adobe's Creative Suite used solely cpu based drawing until CS4. Zbrush still uses it, and it pushes around large amounts of data. Web browsers still rely on the cpu for many things. While they do offload to the gpu, it would be silly to say that's the only thing that matters. It's most likely poorly threaded here.

Aodhan
Jun 29, 2012, 04:19 PM
The MacBook Pro Retina is an impressive machine. It's so thin, it's beautiful, and it has great hardware. But there are compromises. Compromises that I did not have to accept with the non-retina. And for 2200 of my hard earned dollars, I simply cannot accept such compromises.

The early adopters here defend their purchases vociferously, and that's great for them. For me, it simply wasn't worth the trade-offs for the retina screen, particularly considering I use an external monitor. And I can add an SSD any time. But my 1GB 650M only has to drive 1440x990, or 1920x1080 on my external monitor. I can see that makes a difference.

jav6454
Jun 29, 2012, 04:21 PM
Most of Adobe's Creative Suite used solely cpu based drawing until CS4. Zbrush still uses it, and it pushes around large amounts of data. Web browsers still rely on the cpu for many things. While they do offload to the gpu, it would be silly to say that's the only thing that matters. It's most likely poorly threaded here.

When it comes to data crunch I don't deny it is the CPU, but once the data is crunched and needs to be pushed to the screen, it is not the CPU that pushes it out, it is the GPU. The GPU has to figure out where to put what.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 04:22 PM
It is both, but the GPU is the one doing the heavy lifting

I guess you preferred to skip this section right?



Some elements of drawing in Safari for example arenít handled by the GPU. Quickly scrolling up and down on the AnandTech home page will peg one of the four IVB cores in the rMBP at 100%:

The GPU has an easy time with its part of the process but the CPUís workload is borderline too much for a single core to handle. Throw a more complex website at it and things get bad quickly. Facebook combines a lot of compressed images with text - every single image is decompressed on the CPU before being handed off to the GPU. Combine that with other elements that are processed on the CPU and you get a recipe for choppy scrolling.

jav6454
Jun 29, 2012, 04:24 PM
I guess you preferred to skip this section right?

I guess you didn't read or comprehend this:

The GPU has an easy time with its part of the process but the CPUís workload is borderline too much for a single core to handle

I think, today's CPUs are multi-core and have a nice boost to them. Now, go troll along.

Eidorian
Jun 29, 2012, 04:24 PM
Web browsers still rely on the cpu for many things. While they do offload to the gpu, it would be silly to say that's the only thing that matters. It's most likely poorly threaded here.Which is what makes it so hard to come to terms with. You are talking to people with more concerns on 3D rendering than web page rendering which is on the CPU majority side of things.

iBug2
Jun 29, 2012, 04:25 PM
Yes, and that is exactly the conclusion Anandtech came to, which is far more knowledgeable on these matters than either of us. Again, read the actual review before spewing your half-baked criticisms.



If that were true you'd see far more lag on the HD4000 than the GT 650 as the latter is substantially stronger. Truth of the matter though is the lag issue is not any different no matter which GPU you are using, which again suggests the problem lies elsewhere. Anyway, go read the actual review where all this is explained in technical detail.

This. And it is the same way on 2009 mbp as well. Web browsing is the same fps using 9400m or 9600gt because it is mostly cpu bottlenecked. If anything using core animation is lagging such as expose then it is gpu.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 04:26 PM
When it comes to data crunch I don't deny it is the CPU, but once the data is crunched and needs to be pushed to the screen, it is not the CPU that pushes it out, it is the GPU. The GPU has to figure out where to put what.

But the choppiness is the result of waiting for the CPU to finish and transfer it to the GPU.

thekev
Jun 29, 2012, 04:26 PM
When it comes to data crunch I don't deny it is the CPU, but once the data is crunched and needs to be pushed to the screen, it is not the CPU that pushes it out, it is the GPU. The GPU has to figure out where to put what.

