All of their testing was done in OSX. Also, the OP doesn't have the full version of Diablo 3, so someone else will have to chime in if you want numbers from later in the game.
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.
Gamers - I got my 15" Retina $2799 - Have questions?
- Thread starter Maven1975
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All of their testing was done in OSX. Also, the OP doesn't have the full version of Diablo 3, so someone else will have to chime in if you want numbers from later in the game.
If anyone is talking out of their behind, it's definitely you. There is no applications where 6mb vs 8mb of cache will be the difference between great and not usable, saying otherwise just shows everyone how little you know.
But you just turned out to be a bad troll, so "next" indeed.
Actually if a chunk of code that is being repeatedly executed over and over just happens to fit in 6MB then of course you would see this performance difference. They keep upping the cache on chips for a reason...
True. But I have a hard time believing that 2mb of L2 cache could make such a significant difference in Premiere Pro. That said, I don't know enough of the application or field to really say. It's important to note that while it's only 2mb more, it is a 25% increase, that coupled with the slightly higher clock and turbo boost may plausibly make a difference in a small subset of applications. Another possibility is a bug of some sort, but if the OP is really using these machines professionally for the last year then I would have to take the benefit of the doubt and trust that s/he knows what they're talking about.
I think his point was that such an upgrade could provide a tangible benefit in specific circumstances, and thus justify the cost increase for those willing to spend on performance in these applications. However it will almost certainly never make a significant difference in general use and most intensive apps like gaming. As always, value is relative.
In any case, this is off-topic, and while an interesting debate it should be left alone or continued elsewhere.
On-Topic:
I think the 650m is a relatively fast card given the constraints here. As far as I can tell this is a 45 watt TDP card, while I can't find the TDP for the AMD 6750m used previously I think before that Apple were much more frugal with TDP on discrete cards. The 9600m GT (which I'm currently using) and 330m etc were much lower TDP, on the order of 25 - 30 watts I believe (don't quote me on that, however). Combined with the i7 which is also a 45 watt TDP part that is ≈90 watts, which is insane not only for a MacBook Pro but more significantly for any notebook of this size and weight. In comparison, Razer's Blade "First true Gaming notebook" is a similar thickness (but larger overall 17") and has a previous generation card that is slower.
Maybe this will change if it gets updated to Kepler, but the point being that MBP's have never had particularly strong graphics performance (with regards to gaming). That began to change last gen, and I'm happy to see Apple continuing the trend here, despite the larger constraints. A 650m is a mid range card yes, but top of the mid range, and a competent performer. It's important to remember that Alienware's m14x (closest competitor) gaming notebook has this card too, in the same 1gb GDDR5 config no less, I think that's a first for Apple. And yet that notebook is over twice the thickness!
This has all the hallmarks of a great performing mobile graphics card, if not the very best. There's definitely signs here that Apple truly care about graphics performance (GDDR5 vs DDR3 for example). The fact that this is able to run a modern 3D game at full 2880x1800 resolution (under OS X as well, which has always traditionally had a performance hit vs Windows for games) at anything approaching playable framerates is remarkable, not only for Apple but for the industry. Yes we won't be playing at anything like that res just yet for most games, but that's where we're heading. As it stands before comprehensive reviews (hurry up Anand!), this looks like a fantastic push forwards in many ways. Today MBP enthusiasts who happen to enjoy the occasional game can get at the very least similar performance to more traditional PC's, perhaps even equivalent perf to certain gaming laptops like the m14x. I can't help but find that exciting.
its people who think what they value in a machine is the only thing anyone should value. If they can get a Windows machine at half the price with better specs even if its physical volume and weight are 3 to 5 times more, they consider it better and they consider you stupid for wanting something in a smaller package.
"This isnt the highest-specced Retina MacBook Pro, but with a 2.6GHz Core i7 and 8GB RAM we were able to enjoy a full 2880 x 1800 experience, and compared to the standard MacBook Pros 1440 x 900 (or 1680 x 1050), its a vastly improved visual experience.
But that isnt all that matters with gaming performance. At full resolution and maxed out settings (shadows, physics, etc.), we jumped between 15 and 20 frames per second just barely playable at most times, but on higher difficulties thatll prove aggravating. If you want to keep all the settings on max, jumping down to 1680 x 1050 (same as standard MacBook Pro) gave us a consistent 30FPS and is still very playable. But lets be honest, if youre buying this laptop, youre wanting to push the upper limit of resolution more than anything.
