Hey man what's it like to use at 1920x1200? Don't care about gaming, just using the desktop/working on files and stuff
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
Can you run Cinebench (http://www.maxon.net/downloads/cinebench.html) and post your results? I'd like to know how the MBPR does for rendering; especially the high end model.
not when you're running into a wall
But really the only problem with that logic with the processor is price vs performance. And in this case, unless you have money to burn and really really really want the faster processor, it's simply not worth it.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better for shelling out a load of cash for a upgrade which will be noticeable only in benchmarks.
that is a fair statement, but you also must note native resolution is an insane amount of pixels, playing any game natively on a 2880x1800 is as many pixels as more than two (in fact its exactly 2.5) 1920x1080 displays. I wouldn't REALLY expect a laptop to power 2+ 1080 displays smoothly while gaming.... I mean yes it is silly it can't really drive the built in display smoothly, but with that many pixels, can you blame them?
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better for shelling out a load of cash for a upgrade which will be noticeable only in benchmarks.
Let me tell you something. My MacBook Pro early 2011 2.2GHZ with 6mb of L3 "Cash" is not able to play my Red 4K footage at 1/4 resolution yet my office Macbook Pro 2.3GHZ with 8Mb "Cash" is doing it without hiccups. In my case it's worth it. Let's see some benchmarks when people get their computers, only time will tell because right now you don't really know.
I do, cause I've seen non-mac benchmark comparisons between those two, and the difference is tiny at best.
And why did you switch from saying cache to "cash"? Is that some bad attempt at trolling cause I mentioned cash ( as in currency) in the post you quoted?
And why did you switch from saying cache to "cash"? Is that some bad attempt at trolling cause I mentioned cash ( as in currency) in the post you quoted?
And both had the same amount of RAM, same HDD or SSD, and a clean install of OSX? I bet not.
Want me to hold his hand as well? A quick google search will give you the answers. Besides, he's the one who made the initial claim. Supporting it with evidence falls on him.
A claim based on anecdotal evidence which requires no reference (other than him or her self of course). You however referenced benchmarks without posting them, very different indeed.
650m is a slightly downclocked 660m. The performance difference would be around 15% at most. Does not qualify as 'much worse' to me. Anyway, people will run games at 1440x900 with that laptop and the 650m is competent enough to do this.
Here is a benchmark for you: http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...s/657456-660m-vs-650m-ddr5-2.html#post8534700
P.S. Don't confuse the GDDR3 650m with the GDDR5 650m - the first is indeed significantly slower.
P.P.S. I'd love to have 660m as optional upgrade though... and 2GB VRAM stock.
SMCFancontrol. The only way I can run my 2007 MBP is cranking the fans up to 3-4k. Thinking of upgrading!
I have everything loaded on Windows EXCEPT a working video driver. I have tried everything in the book without luck. (Including DSEO and .inf mods)
Getting errors not detecting compatible hardware.
Any leads on what drivers will work? I would love to know what Anand used.
Getting errors not detecting compatible hardware.
Any leads on what drivers will work? I would love to know what Anand used.
I have read that 650m is a great overclocker. So you can just overclock it to 660m levels anyways.
However. I dont get why people want 2gb vram on a mobile card.
Its just stupid. Most games are using 500+mb vram.
Hell even battlefield 3 with eyefinity/nvidia surround uses between 1500-2000mb.
When you are going to play at 1440x900, 1gb vram is more then enough.
I take it you tried the modded inf and drivers from here:
http://laptopvideo2go.com/
And what drivers have you tried?
Have you looked up the 650m device id and added it into the inf manually?
some 650m users are getting by with the 291 drivers, however you could try the inf mods for the 300 ones. Nvidia really havent launched a real kepler mobile driver yet
You are entirely correct. However, don't forget that its VRAM that is used to store the final full-res image in addition to desktop compositor's content etc. These things can easily draw another 100MB or so. Having 2GB VRAM would give the whole thing more breathing space (its not that expensive anyway).