In those examples you're right, the gpu still displays it. It's just that the gpu load was very moderate there in that it wouldn't be a viable method of increasing performance. Obviously CS has started to change in that regard. It would help if these applications migrate to a newer OpenGL standard. Given how many developers stuck to an old standard on OSX, I wouldn't just call it collective laziness.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 04:26 PM
I guess you didn't read or comprehend this:



I think, today's CPUs are multi-core and have a nice boost to them. Now, go troll along.

But the browsers aren't coded to take advantage of multi-core, so turns out you are the troll. Plus you just conceded the problem was the CPU. Way to contradict yourself.

jav6454
Jun 29, 2012, 04:28 PM
But the choppiness is the result of waiting for the CPU to finish and transfer it to the GPU.

Waiting for what? The CPU is fast to do math. The GPU is the one choking.

In those examples you're right, the gpu still displays it. It's just that the gpu load was very moderate there in that it wouldn't be a viable method of increasing performance. Obviously CS has started to change in that regard. It would help if these applications migrate to a newer OpenGL standard. Given how many developers stuck to an old standard on OSX, I wouldn't just call it collective laziness.

I never said laziness.


But the browsers aren't coded to take advantage of multi-core, so turns out you are the troll.

And that's my fault? Seriously, websites have to push technology, not stay tied to old ancient and archaic standards. That's why the web never developed under IE6

Eidorian
Jun 29, 2012, 04:29 PM
But the browsers aren't coded to take advantage of multi-core, so turns out you are the troll. Plus you just conceded the problem was the CPU. Wait to contradict yourself.Maybe we should change the MR article to "Retina MacBook Pro Pushes the Limits of Single Threaded Web Page Rendering." :rolleyes:

As Anandtech mentioned, Mountain Lion is better. So why again today?

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 04:29 PM
Waiting for what? The CPU is fast to do math. The GPU is the one choking.



Already forgot this right?

"every single image is decompressed on the CPU before being handed off to the GPU."
And that's my fault? Seriously, websites have to push technology, not stay tied to old ancient and archaic standards. That's why the web never developed under IE6

Didn't say was your fault, I said your complaints about the GPU were nonsense.
----------

Maybe we should change the MR article to "Retina MacBook Pro Pushes the Limits Single Threaded Web Page Rendering." :rolleyes:

Yep :)

Eduardo R.
Jun 29, 2012, 04:30 PM
I hope in a couple years every tablet/phone/computer maker puts these high res screens on them. After using the iPad 3 and rMBP it's impossible to go back to something not retina.

I completely agree. It's truly amazing what a difference it makes. :)

TwinMonkeys
Jun 29, 2012, 04:31 PM
Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.


I would get the air. I do plenty of professional work on there and sometimes it gets pushed to the limit. No retina display, but you shouldn't notice it because the display still is very nice.

That being said, I'm going to wait until the next revision of the MacBook Pro before considering it as the Air I have from last year is still good enough.

jav6454
Jun 29, 2012, 04:33 PM
Already forgot this right?

"every single image is decompressed on the CPU before being handed off to the GPU."

----------



Yep :)

So single threaded performance is an excuse for insufficient CPU? Dude, get serious. Apple made patch work. A real solution would leverage everything the hardware has to offer, which it doesn't.

Choking happens somewhere due to insufficient multi-threaded solutions. GPU is being choked on dumb patch work. The CPU is not struggling, never does Anand say the CPU (all four threads) is being stressed 100% during page views and scrolling.

He does say a single core is stressed:

Some elements of drawing in Safari for example arenít handled by the GPU. Quickly scrolling up and down on the AnandTech home page will peg one of the four IVB cores in the rMBP at 100%:


However, this just shows the patch work Apple did to sell.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 04:35 PM
However, this just shows the patch work Apple did to sell.

Patch work that Anandtech applauds Apple for, ultimately contributing to the Editor's award, which would have been silver if the computer was released with Mountain Lion. Sounds pretty impressive to me.

Eidorian
Jun 29, 2012, 04:36 PM
Patch work that Anandtech applauds Apple for, ultimately contributing to the Editor's award, which would have been silver if the computer was released with Mountain Lion. Sounds pretty impressive to me.Believe me there are enough other factors for giving a bronze award. I would be willing to overlook the webpage rendering for that or use another browser.