As for the more slow-paced Civilization V, if you can read the small-but-very-legible text, playing max resolution is great. On the other end of the spectrum, the twitch-puzzle-shooter Portal 2 recommended a much smaller 1280 x 800 resolution for smooth 60FPS but so long as we didnt try to tweak the Advanced Video effects (which all but grinds the game to a halt), with 2880 x 1800 the game would still be consistently in the 50FPS range with only the occasional minor stutters. And Blizzards other tentpole series, StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty, clocks in at around 23FPS with full resolution and "extreme" settings it drops during big battles, though. You can hit 60FPS by either dropping settings to "low" (keeping full resolution) or by dropping resolution to 1680 x 1050 (keeping "extreme" settings)."
http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/13/3082649/macbook-pro-review-retina-display-15-inch
But that isnt all that matters with gaming performance. At full resolution and maxed out settings (shadows, physics, etc.), we jumped between 15 and 20 frames per second just barely playable at most times, but on higher difficulties thatll prove aggravating. If you want to keep all the settings on max, jumping down to 1680 x 1050 (same as standard MacBook Pro) gave us a consistent 30FPS and is still very playable. But lets be honest, if youre buying this laptop, youre wanting to push the upper limit of resolution more than anything.
As for the more slow-paced Civilization V, if you can read the small-but-very-legible text, playing max resolution is great. On the other end of the spectrum, the twitch-puzzle-shooter Portal 2 recommended a much smaller 1280 x 800 resolution for smooth 60FPS but so long as we didnt try to tweak the Advanced Video effects (which all but grinds the game to a halt), with 2880 x 1800 the game would still be consistently in the 50FPS range with only the occasional minor stutters. And Blizzards other tentpole series, StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty, clocks in at around 23FPS with full resolution and "extreme" settings it drops during big battles, though. You can hit 60FPS by either dropping settings to "low" (keeping full resolution) or by dropping resolution to 1680 x 1050 (keeping "extreme" settings)."
http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/13/3082649/macbook-pro-review-retina-display-15-inch
Maven1975, or someone else - can you recreate the simple performance test from here? Make sure you run in default (1400x900/doubled) resolution and with latest OS patches installed.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1386070/
Then try the same thing with dedicated GPU forced (just disable auto GPU switching in the Energy Saver control panel)
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1386070/
Then try the same thing with dedicated GPU forced (just disable auto GPU switching in the Energy Saver control panel)
Do you have Parallels Desktop 7? Would love to know how games run on that in the least space/low res mode or whatever it's called. Skyrim if I have to name a specific game.
Also, anyone know how the late 2011 17" holds up with PD7 gaming? I don't care about high+ settings and 60fps, I would just love it if I could play all the Win games I have without boot camp.
Also, anyone know how the late 2011 17" holds up with PD7 gaming? I don't care about high+ settings and 60fps, I would just love it if I could play all the Win games I have without boot camp.
Um, have you noticed the economy recently? Even considering we are getting a quality product, that is a lot of money.
Most of us aren't as rich as you, maybe?
I can certainly understand people wanting them to offer retina technology at a cheaper price point, like a 13" with 4gb of memory and a 128gb ssd. I would take no issue with that and maybe have gotten that myself, instead.
But everyone is just say "They're way overpriced!" when in fact, for what you're getting, they're a pretty damn good value.
I can't afford that! - Fine
I can't justify that cost! - No problem
They are spendy! - Yeah, I guess
They are overpriced! - NO SIR!
Can you, please, open Terminal and input the following line: ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed /[^<]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
It should bring out a few lines with information about LED display. Just copy and paste it here.
Also, if possible, input serial number of your MBP into input field here - http://www.chipmunk.nl/klantenservice/applemodel.html to see where and when it was manufactured.
It should bring out a few lines with information about LED display. Just copy and paste it here.
Also, if possible, input serial number of your MBP into input field here - http://www.chipmunk.nl/klantenservice/applemodel.html to see where and when it was manufactured.
im so impressed by the new machine
this text is from the engadet review
"To create such a scenario, we installed one of the hottest games of the moment, Diablo III, and cranked it up to full resolution and full graphical details. We did, however, make one exception: anti-aliasing. When you're running at 2880 x 1800, there's no real need.
