Graphics card comparison/ confusion

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by TWR Motorsport, Mar 18, 2013.

  1. TWR Motorsport macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    #1
    Hi there,

    Bit confused.
    I have the 15" late 2011 MBP :apple:
    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
     
  2. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #2
    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.
     
  3. TWR Motorsport thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    #3
    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
     
  4. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #4
    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.
     
  5. bill-p macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #5
    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...
     
  6. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #6
    Apple markets the Retina as the whole display projects your game in Retina graphics. Wishful thinking on a mobile GPU.

    Please stop.
     
  7. MacKid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    #7
  8. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #8
    What are you saying? A bit garbled there. Sounds like you agree so why "please stop"? :confused:
    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"+.
     
  9. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Asuriyan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Location:
    Indiana
    #10
    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.
     
  11. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #11
    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.
     
  12. swerve147 macrumors 6502a

    swerve147

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    #12
    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.
     
  13. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #13
    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.
     
  14. Asuriyan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Location:
    Indiana
    #14
    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.
     
  15. swerve147 macrumors 6502a

    swerve147

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    #15
    Um, I never made this an Nvidia vs AMD argument. But by all means, carry on with your rant. It's quite amusing.
     
  16. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #16
    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.

    Synthetic benchies man... gotta love those.
     
  17. bill-p macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #17
    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.
     
  18. mykem macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    #18
    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.


    See the above link(s) by MacKid.
     
  19. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #19
    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.
     
  20. laurihoefs, Mar 19, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2013

    laurihoefs macrumors 6502a

    laurihoefs

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    #20
    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?
     
  21. yusukeaoki macrumors 68030

    yusukeaoki

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #21
    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.
     
  22. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #22
    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?
     
  23. MacKid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    #23
    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.
     
  24. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #24
    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.
     
  25. mykem macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page