Graphics card comparison/ confusion

[TWR Motorsport]

Hi there,

Bit confused.
I have the 15" late 2011 MBP
Graphics AMD Radeon HD 6770M 1024 MB

If you look at a new 15" Retina MBP
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1024MB

And if you look at benchmarks the 'older card' is better!

Just struck me as odd, you wouldn't catch me with a rMBP anyway just because whilst the resolution is insane the graphics card is in hard use all the time before you do anything demanding just to maintain the resolution.

If you take a graphics intensive program/ game then you won't be able to run it native because it doesn't have the power so what's the point?

Cheers,
T

 

[jav6454]

I have always been critical of Apple's choice of GPU. It sucks and Retina is not ready for performing on a "Pro" product. A fully fledged desktop class GPU might, but not a mobile version of it. Never.

However, everyone here likes to drink the Apple kool-aid. Also, it is not that the older GPU is better. The benchies are not just since one Mac uses a higher resolution (much higher I might add) LCD than the older one.

 

[TWR Motorsport]

I have always been critical of Apple's choice of GPU. It sucks and Retina is not ready for performing on a "Pro" product. A fully fledged desktop class GPU might, but not a mobile version of it. Never.

I couldn't agree more. The Retina is not a PRO product at all. But this is kind of the problem now they just have the Air and MBP with nothing in-between.

And no those benchies are not Mac specific. It's a general benchmarck for the card on lots of PC's/ Macs.

#forgettingaboutpowerusers
#bringoutanewmacprotower

 

[leman]

The 650M is almost 50% faster, no idea what you are complaining about. Also, wanting to run a modern game at native retina resolution is wishful thinking. You can run virtually every game at 1680x1050 though which is excellent for the laptop that size and weight.

 

[bill-p]

Couple of notes:

1) Benchmarks for 15" Retina model up to this point have been done prior to the recent SMC firmware update.

2) The recent SMC firmware update addresses graphical performance issues...

 

[jav6454]

The 650M is almost 50% faster, no idea what you are complaining about. Also, wanting to run a modern game at native retina resolution is wishful thinking. You can run virtually every game at 1680x1050 though which is excellent for the laptop that size and weight.

Apple markets the Retina as the whole display projects your game in Retina graphics. Wishful thinking on a mobile GPU.

Please stop.

 

[MacKid]

Picking a random game on which both were benched: 650M gets 60 FPS on Crysis 2. The Radeon gets 40. You can expect better-than-average results from an rMBP, in which the 650M is overclocked.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6770M.43955.0.html

 

[derbothaus]

Apple markets the Retina as the whole display projects your game in Retina graphics. Wishful thinking on a mobile GPU.

Please stop.

What are you saying? A bit garbled there. Sounds like you agree so why "please stop"?
Retina res gaming would be hard with SLI'd Titans or 690's and a 650m is pretty good for a >1" laptop. Slaughters the 6770. Not sure what test OP saw. It was wrong. There are only 2 or so cards better than 650m for laptops at all and they are even over the TDP Apple can use in such a tight space. Sorry folks, physics. You can have all kinds of "pro" laptop graphics with a laptops over 1.25" or more. Like 2"+.

 

[jav6454]

What are you saying? A bit garbled there. Sounds like you agree so why "please stop"?
Retina res gaming would be hard with SLI'd Titans or 690's and a 650m is pretty good for a >1" laptop. Slaughters the 6770. Not sure what test OP saw. It was wrong. There are only 2 or so cards better than 650m for laptops at all and they are even over the TDP Apple can use in such a tight space. Sorry folks, physics. You can have all kinds of "pro" laptop graphics with a laptops over 1.25" or more. Like 2"+.

Once again, stop. A GTX 680 can game on the resolution of the retina MB. The HD7970 can do it as well. Hell, their smaller brothers the 670 and 7950 can also do it as well. You do not need a SLI'd Titan or CrossFire'd 7990.

If physics doesn't allow a good GPU, then don't market it as a "Pro" Retina product. Simply don't.

 

[Asuriyan]

The limitations of the GPU do not apply to any professional use. This isn't a pro gamer laptop, after all.

I'm more than content with being able to run Far Cry 3 on medium to high settings at my Cinema display's native resolution (1680x1050- it's an old 20"). Why Retina, then, you ask- if I'm using an external monitor anyway? The GPU is already clocked ~10% higher than the standard 650m, and the efficiency of the cooling system allows me to bump it another 15% without any adverse effects (or honestly any higher temperatures at all). The Retina truly shines with text, which is what I'm looking at when the computer is unplugged more often than not.

 

[jav6454]

The limitations of the GPU do not apply to any professional use. This isn't a pro gamer laptop, after all.

