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

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Diversion, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. Diversion macrumors 6502a

    Diversion

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #1
    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!
     
  2. mat25 macrumors regular

    mat25

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
  3. Diversion thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Diversion

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #3
    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.
     
  4. Scotty V macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    #4
    Also, the rMBP has better thermals, so it can handle the extra heat generated by the higher clocked GPU.
     
  5. Diversion thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Diversion

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #5
    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.
     
  6. Scotty V macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Diversion thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Diversion

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #7
    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.
     
  8. Zmijutin, Jul 27, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2012

    Zmijutin macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    #8
    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.
     
  9. mdapple macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    #9
    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
     
  10. Pentad macrumors 6502a

    Pentad

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Location:
    Indiana
    #10
    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
     
  11. ilgreatluigi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    #11
    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.
     
  12. pgiguere1 macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #12
    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.
     
  13. ilgreatluigi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    #13
    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/
     
  14. pgiguere1 macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #14
    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.
     
  15. Outkast27 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Location:
    Earf
    #15
  16. Drask macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    #16
    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.
     
  17. ilgreatluigi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    #17
    I have to disagree with you still. By adjusting resolution in-game, you can affect the performance of the game easily.
     
  18. BeachChair macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    #18
  19. pgiguere1 macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #19
    Uh? I don't get it, what are you disagreeing with?
     
  20. mykelala01 macrumors 6502

    mykelala01

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    #20
    lol! he is just a douche he just want to disagreed for no apparent reason. :D
     
  21. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #21
    You can overclock the GPU yourself in Windows when playing games.
     
  22. ilgreatluigi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    #22
    You stated how bad the FPS is at higher resolutions. By turning down resolutions in-game you can boost the FPS to 60, and still make the game graphics look great.
     
  23. gentlefury macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #23
    ummm, no. At "lower" resolutions meaning 1920x1200 games look AMAZING! Not really sure why people are claiming the retina screen is anything but superb.
     
  24. mac1984user macrumors 6502a

    mac1984user

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #24
    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.
     
  25. Diversion thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Diversion

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #25
    I play mostly in Windows anyways.. I just wonder if the fat MBP can overclock as much as the Retina.
     

Share This Page