We were quite happily surprised to see the frame rate hovering between 25 and 30 fps as we explored a few towns and crawled a few dungeons -- perfectly playable at an obscene resolution. Turning it down to something a little more reasonable, 2048 x 1280, netted 40 to 45 fps and running at a relatively mundane 1280 x 800 delivered frame rates over 70. This, then, is a quite passable gaming machine."
Thats max resolution and max on graphic settings and 25-30 is just crazy good
this text is from the engadet review
"To create such a scenario, we installed one of the hottest games of the moment, Diablo III, and cranked it up to full resolution and full graphical details. We did, however, make one exception: anti-aliasing. When you're running at 2880 x 1800, there's no real need.
We were quite happily surprised to see the frame rate hovering between 25 and 30 fps as we explored a few towns and crawled a few dungeons -- perfectly playable at an obscene resolution. Turning it down to something a little more reasonable, 2048 x 1280, netted 40 to 45 fps and running at a relatively mundane 1280 x 800 delivered frame rates over 70. This, then, is a quite passable gaming machine."
Thats max resolution and max on graphic settings and 25-30 is just crazy good
Heat
So far the thing I'm most worried about is the fact that every review has said heat is a problem. It's to be expected from a laptop this thin and light that has an i7 and 650M. It's giving me pause in my possible quest to replace both a Windows gaming laptop and my 13" MBP with this one unit. The Asus G55 with a 660M seems like it might be a better option and just keep two machines.
I'll wait for the detailed analysis of how well it works as a Windows gaming laptop. It definitely has the guts to be "good enough" at 1440x900. If the heat dissipation isn't good enough for long gaming sessions to be comfortable it might be a deal breaker at the cost of the unit.
So far the thing I'm most worried about is the fact that every review has said heat is a problem. It's to be expected from a laptop this thin and light that has an i7 and 650M. It's giving me pause in my possible quest to replace both a Windows gaming laptop and my 13" MBP with this one unit. The Asus G55 with a 660M seems like it might be a better option and just keep two machines.
I'll wait for the detailed analysis of how well it works as a Windows gaming laptop. It definitely has the guts to be "good enough" at 1440x900. If the heat dissipation isn't good enough for long gaming sessions to be comfortable it might be a deal breaker at the cost of the unit.
Yeah, no way I'm giving up my Alienware. Just can't take it everywhere like I do the MBA. I think the classic MBP 2012 w SSD would be a nice option at 1440x900 or 1680x1050 and I could have both worlds in a decent size package.
Cheers,
The interesting thing here is that previous Macbook Pro video cards have been "Class 2" mobile video cards. The 650m is actually a "Class 1" card. Clearly the pixel density demanded that Apple move in to the Class 1 range.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Laptop-Graphics-Cards.130.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Laptop-Graphics-Cards.130.0.html
So true. Just like the NEW iPad required 4x more powerful GPU to give us the same performance as the iPad 2.
At least on the laptop you can scale the display down and keep the sharp picture. Cheers,
Yeah, there's been some odd negativity on this forum about the 650M. Not sure why, I'm really pleased to see it in the RMBP.
None of my MBPs have had a card as good as this (for its relative release period).
It can run Battlefield 3, on high settings, at an average of over 30FPS. That's pretty sick for a portable machine. I think some guys don't understand the difference between desktops and a cutting edge Mac laptop.
None of my MBPs have had a card as good as this (for its relative release period).
It can run Battlefield 3, on high settings, at an average of over 30FPS. That's pretty sick for a portable machine. I think some guys don't understand the difference between desktops and a cutting edge Mac laptop.
Yeah, notebookcheck is an awesome site, I'm always over there comparing laptop GPU's i'm drooling over.
It looks like the 660M is only about 10% improvement over the 650M. Add this to the fact that 1440x900 is virtually "native" with the RMBP panel since it's half res it should be nice and crisp at that resolution. I would imagine the RMBP would run games in 1440x900 in about the same performance as the G55 in 1650x1080. I could live with that as long is the RMBP wasn't always going nuclear meltdown after an hour or two. The G55 has pretty good cooling.
Hell I'm using a 1366x768 16" panel right now with an AMD Radeon 5730 and games look plenty good enough on that. It's just lagging a little now that it's a couple-few years old.