Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hardware scalers were never designed to run 2880x1800, 3360x2100 and 3840x2160 resolutions. The max has always been 2560x1600 for quite a long time. And it's not as if using 2880x1800 uses just a bit more power than 2560x1600. If you can't do it in hardware, then you have to use software, and performance pays a big penalty.

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?
 
Hardware scalers were never designed to run 2880x1800, 3360x2100 and 3840x2160 resolutions. The max has always been 2560x1600 for quite a long time. And it's not as if using 2880x1800 uses just a bit more power than 2560x1600. If you can't do it in hardware, then you have to use software, and performance pays a big penalty.

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:
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.
 
Last edited:
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?

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.
 
"The OS and/or drivers are/is not properly coded to handle the increased pixel resolution. "

1. How sure are you it's a software problem?

2. If they are going to be releasing the 13" rMBP very soon, is Apple going to be able to rectify the software in time for release?

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.

My Predictions...

13-inch: 2.5 GHz Retina display

2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz
4GB 1600MHz memory
128GB flash storage
Intel HD Graphics 4000
Built-in battery (7 hours)

$1,599.00


13-inch: 2.9 GHz Retina display

2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
256GB flash storage
Intel HD Graphics 4000
Built-in battery (7 hours)

$1,899.00

That sounds pretty dead-on.

Calm down. I'm fully aware that it will blow away that ancient laptop- there's a reason why it's almost never turned on anymore. My work laptop (company owns it, I don't) is serving duty as my primary mobile computer ( 15" high res 2011 MBP, 256 MB Radeon 6490M) and I play the occasional game on it on it, but it is a weak GPU. Since I have a desktop which is my primary rendering / gaming machine, I'd like a GPU-heavy portable so that my work computer can remain a "work machine". If a 13" rMBP only has HD4000 graphics, I might as well get an MBA and get roughly the same GPU performance (compared to the number of pixels it's pushing).

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?
 
Originally Posted by MacFather
My Predictions...

13-inch: 2.5 GHz Retina display

2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz
4GB 1600MHz memory
128GB flash storage
Intel HD Graphics 4000
Built-in battery (7 hours)

$1,599.00


13-inch: 2.9 GHz Retina display

2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
256GB flash storage
Intel HD Graphics 4000
Built-in battery (7 hours)

$1,899.00
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!

For most users the air is fine and the macbook pro is overpowered.

----------



Apple? User upgradeable? You must be thinking of another apple.
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.

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 :(
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 allot
 
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 allot

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.
 
$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)
 
First, I can't imagine that 13" rMBP's will sell with such low storage amounts. Many 13" MBP buyers (aka college students) need 500GB+ to store their torrents after all . This is the big difference with the 15" price differences. Second, yes you can opt for Apple's $900 512 GB SSD upgrade in a cMBP which would bring it closer to the price of a rMBP but you can also just buy an aftermarket one for $400...

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). :p
 
Price premium of the Retina Display is about $200. And do remember that there is a lot of fudging because when you configure a 15" Classic MBP with the same hardware specs as the 15" Retina MBP, it costs just the same even without the additional cost of the better display.

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'll be disappointed if Apple doesn't release a default config with a 512GB SSD. This is a Pro machine, I'd expect the default configs to be a step above the MBA - 256GB and 512GB.
 
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.

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.
 
Plug in an 30" ACD in your 17" MBP and run stuff off the IGP and you'll see it. Seriously, pixel fill rates of modern GPUs have been much more then enough for "Retina" displays for quite a few years. The problem pre-HDMI/Display Port was output bandwidth (dual link DVI was required and was not the cheapest of interconnects).

yeah but apple REFUSES to use anything better than mid-low end GFX
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.