Ans the MacRumors Genius of the day is...
ninja2000!
Installing now...
compare d3 at native resolution with max setting with AA on to half the resolution with max setting without AA. I wanna know if the high pixel density would smooth out the jaggies without using AA.
You mean, d3 at 2880x1800 *without* AA compared to d3 at 1440x900 *with* AA
Let me tell you something. My MacBook Pro early 2011 2.2GHZ with 6mb of L3 "Cash" is not able to play my Red 4K footage at 1/4 resolution yet my office Macbook Pro 2.3GHZ with 8Mb "Cash" is doing it without hiccups. In my case it's worth it.
And both had the same amount of RAM, same HDD or SSD, and a clean install of OSX? I bet not.
I think we're being trolled. How can someone think that 2MB of processor cache is making the difference between a machine playing back 4K video files smoothly or not?
Ok, so this is a good laptop (sans the lag).
I'm sold.
Only question:
3k+?
probably will throw for that. Will need a shrink though.....oh wait they cost money...
nevermind.
What's the deal with people and the price?
Edit: not an attack on you or your comment Mac Jones, just more curious in general what all the hubub is about.
Of course if you can't afford the upgrade well then you can't... You are already spending almost $2800 assuming you are getting the 2.6. What is $250 at this point? Maybe save for 1 more week and get the faster one.
Lets see.
Retina MBP, 2.6ghz UK price in dollars: 3732.24
That's without any options. Are you used to paying that?
What's the deal with people and the price? I got my retina MBP for $1999 with student discount (21XX after tax/shipping). I'm used to paying $2300-$2500 for 15" and 17" MBPs and putting another $400-$500 into them to get an SSD and memory upgrade, so what's the big deal? Sure it's not a $1200 entry level mac, but this is a premium product, not a budget machine. It's got a lot of new technology in a very elegant package. To me, I feel like it's a pretty damn good value considering.
So, what gives?
Edit: not an attack on you or your comment Mac Jones, just more curious in general what all the hubub is about.
And since I don't work with 4K Red footage, I can't argue either way. If you're really sure that is the difference, OK. It seems crazy to me (I do come from a video post house background).
And I call total BS on your 4K footage stories, as the amount of cache on your CPU will NEVER be the difference between usable or not in any application.
I probably speak for almost everyone when I say that we'd like to see Diablo 3 benchmarks performed in OS X instead of Windows, at 2880x1880 full screen. Command + R displays FPS on the top left. The FPS hit usually happens in Act 2 and 3, which means that if you run the test in the preview version, you won't get past level 13 which is early on in Act 1.
Check out the Engadget review. Around 20-30 fps with max settings and AA off. Pretty much what everyone expected. FPS is almost doubled when running at 1/2 retina res.