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

MacBook Pro feels signicantly snappier when pushing less pixels

Hieveryone

Hieveryone

macrumors 603
Original poster
Apr 11, 2014
5,632
2,347
USA
Using a late 2013 13" rMBP, 2.6/8/256

When I connect it an external Dell monitor, it feels MUCH snappier and things seem to load faster.

Is that because my external monitor has less pixels than the retina screen on the rMBP?
 
Hieveryone said:
Not sure, just a regular one
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "just a regular one" Do you know the resolution? 1920x1080? 2560x1440? If you go to System Preferences and check under Display, it should say. It most likely is the reason however, as I assume the screen is 1920x1080, which is a fair bit less than the retina screen
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hieveryone
sn0warmy said:
LOL! Wut?
Click to expand...
casperes1996 said:
There is no such thing as "just a regular one" Do you know the resolution? 1920x1080? 2560x1440? If you go to System Preferences and check under Display, it should say. It most likely is the reason however, as I assume the screen is 1920x1080, which is a fair bit less than the retina screen
Click to expand...

I looked it up. It is a 24" 1920x1080 resolution monitor from Dell.

When I use my late 2013 13" rMBP 2.6/8/256 in clam shell mode with this external monitor, it seems so FASSST!
[doublepost=1487373204][/doublepost]
xWhiplash said:
What kind of Dell monitor?
Click to expand...

It is a 24" one that is 1080x1920
[doublepost=1487374851][/doublepost]Can anyone confirm why it feels so much snappier?
 
The screen you are using is a lower (1080p) resolution than what the screen of the computer uses (and presumably fewer pixels, as you noted.) My guess would be the reason it feels this way is because, when in clamshell mode (that turns off the built-in display), the computer uses fewer resources having to drive the external (and now primary) display.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hieveryone
Hieveryone said:
Using a late 2013 13" rMBP, 2.6/8/256

When I connect it an external Dell monitor, it feels MUCH snappier and things seem to load faster.

Is that because my external monitor has less pixels than the retina screen on the rMBP?
Click to expand...
Likely. You are pushing less data through the video subsystem, so screen operation are faster
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hieveryone
Hieveryone said:
I looked it up. It is a 24" 1920x1080 resolution monitor from Dell.

When I use my late 2013 13" rMBP 2.6/8/256 in clam shell mode with this external monitor, it seems so FASSST!
[doublepost=1487373204][/doublepost]

It is a 24" one that is 1080x1920
[doublepost=1487374851][/doublepost]Can anyone confirm why it feels so much snappier?
Click to expand...

I have a dell 24 inch 1080x1920. I find it to be very smooth! Maybe some studder here and there, but it doesn't feel snappier. The only thing I can think of is that mines a 2015 and yours is a 2013? Idk what differences there is between a 2013 and 2015 are though
 
CrownVic said:
I have a dell 24 inch 1080x1920. I find it to be very smooth! Maybe some studder here and there, but it doesn't feel snappier. The only thing I can think of is that mines a 2015 and yours is a 2013? Idk what differences there is between a 2013 and 2015 are though
Click to expand...

The graphics processors are different, so there's a massive difference there that could mean your 15" is more capable of handling its resolution than the 13" is of handling its. I've never really had any experience with any Mac handling its retina display badly. Regardless! To the OP:

Hieveryone said:
Can anyone confirm why it feels so much snappier?
Click to expand...

When you use the Dell monitor with the MacBook Pro in clamshell mode, your computer is handling just over 2 million pixels. When you're using the built in screen, your computer is handling just over 4 million pixels. In percentages, the built in screen is around 98% more pixels than the Dell. So yeah. That does make quite the difference in terms of required resources. Especially to video memory, and considering video memory is tied to system memory on iGPUs like in your system, you don't just free up video resources, but memory resources as well.

Information:
Resolution of the 13" retina, is 2560x1600
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrownVic
Sometimes my 2013 rMBP feels snappier on TWO 2560x1440 monitors running at 85 Hz. I am not sure it is just due to pushing less pixels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sanpete
xWhiplash said:
Sometimes my 2013 rMBP feels snappier on TWO 2560x1440 monitors running at 85 Hz. I am not sure it is just due to pushing less pixels.
Click to expand...

