Wouldn't it be more prudent than to wait until hardware scalers could run those higher resolutions, as opposed to using software, so there would no or very minimal performance penalties?
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.
13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro to Launch Alongside iPad Mini in October
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wouldn't it be more prudent than to wait until hardware scalers could run those higher resolutions, as opposed to using software, so there would no or very minimal performance penalties?
Actually, not quite sure it's a limit of the hardware either, as nVidia GeForce 8 and above can support 8192x8192 pixel frame buffers in hardware, only otherwise limited by the video memory available, monitor support and of course other system limitations. This is from their XFree86 documentation :
http://us.download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/180.22/README/chapter-19.html
Of course, Apple uses OpenGL to render Quartz Extreme, and the limitation could be at other levels in the graphics stack, either with their OpenGL implementation, the Quartz display server or even something else like their CALayer implementation which is quite important in the graphics pipeline.
Heck for all we know, they are saturating the pixel fill-rate of the HD 4000 by doing multi-pass rendering inefficiently on the main frame buffer to achieve the blending of the different number of CALayers present on screen at any moment (instead of combining blending operations). But I'm dubious of this last one, since the issue would've crept up before when powering 30" ACDs and internal monitors off the same IGP like the 2008 unibody MacBook could do.
The 9400m is rated for 2.32 gpixels/sec (yes, over 2 billion pixels per second) while the 1300 mhz version of the HD 4000 is rated for 3.9 gpixels/sec (yes, close to 4 billion pixels per second). 2880x1800 is 5 million pixels (not billion, million)...
Last edited:
Don't go telling that to the "but the MBP has a big slate of glass in front of it!" crowd. The MBA's screen is nice as far as pixel density goes, but that's about it.
Bad move. Should have focused efforts on getting a retina on the Air- that would have been huge. And if no discrete graphics, lame.
*Edit* And the MBA screen is abysmal for today's standards as far as I'm concerned. Get a retina, matte, IPS, in there with higher resolution. 1600x900 is the sweet spot.
*Edit* And the MBA screen is abysmal for today's standards as far as I'm concerned. Get a retina, matte, IPS, in there with higher resolution. 1600x900 is the sweet spot.
Last edited:
Well, this is why you don't buy the first generation of new hardware technology if that's what you are really interested in. When Apple first offered SSDs in the MacBook Air, it was a $800 premium, now it's a little bit more reasonable.
1. Considering that both GPUs are each capable of pushing much more pixels without the slow framerate problems currently plaguing 15" rMBP users, I'm extremely sure it's a software problem.
2. I couldn't tell you as I don't work for Apple in that department. My guess is that it's a problem that they're constantly working on. Though I couldn't tell you whether it's an OS X 10.8.3 fix or if it'll be an OS X 10.9 fix. My guess is closer to the former than the latter.
That sounds pretty dead-on.
Ah, see you didn't make it clear that we were comparing the HD 4000 to the Radeon HD 6490M...if that's the case, you should just get a higher-end non-retina 15". I just bought one recently...thing's amazing!
Can someone explain why Apple wouldn't make one of the configurations quad core (and configurable to 16gb of RAM)? Is it a design issue? Because, from a price point/business perspective, the configurations being speculated will inevitable force most savvy users (the MBP's audience) to downgrade to the Air, or upgrade to the entry rPro.
An $1800 13" with a similar configurations to the entry level 15" Retina hits a completely different audience.
Have the leaked benchmark scores proven this can't be the case?
An $1800 13" with a similar configurations to the entry level 15" Retina hits a completely different audience.
Have the leaked benchmark scores proven this can't be the case?
Your on the ball...I was thinking EXACTLY this. I actually, strangely enough had a dream about having the 13-inch 2.9ghz....except it was quad core which was cooler...it also had an HDMI port. I think there should be upgradable to quad core on the 1599 model...I'm sorry but dual-core just blows chunks...As for resolution..still stand by the 2560x1600 range...if not just do 2048x1280...that would be great!
Over powered!? LOL what do you do on your computer? word processing? lmao...there is no such thing as overpowered when you start looking at things like photo editing and especially video editing which inevitably allot of these computers are used for and even targeted for. You can never have enough power...words like overpowered invite things like putting old tech into a computer...ugh...There will always be power users.
The 17" was nice....sure its huge and clunky but allot of people who say need to process video in the field really liked it. For me I like compact allot...a 15" non-retina would be fine for me so long as I have 1050p or higher. Some people liked the 17" as a desktop replacement, especially persons who need a computer in the field and at home allotIf a 17" is a MUST for you, then you have to buy a PC. Asus or Sony have great notebooks with that big screen. But NO MacOS X
Yeh there will always be power users I get that. All I said was for most users the air is powerful enough. You do realise most 13 inch computers are in peoples homes just chevking facebook and syncing their i devices. Power users are the minority for apple these days. Thats why the ipad gets updated more frquently than the mac pro.
Perhaps some guy who's shouting in the wrong topic? This topic is about the 13" rMBP, not iMacs or Mac Pro's...
Perhaps some guy who's shouting in the wrong topic? This topic is about the 13" rMBP, not iMacs or Mac Pro's...
Yeah obviously.
But most of us dont care about the 13in.
WE, rather have iMacs and Mac Pros.
$1499
2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
128GB flash storage
Intel HD Graphics 4000
Built-in battery (7 hours)
$1999
2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
256GB flash storage
Intel HD Graphics 4000
Built-in battery (7 hours)
2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
128GB flash storage
Intel HD Graphics 4000
Built-in battery (7 hours)
$1999
2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
256GB flash storage
Intel HD Graphics 4000
Built-in battery (7 hours)
Using SSDs to store stuff like music and videos is like wiping the table with your most expensive shirt, and the reason why we have 500gb external HDs going for cheap. Given that the key advantage of flash is that it lets you boot up and load apps faster, and until apple chooses to price them more reasonably, I wouldn't go more than 128gb ever (and could probably just scrape through with the 64b option, in the case of the air).
Actually if you compare MBP vs Retina MBP at same specs (let's say 2.6ghz to both have 1gb gpu, 8gb ram & 256gb ssd) the Retina version is 300$ cheaper than the non-Retina one - and that's even without upgrading the screen resolution from 1440x900 to 1680x1050 for another 100$.
Retina screen doesn't necessarily increase the cost of the laptop.
I wouldn't be too sure about that.
Well then just leave these threads alone and post in threads about iMac and Mac Pros? I think no one is interested in reading oneliners asking for iMac rumors in a 13"rMBP thread.
If a 17" is a MUST for you, then you have to buy a PC. Asus or Sony have great notebooks with that big screen. But NO MacOS X
Not legally. Then again why would you want to run Mac OS on any PC is beyond me.
It's important not to compare the final cost and assume that's what Apple pays. 8GB of RAM is NOT worth a $100 upgrade. It's about $40 total, and at the prices Apple pays, maybe even $30. It's the reason no one buys RAM upgrades from Apple, the upsell on those is INSANE.
Same with the SSD. Apple charges you $500 for a 256GB SSD, when you can buy the exact same brand they will stick in there (Samsung 830) for less than THIRD as much ($170).
8GB DDR3 RAM: Numerous manufacturers
256GB SSD: Samsung 830
Even if Apple has some special components made for them with pixie dust (they aren't), I think you can see why no one would appreciate this type of obscene price gouging.