If the rMbps had a higher ppi..

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by washburn, Feb 24, 2013.

  1. washburn macrumors 6502

    Apr 8, 2010
    Would it have slowed down the performance?

    The chrome pixel seems to have a higher ppi, why didn't apple go for a higher ppi in the first place..will they in the future?
  2. leman macrumors G3

    Oct 14, 2008
    Higher resolution always means more work. As to the reason why Apple didn't go higher... maybe there was no appropriate panel available at the time they released rMBP? Maybe it was the most cost-effective option? Who knows? Note how expensive the Pixel is - the 13" rMBP with significantly better specs, much more storage and similar weight is just $200 more. Which means that that display in the Pixel is probably extremely expensive.
  3. JeffiJers macrumors 6502a

    Sep 12, 2012
    was going to say exactly this..
  4. Asuriyan, Feb 24, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2013

    Asuriyan macrumors 6502a

    Feb 4, 2013
    So you might think. But the Samsung-made Nexus 10 tablet has a Samsung Super PLS display at 2560x1600- the exact type and resolution of that in the 13" rMBP- but the entire tablet costs $400.

    Google could price the Chromebook Pixel much lower if they wanted to. They won't, however, because on Android tablets they have the revenue from the Android Play store to offset any loss on the tablet.

    The resolution for the current Retinas has to do with the fact that it's doubled in both dimensions from the previous panel, making scaling easier.
  5. Krevnik macrumors 68040


    Sep 8, 2003
    The panel definitely isn't a majority cost, but you're oversimplifying the cost of a given panel. While higher PPI displays are more expensive due to the difficulty of higher density, there are other factors that affect the price as well that are at play here.

    Panels are cut from a larger "wafer". These wafers for a given factory don't really change in size. So a few things happen:

    - Larger panels from the wafer mean fewer panels from a wafer. That means higher per-panel costs in raw materials.

    - A wafer itself will have some number of defects in it. The number of panels affected doesn't really change as you change the size of the panel. So yields are further hurt as you grow the panel size in terms of unusable panels.

    - Odd aspect ratios (which the Pixel has) means more waste, on average, because the wafer shape won't change. It's partly why 16:9 panels have taken over in the computer monitor world.

    - Production run size is also a factor, since the costs of tooling and labor on smaller runs (like the Pixel and rMBP have) are spread across a much smaller number of panels.

    Both the iPad and Nexus 10 are much larger runs (I'd wager more than 10x).

    But the Pixel isn't a Nexus either. The real problem is that it is using more powerful and expensive components to drive a web browser. That lack of flexibility means that practically anything is better than this, unless you slap Linux on it.
  6. lucasfer899 macrumors 6502


    Sep 23, 2012
    The Chromebook pixel, has a smaller screen, AND a differemt aspect ratio, to the rMBP. The rMBP 13" has a resolution of 2560x1600, and scales to the same amount of real estate as a uMBP 13", at 1280x800, the Chromebook however, I am keen to see what it scales to. And honestly, the difference is not noteworthy at all. I have never seen a computer with a 3:2 screen before.
    I see: 16:9, 16:10, 4:3, among the other usual aspect ratio.

    As well as the fact that the rMBP looks way better, has a BETTER screen, (it's not all about pixel density, the colors have to pop), has actual proper storage for your stuff, as well as super high end internals. Like, the Chromebook doesnt even have usb 3! Nor does it have thunderbolt, and only a 5hr battery compared to the rMBP's 7hr, and considering the rMBP is way more powerful, this is pretty impressive.
  7. washburn thread starter macrumors 6502

    Apr 8, 2010
    Ok well have you seen the pixel screen up close in person?

    Also I think the iPad 4 screen looks much better than the rmbp, and I was told its due to the higher ppi..
  8. Giuly macrumors 68040


    Because at some point your eyes can't see individual pixels for a given distance anymore, regardless of how many you put in an inch.
  9. lucasfer899 macrumors 6502


    Sep 23, 2012
    I had an iPad 4 and a rMBP in front of me at the same time, while at school a few weeks ago, and I can tell you now, I saw no distinction between the pair.

    Exactly, there's no point in shoving in more pixels:
    1) You wont be able to see them anyway, so there's no real benefit
    2) (furious about this one) there's no media or much video content that supports super high resolutions, such as 4k and 1600p, :(
  10. MacKid macrumors 6502

    Jan 1, 2003
    They didn't go for higher PPI because the "rule" for Retina (in making it as easy as possible for devs to build for the resolution) is to take the current resolution and multiply it by 2x in each direction.

    It's really that simple. 1440x900 became 2880x1800. It has nothing to do with cost-cutting or laziness, as these are custom screens - it's not like there's any other object on the market that uses that specific resolution.
  11. Ploki macrumors 68020

    Jan 21, 2008
    How the hell is this impressive?

    It costs a whopping 1300$, runs a crappy OS, has only 4GB of memory, and only 32GB OF SSD?!

    And people bitch about rMBP having outrages prices?

    Oh right, it has a touch-screen - next to useless on a desktop computer.

    and why on earth are they stacking it against MBA? It's competitor for rMBP.

    Ugh. And worst of all, it's another Apple knockoff...


    Yeah but the 15" could go HiRes 2x.
  12. samh macrumors 6502

    Oct 29, 2009
    It's not a huge difference in pixels per inch, I would say negligible on image quality.

    240 vs. 228 at what over a foot away?

Share This Page