It feels like a rush to market when there is little competition in that space unless you consider bizarro world customs or workstations. 1080p on 15" (unscaled) makes my eyes hurt but there are others where it is not a problem. I will not even mention Sony and their sub-15" ventures.

Bubba Satori
Jun 29, 2012, 04:38 PM
On the desktop front you are looking at a GTX 670/680 for this kind of power in 3D. I know this is on the 2D/desktop rendering side but going from 1356 shaders down to 384 and at lower clocks is going have a large impact.

1440 x 900 or 900p is going to be the native turf for a GT 640/650M

Yep. Maybe the next rev will get an underclocked 670/680 that will meet the thermal requirments of the new chassis.
So close, yet so far. Oh well... :(

jav6454
Jun 29, 2012, 04:39 PM
Patch work that Anandtech applauds Apple for, ultimately contributing to the Editor's award, which would have been silver if the computer was released with Mountain Lion. Sounds pretty impressive to me.

I'll give Apple that it is impressive but inefficient nonetheless. Working a single core to the extreme is just pure (this time I'll say it) lazy.

We have a 4 core monster being put into each of those Retinas. Why not use the multi-cores? Better yet, why not use hyper threading to an advantage?

The patch work is impressive as it sells what Apple made (Retina screen). But for me, as a prosumer, it is not impressive. It is a piss poor excuse. And no, the Silver required not only Mountain Lion, but the other software programs to be fully upgraded as well. So, it would have taken much more for that.


Believe me there are enough other factors for giving a bronze award. I would be willing to overlook the webpage rendering for that or use another browser.

Agreed.

Bauer24
Jun 29, 2012, 04:40 PM
I hope in a couple years every tablet/phone/computer maker puts these high res screens on them. After using the iPad 3 and rMBP it's impossible to go back to something not retina.

#firstworldproblems

kiljoy616
Jun 29, 2012, 04:45 PM
Can't wait for a macbook air with similar specs. :D

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 04:46 PM
The patch work is impressive as it sells what Apple made (Retina screen). But for me, as a prosumer, it is not impressive. It is a piss poor excuse.

Thanks for your highly sought opinion, it's good we have experts like you to help inform us, rather than relying on things like this:


The credit Apple deserves for the display extends beyond simply pushing LG to get a panel out on time and in large enough quantities. Thereís a tremendous amount of software work that Apple put into making the Retina experience work under OS X. The OS and several key applications have been updated to properly support the MacBook Proís Retina Display, and things can only get better from here. Mountain Lion will improve performance and I would expect at least a few key app updates over the next year to bring increased Retina awareness.

Thereís also the behind the scenes work Apple put in to make all of this happen. The pressure on the GPU vendors, as well as taking matters into its own hands with writing scaling and filtering routines to deliver a good experience are all noteworthy.

Itís because all of this that Iím doing something Iíve never done before in an Apple review. We rarely give out Editorís Choice awards at AnandTech, and Iím quite possibly the stingiest purveyor of them. I feel that being overly generous with awards diminishes their value. In this case, all of the effort Apple has put into bringing a Retina Display to the MacBook Pro is deserving of one.

Iím giving the MacBook Pro with Retina Display our bronze Editorís Choice award. Making it the first Mac to ever receive one.

AZREOSpecialist
Jun 29, 2012, 04:52 PM
Basically it should run the fastest at the 2880*1800 resolution due to no scaling algorithms being used at all. What causes this "lag" is scaling when you use different resolutions. Lion renders the page at quadruple resolution and then downscales, which is a lot of work on the CPU. But if you run it at native resolution then it should be the fastest possible. I hope that the retina resolution through the HDPI mode is as fast as the native resolution as well because that's what most people will use.

It's 2012 for goodness sake, why isn't the GPU handling scaling? After all, isn't that one of the tasks a GPU is good at doing?

samjj8
Jun 29, 2012, 04:55 PM
Like people MUST use the retina display at all times on the MBP. It's a really nice addition, but if you are experience lagging during everyday internet surfing, turn the resolution down. I doubt you would notice a substantial difference in quality on a 15" screen. Same goes for gaming, I am sure it would look good enough on 1440x900. The way they have done the pricing is sneaky tbh, they have made the upper end 15" the same price as the lower end retina. Which one to go for... :rolleyes:

strausd
Jun 29, 2012, 04:59 PM
Can somebody explain to me why running the RMBP at 1920X1200 really means that the GPU is rendering the display at 3840x2400?

