Enjoying my 15" Macbook "Air", yet is a testament to awful PC industry

[luigi.lauro]

Some casual gaming is possible, by turning down your resolution to 1440x900.

CASUAL gaming??? Are you kidding me?

Apple basically packed in for a first time a GTX mobile card (the 650M GT of the rMBP is clocked higher and faster than a standard 660M GTX), that beats 'gaming laptops' such as alienware m14x which are double the size and weight, in a air-like chassis thick 0.7 inches and weighting less than 4.5 lbs.

This machine is able to game ANYTHING, even hardcore gaming (BF3, etc..) at 1680/1920 ultra settings 60+ fps, and can even go native res 2880 high/ultra settings on very recent games (civ5, skyrim, diablo 3, etc...) with decent 30+ fps.

The only way to go higher than that on a laptop is with 17/18'' monster laptops with single/dual 680M GTX cards or similar where the card alone consumes more than the whole rMBP.

Pretending more in that size and weight is like pretending to have a 800 hp car which does 20 km with a liter of gasoline.

It's quite simply not possible.

 

[ACiB708]

The original Air couldn't do anything I required of a working laptop at the time. Web browsing, e-mail, office suite apps, light work... all that stuff was fine. And yeah, that made it great for non-creative professionals who needed to travel light with a full computer.

The lack of ports was astounding. I mean, a single USB and a Micro-DVI... nothing else. It also had a severely limited GPU, the HD/SSD options were poor, and the processor was akin to the typical 1.6GHz ones found in the netbooks of the day.

It's no contest. The MBPr is a first gen product that excedes the rest of the field even remotely close to it. Everything I can possibly throw at it today is handled with flying colors... markedly better than my 1-year-old desktop even. The performance is something remarkable on its own and I'd say the "limitations" are blown massively out of proportion, but when you combine it with the packaging... it's something really special.

This. People sometimes just ignore the fact that this is a .7 inch notebook that weighs less than 4 and a half punds. Really, all that power in this enclosure... it really is an engineering marvel. And as everything Apple every little problem can and will be overblown.

 

[entatlrg]

Its got one of the best screens out there, its the best in a 13'' format. Got the Z2 model for awhile and returned it because the build quality wasnt that inspiring. The dock was one of the main things that attracted me. Still poor implementation.

You havent used the x220/x230 and the T520/T530 or the W520/W530, Those have excellent screens. And given that you are comparing with the price the W series is the one you are aiming at.

You also have forgot the elitebooks W and the precisions. Those have a much better screen, comparing it to the RMBP.

Basically your post means that you aint that aware of whats happening outside apple.

If you were to say that given the form factor and features there is no RMBP competitor, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. There simply isnt, the xps 15 and the envy 15 are competing against the MBP, not the RMBP.

Are you the new resident know-it-all? You very obviously have no clue or you're looking at stat's on paper - Try looking at the displays in real life instead!

The Vaio Z/Z2 does not have a better screen than my rMBP or my MBA for that matter IPS, Color accurate WHO CARES if you're looking at a screen with that hazy, poorly done, "panty-hose, screen door" effect of an AG screen. Want to see a nice AG screen done right, look at Apple's hi-res AG MBP's.

Absolutely the same thing goes for Lenovo's, and that includes the 2011/2012 x and T series Thinkpad's. Same goes for the disposable Inspirons.

Horrible AG film, poor viewing angles, or glare or whatever I don't personally care for Sony or Lenovo displays. You mentioned Dell and HP and in those cases I'd choose the Lenovo over them when it comes to screens. But, still for my tastes, actual use and readability, I prefer Mac screens by a long margin.

Next time before you post, instead of scouring the net for spec's to ignorantly disprove my opinion on displays, trying actually looking at the display itself, or better yet buy them and then tell me what you think. I HAVE experience with the products I mentioned, you very obviously don't.

 

[Mr MM]

Are you the new resident know-it-all? You very obviously have no clue or you're looking at stat's on paper - Try looking at the displays in real life instead!

