Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is there a performance difference from the RBP and new MBP?

Diversion

Diversion

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 5, 2007
773
142
Jacksonville, Florida
Was there any evidence that the RBP was any slower (cpu downclocked under load or gpu downclocks) when under loads compared to the normal "fat" MBP with same cpu/gpu?

I'm asking because i'm concerned if the RBP has cooling issues and ends up downclocking it's GPU/CPU as a result whereas the regular MBP can maintain it's performance in any situation.

Thanks!
 
Wow, that's surprising.. they clocked it higher than the regular model.. I suspect they wanted to drive the retina display with a little more oomph.
 
Diversion said:
Wow, that's surprising.. they clocked it higher than the regular model.. I suspect they wanted to drive the retina display with a little more oomph.
Click to expand...
Also, the rMBP has better thermals, so it can handle the extra heat generated by the higher clocked GPU.
 
Well I guess my mind is made up to skip the fat MBP and spring the extra on a RBP. I play a lot of games so graphics performance is important to me.
 
Diversion said:
Well I guess my mind is made up to skip the fat MBP and spring the extra on a RBP. I play a lot of games so graphics performance is important to me.
Click to expand...
I have been debating on which MBP to get ever since the retina was announced. I just picked up the rMBP last night, and I definitely made the right decision. It's flaws are completely blown out of the water on these forums... It is a great machine.
 
Too bad my local Apple store and all Best Buys are entirely sold out of any Retina models.. surprised to see this many people have enough disposable income to pick these 2k+ priced machines so easily.
 
I would say that disk performance is better. Because SSD is welded to the motherboard and therefore there's no cables to slow down transfer rates. I have not seen any SSD comparison of MBP with SSD and rMBP, but the argument seems reasonable.
 
Last edited:
just fyi, games will look better on the cMBP because you can actually run them at native resolution... the rMBP cannot run most games at 2880x1800 unless you want to play with lag. And yes, I consider anything less than 30fps a serious impediment to smooth gaming experiences
 
Zmijutin said:
I would say that disk performance is better. Because SSD is welded to the motherboard and therefore there's no cables to slow down transfer rates. I have not seen any SSD comparison of MBP with SSD and rMBP, but the argument seems reasonable.
Click to expand...

The SSD isn't welded to the motherboard. It plugs into a connector on the motherboard in the same fashion as the MBP Air. Those are replaceable/upgradeable so there is hope that he MBPr ones are too (though none exist as of yet).

Also, the MBPr's SSD is a tiny bit slower than the MBP. I too was surprised. In another thread I saw the Reads and had them double check because it is slower than my 2011 w/the M4. Yet the numbers were legit.

I don't know why, I am not bragging, just passing along the numbers. NOTE: That was under L so maybe ML will bring those numbers up?

-P
 
Diversion said:
Well I guess my mind is made up to skip the fat MBP and spring the extra on a RBP. I play a lot of games so graphics performance is important to me.
Click to expand...

For a good demo of this, play around with the animation here - http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/features/

You can see a clear distinction when zoomed. I'm in the same boat as you. I play WoW and League of Legends and I can't wait to play them on my rMBP.
 
Zmijutin said:
I would say that disk performance is better. Because SSD is welded to the motherboard and therefore there's no cables to slow down transfer rates. I have not seen any SSD comparison of MBP with SSD and rMBP, but the argument seems reasonable.
Click to expand...

I don't know about disk performance, but energy consumption is lower in the rMBP and it allows to use Power Nap in Mountain Lion which the cMBP can't do, even with a SSD.
 
mdapple said:
just fyi, games will look better on the cMBP because you can actually run them at native resolution... the rMBP cannot run most games at 2880x1800 unless you want to play with lag. And yes, I consider anything less than 30fps a serious impediment to smooth gaming experiences
Click to expand...

By default, the screen does not project at 2880x1800 (even at best-for-retina). You actually need to send a terminal command to make it project at that resolution. http://9to5mac.com/2012/06/21/how-t...ok-pro-at-full-2880-x-1800-native-resolution/
 
ilgreatluigi said:
By default, the screen does not project at 2880x1800 (even at best-for-retina). You actually need to send a terminal command to make it project at that resolution. http://9to5mac.com/2012/06/21/how-t...ok-pro-at-full-2880-x-1800-native-resolution/
Click to expand...

Yes it does, it only scales UI elements so that they are as big as on a 1440x900 display.

Running games at 1440x900 resolution will however output at an actual 1440x900, which looks pretty crappy compared to OS X's UI no matter what your scaling setting is.
 
mdapple said:
just fyi, games will look better on the cMBP because you can actually run them at native resolution... the rMBP cannot run most games at 2880x1800 unless you want to play with lag. And yes, I consider anything less than 30fps a serious impediment to smooth gaming experiences
Click to expand...

Have you actually played anything in the rMBP at lower resolutions? Still looks great under 1440x900 or 1650x(?). Not to mention that if you hook it to an external (which most gamers do) rMBP will be a better choice.
 
pgiguere1 said:
Yes it does, it only scales UI elements so that they are as big as on a 1440x900 display.

Running games at 1440x900 resolution will however output at an actual 1440x900, which looks pretty crappy compared to OS X's UI no matter what your scaling setting is.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you still. By adjusting resolution in-game, you can affect the performance of the game easily.
 
Diversion said:
Well I guess my mind is made up to skip the fat MBP and spring the extra on a RBP. I play a lot of games so graphics performance is important to me.
Click to expand...

You can overclock the GPU yourself in Windows when playing games.
 
mdapple said:
just fyi, games will look better on the cMBP because you can actually run them at native resolution... the rMBP cannot run most games at 2880x1800 unless you want to play with lag. And yes, I consider anything less than 30fps a serious impediment to smooth gaming experiences
Click to expand...

ummm, no. At "lower" resolutions meaning 1920x1200 games look AMAZING! Not really sure why people are claiming the retina screen is anything but superb.
 
Games look awesome on the Retina display. Even when running in lower than native resolutions (which, to be honest, is advisable), games look pristine. I'm really enjoying the rMBP. I'm sure the cMBP is great too, but I'm very pleased with how things are turning out on this machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back