I thought the GPU would just render the pixels at 1920X1200 and then just basically take that image and scale it up, but not actually render any additional pixels.

doelcm82
Jun 29, 2012, 05:03 PM
The early adopters here defend their purchases vociferously, and that's great for them.

Everyone here is vociferous. You, for example, vociferously suggested that you chose the non-retina display because you are "not deluded".

I am devoted to Apple, but I am not deluded. That's why I went with the mid 2012 non-retina.

Later, you admit that you use your MBP with an external display. So to be non-deluded like you requires the use of an external display.

I'm not deluded enough to carry an external display around with me, so I vociferously defend my decision to purchase the Retina MBP.

nutjob
Jun 29, 2012, 05:03 PM
Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.

You got it right - first version rule holds yet again, no-one in their right mind would buy this model with its underpowered display chip(s). By the next version (or two) they'll have much better hardware driving the display and you'll actually get a screen that actually works as intended.

saud0488
Jun 29, 2012, 05:08 PM
It's funny that anything that is perceived as being anti apple on this thread is downvoted quite a bit. Like the headline had you all on the edge already. I suspect this post will suffer the same fate.

coolfactor
Jun 29, 2012, 05:10 PM
Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.

A 2008 MBP that's on its last legs? I'm curious what that means. I'm on a 2007 MBP that still runs like a charm, and it makes miles every day between towns, sometimes up to 20 hour work shifts. Yes, it's lost some of its coating from so much typing, and the hard drive is taxed, but it's definitely not on its last legs.

Do you just want the latest and greatest because you can have it, or is there something physically wrong with your current machine? Either way, I don't know if frustration is warranted. You have several quality options.

Raizen.Z09
Jun 29, 2012, 05:10 PM
Do you actually believe that the GPU is capable of running a 3D game at retina resolution at great framerates but cannot scroll a webpage at the same framerate? Do you actually believe that a 2D webpage puts more work on the GPU than a fully featured 3D game like Diablo 3?

This is not about the GPU. The GPU is capable of pushing even more pixels at really high framerates than that. This is simply the software and scaling algorithms. It'll be faster in time due to optimisations in software.

My 9400M in 2009 MBP can even scroll Facebook at 1920*1200 resolution at smooth fps. GT650M is 4-5x faster than 9400M and yet it is trying to push 2.25X many pixels. So basically the GT650M performance should be more or less equivalent to 2x performance I get from 9400M.

I totally agree with you!

Aodhan
Jun 29, 2012, 05:10 PM
Everyone here is vociferous. You, for example, vociferously suggested that you chose the non-retina display because you are "not deluded"... Later, you admit that you use your MBP with an external display. So to be non-deluded like you requires the use of an external display...

By deluded I meant I was not caught up in the hype, I was able to look at the practical benefits and drawbacks to the Retina. Drawbacks which included an overtaxed graphics card and the inability to repair or upgrade the machine. I don't see how that is being vociferous, but whatever.

The external monitor I am using is 1920x1080, which while it does put an additional strain on the 650M, nowhere near meets the demands placed upon the 650M in the Retina.

I would not warn anyone off the Retina, it is a great machine, sorry if you felt I was attacking your decision. I simply advocate really looking at what you need or want from a machine. The Retina is not the answer to every question.

coolfactor
Jun 29, 2012, 05:11 PM
It's funny that anything that is perceived as being anti apple on this thread is downvoted quite a bit. Like the headline had you all on the edge already. I suspect this post will suffer the same fate.

