Macbook Pro 2012 with retina display (2.3GHz and 8GB)

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by spikerules, Jun 17, 2012.

  1. spikerules macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    #1
    Hi all,
    I just purchased the above laptop. It will be mainly used for video editing for work on Avid Media Composer 6, but I wanted to be able to play games via bootcamp on Win7. I currently have the high end iMac (latest model) with 1GB vram and it runs Skryrim reasonaly well on high everything at 1920x1200. I was wondering if the retina display at 1920x1200 would look a bit soft?

    I obvisouly know the 650m isn't capable of running Skyrim on high at max retina resolution, but I would like to run games at what I would think would be the best alternative (1920x1200). Is this going to be an option on the new macbook pro?

    So, basically will I be able to run high settings on games (skyrim etc) at 1920x1200 @ a minimum of 30fps?

    Thanks
    Spike
     
  2. thomaskc macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #2
    I can guarantee you that the 1920x1200 will look soft/blurry or what ever people call it. Simply because of the scaling that goes on and don't fall for the 1/2 the pixel size and 1/4 pixel size and its all good.. its not, its just less horrible. But the lower you go from a native resolution on and LCD or LED screen, the worse it gets. in terms of performance, hard to say, still haven't seen any actual performance tests of the new pro 15" :)
     
  3. spikerules thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    #3
    Ouch ok
     
  4. thomaskc macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #4
    yeah I know... people still claim that if you put the display at 1440x900 you can't tell the difference from the native 1440x900 but I need hard proof of that, because it makes very little sense to me.

    That said, its a trade off, you can't get it all and certainly not in a laptop. So its a choice, if you want to use the new macbook pro as a portable gaming machine, get the old shell with a 1440x900 native because then you can blast through everything. If you want the impressive high resolution, go for that and deal with the scaling that will be needed in certain applications and so on.
     
  5. corvus32 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #5
    1920x1200 looks better than it did on my 17" MBP.
     
  6. spikerules thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    #6
    Well I have a powerful gaming machine that I built, so this is more for business use, therefore the resolution for editing will come in very handy. I'm now more worried that i went for the 8GB RAM, rather than the 16GB:(

    Thanks for the information!
    Spike
     
  7. thomaskc macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #7
    Interesting, and that's not because its new and exciting ? So if you put your resolution to lets say 1680x1050, how does that look compared to the native 1680x1050 of the "old" macbook pro 15?
     
  8. spikerules thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    #8
    Yeah, corvus could you do an example for us please?
     
  9. Androidpwns macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    England
    #9
    It's kinda funny that you state your reasons for buying a retina MBP are for video editing, yet your question concerns gaming? Surely if it works for you professionally, anything else is just a bonus? ( just sayin' )

    Enjoy your new toy :D
     
  10. spikerules thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    #11
    haha not sure if my original post made this clear, but I don't want to use it as a gaming machine, it would just be a bonus! If the answer is that it's useless for gaming, then thats ok as its mainly a work computer. Nothing wrong with some gaming now and then though;)
     
  11. rays09 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #12
    do you think the 250gb ssd enough ? i confuse to choose the rMBP or the non retina... considering my budget limit only for base retina model + 16gb ram upgrade..
     
  12. Seamaster macrumors 65816

    Seamaster

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    #13
    If you don't need to store vast amounts of media locally, 256GB should be fine.

    With iTunes in the Cloud, and spare capacity on my Time Capsule if I really need it, I've gone for the basic model. If I've learned anything from scaling down from a 32GB iPhone to 16GB, and from a 32GB iPad to 16GB, it's that it's easy to get by with less. Too many people over-estimate their local storage needs.

    Others will disagree vehemently — they always do.
     
  13. spikerules thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    #14
    You never edit to the OS drive. I have 6TBA thunderbolt drive for that ;)
     
  14. rays09 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #15
    i like to store many music file.. i think 250gb it's not enough to put everthing in it so the external HD gonna be the option for this hmm..

    because of its scaled up resolution is that any different size for software??

    i really confuse where's the pros i take! non retina highend with hi reso with it's big HDD and high procie speed was the best deal so far for me.. but idk i really like the retina slim design..

    do you have any lag issue for UI in retina MBP???

    cmon help me decide..
    thanks.
     
  15. Seamaster macrumors 65816

    Seamaster

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    #16
    iTunes Match is your friend. I know there are naysayers, but this is the future into which Apple is leading us — lower capacity SSD for OS/app performance, and the cloud for storage. Once my iTunes music was matched/uploaded to iCloud, I deleted it completely from my Mac. I can access it from any device, with no meaningful performance hit, and with GBs of local storage reclaimed for better use.
     
  16. Lagmonster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    #17

Share This Page