This isn't a Pro gamer laptop, but it is marketed as a "Pro" computer. Pro usually means great performance with respect to the current hardware. This current hardware struggles to deliver respectable performance for today's standards.

Facebook stuttering? Ghosting? Hardly a "Pro" product. Yes, iMovie looks great, but thats about it. Apple has been beta testing the Retina on first gen users. The current Retina generation should just be marketed as MacBooks. Not MacBook Pros. Simple, they have no Pro in them.

 

[swerve147]

Hi there,

Bit confused.
I have the 15" late 2011 MBP
Graphics AMD Radeon HD 6770M 1024 MB

If you look at a new 15" Retina MBP
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1024MB

And if you look at benchmarks the 'older card' is better!

Just struck me as odd, you wouldn't catch me with a rMBP anyway just because whilst the resolution is insane the graphics card is in hard use all the time before you do anything demanding just to maintain the resolution.

If you take a graphics intensive program/ game then you won't be able to run it native because it doesn't have the power so what's the point?

Cheers,
T

I see what you did there. You're comparing apples (GT650M at 2880x1800) to oranges (6770M at 1680x1050).

What makes the Retina display different is that it is pixel-dense enough to run at lower resolutions without sacrificing much in terms of image quality. And we're not talking about just OS X's faux resolution scaling, we're also talking about games. As other Retina owners have already stated they run games at 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 without even flinching about IQ. For further proof all you have to do is go to YouTube and witness the numerous uploaded videos of people using lower than native res for their games without issue.

It's true that a traditional TN LCD panel would not be able to do this. You can however get away with it with the Retina display.

 

[jav6454]

I see what you did there. You're comparing apples (GT650M at 2880x1800) to oranges (6770M at 1680x1050).

OP mentioned synthetic benchies earlier. Nice try. Also, those "retina" compatible games are develop exclusively to run on nVidia hardware and gimp on other GPU hardware (ATI). So it seems like nVidia is better, but its not.

Why do you think many games have the "nVidia, way meant to be played" logo on? Its not just for marketing, but for BSing you to buy nVidia only.

 

[Asuriyan]

This isn't a Pro gamer laptop, but it is marketed as a "Pro" computer. Pro usually means great performance with respect to the current hardware. This current hardware struggles to deliver respectable performance for today's standards.

Facebook stuttering? Ghosting? Hardly a "Pro" product. Yes, iMovie looks great, but thats about it. Apple has been beta testing the Retina on first gen users. The current Retina generation should just be marketed as MacBooks. Not MacBook Pros. Simple, they have no Pro in them.

So I suppose the fact that it runs neck and neck with my company-issue Mac Pro for almost any conversion, encoding, compiling or other computing-intensive task and is capable of doing so with 2 fewer cores while remaining in a ~5lb package good for 7-10 hours of battery-powered use is completely negated by overblown and overstated issues with the UI that are demonstrably able to be mitigated with software?

No excuses for the screen debacle, but in all fairness, that's LG's doing, not Apple's.

 

[swerve147]

OP mentioned synthetic benchies earlier. Nice try. Also, those "retina" compatible games are develop exclusively to run on nVidia hardware and gimp on other GPU hardware (ATI). So it seems like nVidia is better, but its not.

Why do you think many games have the "nVidia, way meant to be played" logo on? Its not just for marketing, but for BSing you to buy nVidia only.

Um, I never made this an Nvidia vs AMD argument. But by all means, carry on with your rant. It's quite amusing.

 

[jav6454]

So I suppose the fact that it runs neck and neck with my company-issue Mac Pro for almost any conversion, encoding, compiling or other computing-intensive task and is capable of doing so with 2 fewer cores while remaining in a ~5lb package good for 7-10 hours of battery-powered use is completely negated by overblown and overstated issues with the UI that are demonstrably able to be mitigated with software?

No excuses for the screen debacle, but in all fairness, that's LG's doing, not Apple's.

Yes, obviously, because the Mac Pro runs a desktop class GPU of this or last year. You are comparing a 2009 GPU tech vs 2012 GPU tech. 3 years is quite the time in GPU tech.

Um, I never made this an Nvidia vs AMD argument. But by all means, carry on with your rant. It's quite amusing.

Synthetic benchies man... gotta love those.

 

[bill-p]

Yeah... feel free to show us any benchmark in which the GT 650M is slower than the HD 6770M.

I haven't seen any link in this thread so far.

 

[mykem]

Picking a random game on which both were benched: 650M gets 60 FPS on Crysis 2. The Radeon gets 40. You can expect better-than-average results from an rMBP, in which the 650M is overclocked.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6770M.43955.0.html

Notebook Check classify the 6770 as being "a fast middle class graphics card for laptops in 2011".