Downvotes usually got to those that are ignorant, selfish, spoiled or just plain annoying. :)

djzapp
Jun 29, 2012, 05:12 PM
Like people MUST use the retina display at all times on the MBP. It's a really nice addition, but if you are experience lagging during everyday internet surfing, turn the resolution down. I doubt you would notice a substantial difference in quality on a 15" screen. Same goes for gaming, I am sure it would look good enough on 1440x900. The way they have done the pricing is sneaky tbh, they have made the upper end 15" the same price as the lower end retina. Which one to go for... :rolleyes:

So if I run my DJ program at 1440X900 would this affect the video load, being it is at a lower resolution or is the vram going to be the same if it was at a higher more retina resolution?

marcusj0015
Jun 29, 2012, 05:13 PM
This is why I feel like waiting for the 2nd revision really is a good idea.

I was planning on getting the Retina Macbook, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe I should just get a regular one and max the ram and hopefully find a cheap SSD?

jav6454
Jun 29, 2012, 05:13 PM
Thanks for your highly sought opinion, it's good we have experts like you to help inform us, rather than relying on things like this:

An expert opinion is useful to me as I want it. I never claimed to be an expert. He may be impressed, but I am not and will call it out. Stressing one core is not the way to do things in my opinion.

Apple can definetly do it better than a single core stress.

wiz329
Jun 29, 2012, 05:14 PM
And this is exactly the problem with Apple computers for, dare i say it Decades.

They pretty much always have fitted poor graphics cards.
Probably the main reason why the Mac almost died when the PC gaming was zooming ahead. Apple just did, and do fit poor sub par graphics to their consumer machines.

Even the top iMacs have laptop graphics are they are obsessed about saving the extra half an inch of thickness on a desktop machine.

It's been Apple computers weak spot for so many many years and STILL they never seem to get it. :(

Save it.

If Apple put in a more powerful discrete card, everyone would be complaining about how it got too hot (iPad 3 anyone?) and how the battery life sucked. Apple made the right call with the graphics card -- the technology just isn't quite there to deliver flawless graphics on a retina panel, while keeping within notebook thermal and power restrictions.

Did you even read the rest of Anand's article?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/8

...Like the whole first half of the article that talks about how Apple has been the major player in pushing Intel to beef up their graphics for the last 4-5 years in preparation for these hi-DPI panels?

You're as bad as the fanboys.

eyehop
Jun 29, 2012, 05:15 PM
Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.

To those on the fence and disappointed by this report, don't be. The overall performance is great. The retina display is awesome, and worth minor inconveniences like a little slowdown when scrolling. The real disappointment is those of us who still have to use non-retina displays when we aren't at our MBPR.

phantasmagoria
Jun 29, 2012, 05:17 PM
Can somebody explain to me why running the RMBP at 1920X1200 really means that the GPU is rendering the display at 3840x2400?

I thought the GPU would just render the pixels at 1920X1200 and then just basically take that image and scale it up, but not actually render any additional pixels.

I may be wrong, but as I understand it the rMBP renders your 1920x1200 as 3840x2400 pixels which it downscales to the native 2880x1800 display. That produces a better image than scaling 1920x1200 up to 2880x1800.

r.harris1
Jun 29, 2012, 05:19 PM
It's funny that anything that is perceived as being anti apple on this thread is downvoted quite a bit. Like the headline had you all on the edge already. I suspect this post will suffer the same fate.

Posts also get down voted if they make inane, too obvious, or baiting statements. I make my share of such, of course, but it isn't always anti-Apple posts that get down-voted.

Oflife
Jun 29, 2012, 05:19 PM
...are you ready?

Remember when you're trying to get up to speed or go up that steep hill?

Grab the wheel hard and in sync, you and your fellow passengers move your upper bodies back and forth to give the can that essential extra oomph.


So, to give your Pro Retina some extra zippy zippy, sit your ass tight in the chair, grab your mouse and summing all the energy and spiritual force you can muster, lean back and forth staring deep into the display.

There, 27fps, or even 30 if you are really tuned in!

Works for me anyway.

xx

;)

Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/29/retina-macbook-pro-pushes-the-limits-of-its-graphics-capabilities/)


Just after the launch of the Retina MacBook Pro earlier this month, AnandTech provided a first glimpse (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/12/a-closer-look-at-the-new-macbook-pros-retina-display/) of the machine's display performance, noting the various resolution options available to users and examining how its color and contrast compares to other notebooks.