IF it's an 'early' 2013 rMBP, I would absolutely say yes it is because it's pushing less pixels. The graphics processor on the 2013 model, the intel graphics 4000, was always a weak link in the model. The 4000 was already borderline crappy when in the non retina 2013 macbook pro.
Apple never should have paired that gpu with the retina screen, but hey, it was first gen, so there you go.

If it's the 'late' 2015 model, the gpu is the intel 5100, which is a good bit better (http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...-vs-Intel-HD-4000-Mobile-125-GHz/m8813vsm7653)

But IMO, not until you get to the 2015 model, with the intel 6100 gpu, does the gpu power really justify the retina screen.
 
robeddie said:
IF it's an 'early' 2013 rMBP, I would absolutely say yes it is because it's pushing less pixels. The graphics processor on the 2013 model, the intel graphics 4000, was always a weak link in the model. The 4000 was already borderline crappy when in the non retina 2013 macbook pro.
Apple never should have paired that gpu with the retina screen, but hey, it was first gen, so there you go.

If it's the 'late' 2015 model, the gpu is the intel 5100, which is a good bit better (http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...-vs-Intel-HD-4000-Mobile-125-GHz/m8813vsm7653)

But IMO, not until you get to the 2015 model, with the intel 6100 gpu, does the gpu power justify the retina screen.
Click to expand...

So you think 2x 2560x1440 monitors at 85 Hz is less power than one built in display on the laptop?
 
xWhiplash said:
So you think 2x 2560x1440 monitors at 85 Hz is less power than one built in display on the laptop?
Click to expand...

Not sure I should have quoted you to make your point, which is one anecdotal, non-scientific report. But my point is, the intel integrated graphics 4000 was a dog slow piece of crap compared to the 5100 and especially the 6100.

If I were in the used market for a 13 inch rMBP, I would avoid the early 2013 model like the plague.
 
robeddie said:
Not sure I should have quoted you to make your point, which is one anecdotal, non-scientific report. But my point is, the intel integrated graphics 4000 was a dog slow piece of crap compared to the 5100 and especially the 6100.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. I am not sure why my laptop is smooth connecting to two monitors. Maybe pushing it to two monitors and 85 Hz activates the dGPU?
 
xWhiplash said:
I have the 15" one.
Click to expand...

Then that's an entirely different story altogether. The built in display in the 15" is 2880x1800, which is 71% of the pixels of two 2560x1440 displays. It probably does activate the dGPU, I'm not entirely sure, but it might also just clock the iGPU higher, or perhaps it's just because they're 85Hz you feel like it's faster. Regardless this post is about the 13" model, which is entirely different on all fronts, including screen and GPU, which are the two most relevant pieces in this discussion, so the reasoning behind your experiences would be entirely different from the OP's
 
casperes1996 said:
Then that's an entirely different story altogether. The built in display in the 15" is 2880x1800, which is 71% of the pixels of two 2560x1440 displays. It probably does activate the dGPU, I'm not entirely sure, but it might also just clock the iGPU higher, or perhaps it's just because they're 85Hz you feel like it's faster. Regardless this post is about the 13" model, which is entirely different on all fronts, including screen and GPU, which are the two most relevant pieces in this discussion, so the reasoning behind your experiences would be entirely different from the OP's
Click to expand...

What I mean is that sometimes it is the display itself. I find the Apple monitors to be VERY sluggish compared to my dell monitors.
 
xWhiplash said:
What I mean is that sometimes it is the display itself. I find the Apple monitors to be VERY sluggish compared to my dell monitors.
Click to expand...

Now I'm a bit confused at to how you define "sluggish", as there are many variables here. In terms of response time, Apple displays are decent for IPS panels. TN panels usually have better response times, but at a cost of viewing angles and colour reproduction. Then there's refresh rates, which is the same for most displays, 60hz, but some can go above that. You won't see an Apple display hit more than 60, but 60 is the standard. Overall however, there is no measurable "sluggishness" on Apple displays at all. They're quite amazing IPS displays
 
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