The 650M is a Class 1 card whereas the 6770 is rates as Class 2.

If you look at recent games that really test GPU performance like BF3:

AMD RADEON HD 6770M
low: 37.7 39 ~ 38 fps
med.: 26.7 28 ~ 27 fps
high*: 21.1 22 ~ 22 fps

NVIDIA GT 650M
low: 57.9 64.4 65.7 ~ 63 fps
med.: 39.6 42.3 43.3 44.4 ~ 42 fps
high*: 30.3 31.1 33.6 34.1 35.4 ~ 33 fps
ultra: 11.8 15.1 15.2 15.5 15.8 ~ 15 fps

*high- 1366x768 high 16xAF -AA

High is still playable with the 650M @ over 30fps while the low 20fps on the 6770M renders the game less playable (and certainly less enjoyable) on the 6770M.

Yeah... feel free to show us any benchmark in which the GT 650M is slower than the HD 6770M.

I haven't seen any link in this thread so far.

See the above link(s) by MacKid.

 

[leman]

Sorry jav6454, but what you write here makes absolutely not sense to me. In the end, the rMBP graphics is faster than any 2011 MBP models - by a fairly wide margin, but you keep ignoring that and insisting on some fantasy scenarios like playing demanding games on native retina resolution. Not much to add to this.

 

[laurihoefs]

Facebook stuttering? Ghosting? Hardly a "Pro" product. Yes, iMovie looks great, but thats about it. Apple has been beta testing the Retina on first gen users. The current Retina generation should just be marketed as MacBooks. Not MacBook Pros. Simple, they have no Pro in them.

Facebook stuttering (which is an issue of Safari, not the hardware, and was fixed with updates) is a problem in a professional computer, if you are paid to scroll Facebook pages up and down. There might be people who do that for a living too, but judging from the marketing materials this laptop is aimed for graphics and video use. And that is where it absolutely shines.

iMovie? Ok, how about Aperture, Creative Suite, Lightroom and Final Cut Pro? Heard of those? They all benefit greatly from a good guality hi-res IPS-screen, and run great on a rMBP. Are those programs and the people who use them professional enough for you?

 

[yusukeaoki]

Sorry jav6454, but what you write here makes absolutely not sense to me. In the end, the rMBP graphics is faster than any 2011 MBP models - by a fairly wide margin, but you keep ignoring that and insisting on some fantasy scenarios like playing demanding games on native retina resolution. Not much to add to this.

You just dont know what he is talking about dont you...
Either way I still believe rMBP is not a ready product.
It hatched way too fast and it is rotting.

 

[leman]

You just dont know what he is talking about dont you...

No, I don't. As I say, it sounds like a nonsense to me. You have a considerably faster machine, with better screen and everything, but for some reason its not 'pro' enough. It does sound a bit weird, doesn't it? After all, what was 'pro' about the 2009 MBP which didn't even have a dedicated GPU?

 

[MacKid]

No, I don't. As I say, it sounds like a nonsense to me. You have a considerably faster machine, with better screen and everything, but for some reason its not 'pro' enough. It does sound a bit weird, doesn't it? After all, what was 'pro' about the 2009 MBP which didn't even have a dedicated GPU?

Why, the ExpressCard/34 slot, of course! It was a professional expansion tool for professionals who do professional-type things.

I'm confident at this point that people felt better about the Pro just because it was thicker. The move to an Air-ish chassis was another notch in the "Consumer" column, even though it's mostly psychological.

 

[jav6454]

No, I don't. As I say, it sounds like a nonsense to me. You have a considerably faster machine, with better screen and everything, but for some reason its not 'pro' enough. It does sound a bit weird, doesn't it? After all, what was 'pro' about the 2009 MBP which didn't even have a dedicated GPU?

Excuse me? The 2009 MBP didn't have a dedicated video card? There was only one model with such specs, and that was the integrated 9400M 15" MBP (which I also think should not be called "Pro").

It is not nonsense, you just don't get it.

 

[mykem]

You just dont know what he is talking about dont you...
Either way I still believe rMBP is not a ready product.
It hatched way too fast and it is rotting.

I think you're taking the brand-name too seriously. My last MBP- 2007 pre-unibody had the graphic chip failed after 3 years of daily use. But that was a known issue with the Nvidia 8600 and which Apple replaced with no question asked. It's still working after 6 years of ownership and continued use.

I don't know how long my 15" rMBP will last. I bought mine used from a owner who's using it for 6 months before switching to the smaller 13" rMBP.

And after 6 months, the LG screen shows no sign of IR. I don't go about testing it every week (I did it a few weeks ago when I came across this forum) but in my normal everyday use, I haven't notice anything peculiar. I will be vigilant but not obsessed.