After having more time to analyze the new machine, AnandTech last week published its full review (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/) of the Retina MacBook Pro, bringing its thorough and technically-detailed perspective to the report. While the whole review is definitely worth a read, the section on graphics performance (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/8) bears special attention.

With the integrated Intel HD 4000 and discrete NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M graphics units responsible for driving 2880x1800 pixels in standard Retina mode and as many as 3840x2400 pixels before downscaling to display 1920x1200 at its highest non-Retina resolution, Apple is clearly pushing the limits of the machine's graphics capabilities.AnandTech goes on to assess this graphics performance, noting that the Retina MacBook Pro at times struggles to maintain a "consistently smooth experience".Focusing on browser scrolling behavior, which also involves substantial CPU load, AnandTech notes that the resource-intensive Facebook news feed pages can display at over 50 frames per second on a 2011 MacBook Pro, but that the new Retina MacBook Pro struggles to hit 20 frames per second as it pushes so many more pixels.

Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/retina_macbook_pro_scrolling.jpg)


Retina MacBook Pro at 21 frames per second while scrolling (See meter at top left)
The report notes that OS X Mountain Lion will help address some of these issues by leveraging Core Animation, but in AnandTech's testing it was still only able to achieve 20-30 frames per second under Mountain Lion. Further improvements in performance will have to wait for hardware capabilities to catch up with demands imposed by these new ultra-high resolution displays.

Article Link: Retina MacBook Pro Pushes the Limits of its Graphics Capabilities (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/29/retina-macbook-pro-pushes-the-limits-of-its-graphics-capabilities/)

gnasher729
Jun 29, 2012, 05:19 PM
So much for the full retina version of Diablo 3. If this has lag scrolling on Facebook, I can't imagine the poor frame rates it will get in a game at full resolution...

That's because you didn't pay attention.

First, there is no "lag". There is a low framerate. Calling it "lag" is abuse of the English language. There are LCD monitors available that do actually lag - and are perfect for playing movies. That's because "lag" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Second, these framerates were not on "full retina resolution". They were on 78% higher resolution than "full retina resolution". They were on 3840 x 2400 pixels, while "full retina" resolution is 2880 x 1800, but Diable 3 will run just fine on 1440 x 900 and I bet you can't see the difference. That's because you don't see the resolution at fast action displays.


Can somebody explain to me why running the RMBP at 1920X1200 really means that the GPU is rendering the display at 3840x2400?

I thought the GPU would just render the pixels at 1920X1200 and then just basically take that image and scale it up, but not actually render any additional pixels.

If Apple did that, then the 1920 x 1200 display wouldn't look good. It would look less good than a native 1920 x 1200 display, because any scaling that is not by a factor 2 loses quality. By rendering 3840 x 2400 pixels and then compressing to 2880 x 1400, you lose some quality, but you start with same insanely good quality, so the result still looks good. Possibly better than a native 1920 x 1200 display.

pesos
Jun 29, 2012, 05:19 PM
To those on the fence and disappointed by this report, don't be. The overall performance is great. The retina display is awesome, and worth minor inconveniences like a little slowdown when scrolling. The real disappointment is those of us who still have to use non-retina displays when we aren't at our MBPR.

^This.

I can't speak to OS X because I can't stand and don't use it, but now that drivers are out Windows 8 runs great at 2880x1800, including browser scrolling.

I *need* a high res display for the nature of my work - anything less than 1200 vertical pixels is a serious efficiency-killer for me. This machine is pretty close to the perfect laptop given the low weight and high resolution. With 16gb ram and a 512gb drive I can easily virtualize an entire server lab on my laptop for demos and POCs and it performs like a champ.

wiz329
Jun 29, 2012, 05:22 PM
Can somebody explain to me why running the RMBP at 1920X1200 really means that the GPU is rendering the display at 3840x2400?

I thought the GPU would just render the pixels at 1920X1200 and then just basically take that image and scale it up, but not actually render any additional pixels.

Nope.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/6

If it rendered the pixels at 1920x1200, that's exactly what you'd get -- a screen rendered with that resolution, scaled to fit the screen, thus not taking advantage of the full amount of pixels available on the screen.

