Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macbook Pro vs Macbook Pro Retina Graphics.
- Thread starter nycmi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It depends on the situation.
If you try to run a game on the 15" non-retina at 1440x900, and run the same game on the 15" retina at 2880x1800, the higher resolution will cause a reduction in performance.
You can however tell most games to run in a lower resolution, so you could run a game on the 15" retina at 1440x900, and performance there should be roughly the same as on the non-retina models.
If you try to run a game on the 15" non-retina at 1440x900, and run the same game on the 15" retina at 2880x1800, the higher resolution will cause a reduction in performance.
You can however tell most games to run in a lower resolution, so you could run a game on the 15" retina at 1440x900, and performance there should be roughly the same as on the non-retina models.
The graphics on the rMBP will perform slightly better than the cMBP because it has 1GB of GDDR5 vram whereas the latter has half that amount. This is only in equal tasks though, ie running a game at the same settings with the same resolution. Using the native resolution on the rMBP completely changes the nature of the task and the extra 512mb of vram don't nearly make up for it, you're pushing over 300% more pixels.
----------
That's crazy talk, the overclock does't let it push an extra 300% more pixels with ease. You can't run most games at native res, not even close.
----------
That's crazy talk, the overclock does't let it push an extra 300% more pixels with ease. You can't run most games at native res, not even close.
Obviously. I meant at equal settings. So since the cMBP can go up to 900p, the rMBP overclock lets it go at 900p slightly better, despite the fact that it still is pushing 3x the pixels. It goes without saying that that does not apply to 1800p.
No. I use them both in a graphics intense environment at work. They are very close to each other. For most mainstream work they are equals.
There appears to be a lot of confusion in the preceding posts; I'll just summarize for you, OP.
Note that this only applies to the 15” models.
1) The Retina MBP has more Video RAM, which may help with textures
2) The Retina MBP has an overclocked GPU, while the regular MBP does not
3) If you run games on both systems at equal resolution, the Retina MBP will out-perform the regular MBP, but not by very much
Note that this only applies to the 15” models.
1) The Retina MBP has more Video RAM, which may help with textures
2) The Retina MBP has an overclocked GPU, while the regular MBP does not
3) If you run games on both systems at equal resolution, the Retina MBP will out-perform the regular MBP, but not by very much
Last edited:
I'm not sure, although I haven't heard anything about the 4000 being different in any way in the 13 RMBP. Perhaps someone else can confirm?
What do you think the 13" will get tomorrow at WWDC in terms of GPU?
4600? 5100? 5200? 650M.. or some other dGPU?
I'm thinking the 5100/5200.
This is what I think..
MacBook Air: 4600
MacBook Pro Retina 13": 5100 / 5200 (although I'm leaning toward the 5200)
That's less wattage than I originally thought it already had. I thought it had 65W.. but remember if you haven't noticed I don't have a Mac yet nor have I ever.. I'm hoping to get one in time for school.
There are basically 3 options as I see.
1) Drop down to a 28w dual core processor with Iris 5100 graphics.
2) Stick with a 35/37W processor and get HD 4600 graphics.
3) Move up to a 47W processor and get Iris Pro 5200 graphics.
Seeing as there are plenty of the Macbook-Air class 15W processor with HD 5000 graphics built in, I think it's likely that Apple will go with those.
That means that option #2 would give the 13" rMBP a less powerful GPU than the Macbook Air.
Option #1 isn't a very big step up from the Air either, but would allow for a thinner design and/or longer battery life. Think a rMBP that's a lot closer to a Macbook Air.
For reference take a look at this Asus notebook with a 2560x1440 display and that 28W processor:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7035/...-with-the-most-beautiful-notebook-at-computex
Yep. I'm thinking at this point that either the 13" rMBP needs to step up a notch (47 quad core + Iris Pro) or merge into a 13" retina Air.
No idea, but I hope they go down the route of having a retina Air as well as a quad core 13" rMBP. Maybe the price of the rMBP would have to go back up a bit, with the retina Air taking the lower pricepoint.
Wrong..
Nope.
Wrong wrong and probably wrong for 15.
#1 Only the base cMBP has less Vram.
#2 All the 2012-13 15 GPUs are the same
#3 An equal 2.7 rMBP, in general, is slower in Geekbench according the everymac.com. For sure, the R display is more GPU intensive than a standard LCD.
http://www.everymac.com/ultimate-mac-comparison-chart/
This assumes the same amount of ram and both using SSD.
Nope.
Wrong wrong and probably wrong for 15.
#1 Only the base cMBP has less Vram.
#2 All the 2012-13 15 GPUs are the same
#3 An equal 2.7 rMBP, in general, is slower in Geekbench according the everymac.com. For sure, the R display is more GPU intensive than a standard LCD.
http://www.everymac.com/ultimate-mac-comparison-chart/
This assumes the same amount of ram and both using SSD.
Sorry, but you're quite wrong on the last two counts.
1) True, although the models with higher VRAM are not standard configurations anymore. I'll give you this one, though.
2) Non-Retina 650M ≠ Retina 650M. Benchmarks at equal resolutions confirm this. They are clocked quite differently.
3) This is due to resolution differences, as you've stated.