Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacrosTheBlack

macrumors newbie
Oct 25, 2009
4
0
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU!

As for the 13" which only has a HD4000! Well I have no words :)

Hi Edwin,

Have you guys at Feral done much in the way of testing the 13" retina pro? I'm looking at possibly getting one and wanted to do some light gaming among other things. I'm curious how it stacks up to the 13" macbook air.

Thanks,

Macros
 

jdiamond

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2008
699
535
Secret over draw...

I really hope they have a 2GB video ram option on the new retinas...1GB for that many pixels just isn't enough in my opinion.

Especially if it's actually true that OS-X, for example, approximates a 1,920 x 1,200 screen by rendering at 3,840 x 2,400 and then box filtering it down to 2,800 x 1,800 to minimize blurriness.

I wonder if when people hack the OS to support native resolution if it's still doing 4x the rendering?
 

edddeduck

macrumors 68020
Mar 26, 2004
2,061
13
Hi Edwin,

Have you guys at Feral done much in the way of testing the 13" retina pro? I'm looking at possibly getting one and wanted to do some light gaming among other things. I'm curious how it stacks up to the 13" macbook air.

Thanks,

Macros

It's faster 13" Air has a 1.8 or 2.0 Ghz CPU and the rMBP 13" has a 2.5 or 2.6 Ghz CPU. However both machines only have a HD4000 integrated graphics solution.

They will both do casual gaming but they won't run at highest settings on any modern game. Also the Retina resolution is very high for an intergrated solution so playing at native resolution on newer games is unlikely but the slightly older games you will be able to crank up.

That said all our current games including the new XCOM are supported by both machines. We got a 13" Retina in the QA lab the other day so we can better performance test this model but overall it is more powerful than the Air but as they both have an HD4000 neither are a gaming machine but will be OK for the odd casual gaming session.

Especially if it's actually true that OS-X, for example, approximates a 1,920 x 1,200 screen by rendering at 3,840 x 2,400 and then box filtering it down to 2,800 x 1,800 to minimize blurriness.

I wonder if when people hack the OS to support native resolution if it's still doing 4x the rendering?

The 13" Retina uses 2560-by-1600 and the 15" uses 2880-by-1800. The OS does not do anything like you describe as far as I know. However I suspect it is someone getting confused with Retina support and how the windowing works as some interesting things are happening behind the scenes. :)

It's all a bit complex these days but suffice to say there is a bit of scaling going on inside the OS but it does not draw everything 4x the size and scale it, it does however scale things to the screen instead of altering the OS resolution.

For example in the old days if you have a screen that supports a native resolution of 1,920 x 1,200 and you want to play a 800x600 in a game in the old days it would change the OS to 800x600 when the game entered full screen and change it back afterwards.

Apple made the newer (and preferred) windowing API so the OS is always in Native mode and the 800x600 game is scaled up to fit the higher resolution this adds in a bit more overhead but has some advantages, like notification alerts over your game window and not effecting other applications in the background.

Edwin
 

Mirai 11

macrumors 6502
Aug 3, 2005
332
0
Slightly off-topic but..

Are any emulators retina-ready? Would they look as crystal clear as I imagine?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.