The Vaio Z/Z2 does not have a better screen than my rMBP or my MBA for that matter IPS, Color accurate WHO CARES if you're looking at a screen with that hazy, poorly done, "panty-hose, screen door" effect of an AG screen. Want to see a nice AG screen done right, look at Apple's hi-res AG MBP's.

Absolutely the same thing goes for Lenovo's, and that includes the 2011/2012 x and T series Thinkpad's. Same goes for the disposable Inspirons.

Horrible AG film, poor viewing angles, or glare or whatever I don't personally care for Sony or Lenovo displays. You mentioned Dell and HP and in those cases I'd choose the Lenovo over them when it comes to screens. But, still for my tastes, actual use and readability, I prefer Mac screens by a long margin.

Next time before you post, instead of scouring the net for spec's to ignorantly disprove my opinion on displays, trying actually looking at the display itself, or better yet buy them and then tell me what you think. I HAVE experience with the products I mentioned, you very obviously don't.

Im not the knew resident know it all. I contrary to you know something, which for someone who doesnt have a clue seems a lot.

I had a Z2, returned for the stated reasons. Never said that the screen is better than the RMBP, I do value IPS a lot.

I use a x220 sometimes for work.

I serviced a W520, and gamed with a NP9150, you probably should have saw a xps 15 from last year with the glossy model of the screen as well.

I wasnt talking about the inspiron line, I was talking about precision, you seem to dont have a clue to what WORKSTATION means.

the dreamcolor 2 is one of the best screens in the market, be it desktop or notebook. It certainly is superior to the RMBP, no graphical artist will disagree with me.

But as I said, there is no RMBP competitor, MBP on the other hand several.

Reading comprehension is something that you should pay attention, I did agree with you in part.

 

[unwinded]

CASUAL gaming??? Are you kidding me?

Apple basically packed in for a first time a GTX mobile card (the 650M GT of the rMBP is clocked higher and faster than a standard 660M GTX), that beats 'gaming laptops' such as alienware m14x which are double the size and weight, in a air-like chassis thick 0.7 inches and weighting less than 4.5 lbs.

This machine is able to game ANYTHING, even hardcore gaming (BF3, etc..) at 1680/1920 ultra settings 60+ fps, and can even go native res 2880 high/ultra settings on very recent games (civ5, skyrim, diablo 3, etc...) with decent 30+ fps.

The only way to go higher than that on a laptop is with 17/18'' monster laptops with single/dual 680M GTX cards or similar where the card alone consumes more than the whole rMBP.

Pretending more in that size and weight is like pretending to have a 800 hp car which does 20 km with a liter of gasoline.

It's quite simply not possible.

Agreed. There is obviously a generational gap between laptop GPUs and desktop GPUs which is primarily a heat/size restriction. The same restriction applies to HTPCs which are often limited to entry level and/or specific mid-level cards. A single GPU is only going to be as good as mid-level PC cards and a laptop with dual GPUs is going to be huge, hot, impractical for most compared to a desktop, and expensive.

To put things in perspective, I'm replacing my Asus 17" gaming laptop which has a 460m GTX. The current version of the same laptop (G75VW) has a 660m GTX. For whatever reason (as you mentioned), the 650m GT in the rMBP is clocked higher than the 660m GTX. Now nvidia uses higher yield cards for their GTX line and in this case the 650m is probably a 660m reject or possibly not. It could be a hybrid with the GT monicker used because the GTX has 2GB of vram vs the 1GB in the rMBP. Either way, their performance is comparable. The G75VW can be configured with a 670m GTX which is better, but it costs more. A similarly specced G75VW costs almost the same as a rMBP and is huge lacking a retina screen and not at all aesthetically pleasing. On the Mac side, my main concern is the heat.