This way, by rendering it at 3840x2400, you can almost fully take avantage of the full display resolution, while simultaneously having the advantage of the higher amount of screen real-estate that 1920x1200 brings.

Its the best of both worlds. Only -- there's a catch. It works the GPU pretty darn hard -- hence the "performance" warning in system preferences.

marcusj0015
Jun 29, 2012, 05:23 PM
Apparently a 256GB SSD and 16GB of ram will only cost ~$300 on top of a macbook, any SSD or RAM recommendations?

and if anyone knows of any affordable 512GB SSDs please, speak up.

This is the RAM I'm looking at: http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/1333DDR3S16P/

Well, the regular macbook includes 8GB of ram, so that'll be fine, but I'm spending more money to upgrade the SSD... hmmmm. Choices choices...

pmau
Jun 29, 2012, 05:25 PM
To those on the fence and disappointed by this report, don't be. The overall performance is great. The retina display is awesome, and worth minor inconveniences like a little slowdown when scrolling. The real disappointment is those of us who still have to use non-retina displays when we aren't at our MBPR.

I disagress. Here's why. Memory bandwidth.

1024x1024x4 (8bit RGBA) means 4MB
If you want 60fps this is 240MB/s

Now I all hear you. "It's done on the GPU, not the CPU. It's already in VRAM."

Actually, no it isn't. If you scroll a large website with images and all of these are not yet visible, they will be transferred from RAM to VRAM.

Imagine a Webpage 1024x2700 (3 times 900).
Now remember that the images are usually not in retina resolution.

Each image will be scaled up to maintain the correct aspect ratio.
Since it's really impossible to cache them in retina resolution, they will be transferred from RAM to VRAM.

Remember: 1920x1200 = 3840x2400x4 = 36MB for the desktop alone.
Then add up covered windows that need to be drawn quicky when exposed.

Add images, add the scaled up textures.

Finally you are out of VRAM.

That's why scrolling has to suck. It'll max out the bus, meaning the available memory bandwidth.

You have to access program data, too. It's not only the graphics.
This is not about theoretical CPU or GPU speeds, it's simple math.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 05:26 PM
Can somebody explain to me why running the RMBP at 1920X1200 really means that the GPU is rendering the display at 3840x2400?

I thought the GPU would just render the pixels at 1920X1200 and then just basically take that image and scale it up, but not actually render any additional pixels.

The native screen is 2880x1800, that is where you will get the best quality picture. Trying to go higher or lower will result in image distortion. So whatever image you send to the display, it should be at 2880x1800 to get the best possible image.

Now, given that the typical screen real estate on the 15" is 1440x900, Apple figured it could just double the pixels in each direction and that'll achieve your 2880x1800. So everything there is rosy.

Now, with the 1920x1200 real estate, you have two options. You can either just bump it up to 2880x1800, which gives you a multiples of 1.5x which are not rounded numbers, or you can double the pixels in each direction to achieve 3840x2400 and then downscale it to the 2880x1800. Upscaling with non-rounded numbers causes more distortion in your final image than does downscaling with non-rounded numbers, so Apple figured since it always wants to run the display at 2880x1800, it might as well upscale with rounded numbers and then downscale with the non-rounded numbers to achieve the best final solution.

With screen real estates of less than 1440x900, it'll upscale as much as possible with rounded numbers and do the rest with non-rounded numbers to hit the 2880x1800 again. I hope this helps, I tried to present it as accurate as I could in simple terms.

parapup
Jun 29, 2012, 05:27 PM
So Apple released tech that wasn't ready yet. Awesome.

Yep. The pressures of innovation without Steve. Retina display on MBP won't be ready until there is true resolution independence - even if in few years the GPUs do catch up.

Mr. Retrofire
Jun 29, 2012, 05:32 PM
This is a little bit frustrating.
No, that's life.

I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.
A rMBP for college. *ROTFLMAO*

marcusj0015
Jun 29, 2012, 05:33 PM
So, what's the problem with the graphics? is it the VRAM or the PCI bandwidth?