Hello. I would like to know what will gonna happen when finally Apple release Retina Macs. For example diablo 3 in what resolution will play? The use of anti-aliasing will not be necessary?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacBook Pro & Retina Gaming
- Thread starter johnywalker1989
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Apple double the resolution to 2880X1800, this is the graphic muscle needed to drive latest games at maximum settings.
Wow, think of what the "it overheats" crowd would say!
If Apple double the resolution to 2880X1800, this is the graphic muscle needed to drive latest games at maximum settings.
$2000 in cards, yet they cheaped out on the CPU heatsink?
Really what the heck they'll gonna do about that? With retina anti-aliasing will no be necessary right? the graphics will be deamn good.
The graphics horsepower required would be immense, as suggested above.
They'll run at half resolution so retina 2880x1800 would become 1440x900 as used currently. Assuming a retina display is doubled then a a 2x2 retina pixel block would represent the same as a standard pixel. Without binoculars you'd never notice.
They'll run at half resolution so retina 2880x1800 would become 1440x900 as used currently. Assuming a retina display is doubled then a a 2x2 retina pixel block would represent the same as a standard pixel. Without binoculars you'd never notice.
I have played the Beta on my MBP 15 Inch High Res screen, its 1680x1050. I turned off AA and the graphics are beautiful as it is and even with AA on, it runs perfectly fine with great frame rates. I have tried all settings Low to High to Custom and the game still runs and looks awesome.
In the future I don't know, probably a lot slower and less attractive (need better GPU) and by the way at 1680x1050 I don't notice the pixels, I think a "Retina Display" on a Macbook Pro would be ridiculous, just bump up the current "high res" screens to be the norm.
Last edited by a moderator:
AA would still be necessary. Because it fuzzes out edges that shouldn't be there as sharp as they are.
Anyway but with a true retina resolution you can run the game any res you want and there should be little to no noticeable interpolation fuzziness. So nothing really changes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope, AA is still a big improvement, even at double resolution. Same as on the iPhone and iPad Retina Displays.
It's "just" 1.4x the number of pixels compared to the 27" iMac, and that plays most games just fine at very high settings with a mobile GPU. I guess the new MacBook Pros will get the new ATI or nVidia chips, which offer a lot more performance-per-watt than the one used in the current iMac.If Apple double the resolution to 2880X1800, this is the graphic muscle needed to drive latest games at maximum settings.
Anyway, Diablo III should run just fine as long as it supports the resolution.
For more hardware hungry games, there's still the option to play at 1440x900.
Even in-between resolutions (e.g. 1920x1200) shouldn't look too bad on such a high DPI display (see Max Payne on the iPad for example, which seems to render at ~1.5x instead of 2x), yet most people don't even notice it.
Last edited by a moderator:
If Apple double the resolution to 2880X1800, this is the graphic muscle needed to drive latest games at maximum settings.
+case+psu+ssd...
OP: you are not going to get full spec @ 2880X1800 on a mac with a int. GPU
I was wondering the same thing myself. According to new rumors just released today they are definitely working towards retina display's in the new MBP's. I'm looking forward to seeing how crisp the text and images will appear but was wondering the same as you about how that will affect gaming performance.
I bet that games will look just fine running at 1440x900 on a 2880x1800 screen.
Moving graphics aren't as sensitive to fine resolution as things like text and UI elements. Many many console games actually render at 540p or 720p and are then simply upscaled to 1080p for output. Some people can tell the difference but for the most part it looks just fine.
Moving graphics aren't as sensitive to fine resolution as things like text and UI elements. Many many console games actually render at 540p or 720p and are then simply upscaled to 1080p for output. Some people can tell the difference but for the most part it looks just fine.
A smart thing to do would be to render 3D graphics at non-Retina resolution by default but still display 2D content like menus, text and your HUD at Retina resolution.
Yep. Generally that stuff is rendered in a separate layer anyway so that should be doable for most games.
So long as running at half res wouldn't look like anus, I don't mind. Obviously gaming at native res will be completely impossible, I mean it's bad enough trying to run modern games at even 1440x with Apple's choice of GPUs, retina would be so out of the question it's insane.
Games will be about 5 years old before they will be playable at retina resolutions on Apple hardware.
Games will be about 5 years old before they will be playable at retina resolutions on Apple hardware.
@OP: I'm not that smart of a guy, but I've been waiting for the 2012 MBP for exactly this reason - retina + gaming.
I've put off upgrading for over six months just to get a mobile rig that not only has the screen resolution I want (for work), but also enough juice to pump pixels for some serious business gaming.
I think there's a strong possibility that they're using the beefiest Kepler card out (660M) but they might go with an ATi-based solution. Either way, let's hope that Apple used a dual HSF setup to keep temps down (a la the Timeline 3820TG). It really, really is effective and makes a huge difference in a sub-1" frame.
Anyways, I hope that you're not disappointed OP
I've put off upgrading for over six months just to get a mobile rig that not only has the screen resolution I want (for work), but also enough juice to pump pixels for some serious business gaming.
I think there's a strong possibility that they're using the beefiest Kepler card out (660M) but they might go with an ATi-based solution. Either way, let's hope that Apple used a dual HSF setup to keep temps down (a la the Timeline 3820TG). It really, really is effective and makes a huge difference in a sub-1" frame.
Anyways, I hope that you're not disappointed OP
If Apple double the resolution to 2880X1800, this is the graphic muscle needed to drive latest games at maximum settings.
Mother of God... Maybe Apple shouldn't go for Retina until they can put that monster on a MacBook Pro.
In that case... what's the point of implementing retina at all? to read PDF reports in ultra-high definition?
I personally think that retina is great for the iPad, but rather unnecessary for laptops.
In that case... what's the point of implementing retina at all? to read PDF reports in ultra-high definition?
I personally think that retina is great for the iPad, but rather unnecessary for laptops.
Retina is really best for making text look perfectly crisp and stuff like icon design etc. Never created specifically for gaming iirc.
In that case... what's the point of implementing retina at all? to read PDF reports in ultra-high definition?
I personally think that retina is great for the iPad, but rather unnecessary for laptops.
Yes. If you've ever compared iPhones and iPads with and without retina displays, the place where you really notice the difference is in text clarity, not so much in 3D games or videos.
That is true for iPhones and iPads because old models had a terrible resolution. Ipad, for example, was 1024x768 for an almost 10" screen. On top of that, you hold your iPad much closed to your face than a laptop. So, because of those 2 reasons, retina is GREAT for iPhones/iPad, but not so for laptops.
I gotta say I agree with this. my computer stays pretty far from my face in general... i dunno about needing such a high resolution on it. 1920x1200 is more that sufficient for the 2 feet away from my face it usually is.
Retina is never a bad thing so long as it doesn't hinder the user experience. Apple took care of part of that by introducing HIdpi mode in OSX. The bigger problem though, is that the hardware isn't up to par yet. You need a huge amount of GPU muscle to push 4x the number of pixels not to mention a large amount of VRAM. I believe most modern day GPUs are capable of filling a 2880 x 1800 screen with a 2d image, but when the GPU also has to render polygons and make several shader and texturing passes, it bogs down very quickly.
Any interface that uses any more than basic 2d calls could have speed issues. Even simple things like the animations in OSX could cause issues.
----------
At 2 feet, a 15.4" screen would require a resolution of only 1871 x 1169 to achieve what Apple calls "retina" quality display.