Even though non-native resolution gaming often sucks, 1440x900 on the retina display is exactly half the resolution and the scaling is fine, offset with a small amount of AA (or nvidia's built-in FXAA if using the newer driver). Even never expected to play games as 2800x1800 but many of them are quite playable and look beautiful (in boot camp). I'm playing Witcher 2 at 1440x900 with all settings maxed minus uber sampling and SSAO with it's own FXAA off in favor of nvidia's. It runs 30 fps on average, the rare busy scene in the 20s, and indoors goes up to 60 fps. And it looks great. This 360 version uses scaled down assets at a lower resolution and runs choppier. I have cutscene cinematic DOF on so they can get choppy but they're cutscenes. I can always tweak the settings if I got annoyed.

This is one of the most graphically demanding games on PC and it's not a casual game. It runs a lot better than my Asus did. My Asus couldn't handle it on low at 1080p. It's at least playable on the rMBP but I prefer more eye candy and a reduced res since it looks great. The number of people would would look at it and call it unplayable are a small subset of PC gaming niche.

 

[Mr MM]

Agreed. There is obviously a generational gap between laptop GPUs and desktop GPUs which is primarily a heat/size restriction. The same restriction applies to HTPCs which are often limited to entry level and/or specific mid-level cards. A single GPU is only going to be as good as mid-level PC cards and a laptop with dual GPUs is going to be huge, hot, impractical for most compared to a desktop, and expensive.

To put things in perspective, I'm replacing my Asus 17" gaming laptop which has a 460m GTX. The current version of the same laptop (G75VW) has a 660m GTX. For whatever reason (as you mentioned), the 650m GT in the rMBP is clocked higher than the 660m GTX. Now nvidia uses higher yield cards for their GTX line and in this case the 650m is probably a 660m reject or possibly not. It could be a hybrid with the GT monicker used because the GTX has 2GB of vram vs the 1GB in the rMBP. Either way, their performance is comparable. The G75VW can be configured with a 670m GTX which is better, but it costs more. A similarly specced G75VW costs almost the same as a rMBP and is huge lacking a retina screen and not at all aesthetically pleasing. On the Mac side, my main concern is the heat.

Even though non-native resolution gaming often sucks, 1440x900 on the retina display is exactly half the resolution and the scaling is fine, offset with a small amount of AA (or nvidia's built-in FXAA if using the newer driver). Even never expected to play games as 2800x1800 but many of them are quite playable and look beautiful (in boot camp). I'm playing Witcher 2 at 1440x900 with all settings maxed minus uber sampling and SSAO with it's own FXAA off in favor of nvidia's. It runs 30 fps on average, the rare busy scene in the 20s, and indoors goes up to 60 fps. And it looks great. This 360 version uses scaled down assets at a lower resolution and runs choppier. I have cutscene cinematic DOF on so they can get choppy but they're cutscenes. I can always tweak the settings if I got annoyed.

This is one of the most graphically demanding games on PC and it's not a casual game. It runs a lot better than my Asus did. My Asus couldn't handle it on low at 1080p. It's at least playable on the rMBP but I prefer more eye candy and a reduced res since it looks great. The number of people would would look at it and call it unplayable are a small subset of PC gaming niche.

the only difference between the 660m/650m/640m/640m LE (some models of the latter) are the clocks and the vRAM type.

Only the 660m has GDDR5 as standard, all models can be configured with either DDR3 or GDDR5.

The 670m is a rebrand of the 570m. Its still going to pull faster fps.

The thing is that the clocks determine whether you will call what gpu in there a number, since those need to be stable. After apple released the RMBP nvidia tweaked the specs of the 650m.

For me sincerely the real high end cards are the 7970m and 680m, compared to the last year and this year models they have gained so much in performance that aint fair anymore to call the 660m or the 7850m entry level high end gpu, the difference is just too large for that.

The 7970m works as a 7850, you cant touch that kind of performance with a 660m. Simple as that. The 680m is a 670m heavily downclocked. The scores in synth benchies and gaming point towards a more than 100% increase in performance. The actual value is around 150%.