No it's not. The 2016 was doing the onscreen test at a higher resolution. Apple use a default higher res in the 2016.
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.
New MacBook Pro's Dedicated AMD Graphics Chips Are 'Significantly' Faster and Support Dual 5K Displays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because to some people, anything on a range from 1 to 10 that is less than 9 is cheap crap.
This. Anyone know why the '16 MBP is rendering at a higher res. than the '15 MBP when both have identical screen resolution?
It's in the Ars link. Look at the various charts as they do not really discuss it much.
Go buy a Windows laptop and leave the Mac folks alone. Why do you get a kick out of putting down Mac users. They clearly value the Mac OS experience and are willing to pay a premium for it. It's no different than a Mercedes or BMW tax.
Does anybody know of a 2TB (or larger) SSD upgrade option for the 2012 retina MBP? If I could just find one, I'd be happy with this notebook for at least a couple more years. As is, my (upgraded) 1TB SSD is very nearly full and it's cumbersome to keep having to delete things just to keep a healthy amount of free space on it so it doesn't choke on itself.
Why not? This option has been available from the start (ie, since 2012) and whether you pick a nominal resolution of 1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050 (on the 15" MBP) is to a large degree one of personal choice and Apple's 'personal' choice simply has changed slightly.
Ok, there are some actual real reasons to do this now. For once, the 13" MBA, released in 2010, had a higher resolution (1440 x 900) than the 13" pre-retina MBP, released in 2009 (1280 x 800) despite having the same physical screen size (13.3"). This meant the UI chrome and text was already physically smaller on the MBA than on the MBP (by 11%, not a huge difference). When the MBP went retina in 2012, at the 'optimal' nominal resolution of 1280 x 800 (ie, half the physical of 2560 x 1600), it kept its larger physical UI at the default settings. Already based on this difference, it is hardly surprising that Apple decided to reduce the physical size of the UI slightly (at default settings), this would only be bringing down the UI size to what was already offered since 2010 in the 13" MBA. (Don't get confused by the numbers, this paragraph looks at resolutions for the 13" MBP because that is where there is a MBA to compare it with).
Secondly, initially most third-party applications were not retina aware and looked clearly better in the 'optimal' nominal resolution of half the physical resolution. Four years later that has changed significantly.
Thirdly, graphics performance has increased noticeably since 2012. Running in a simulated resolution is now much less of a burden than it was back then.
And note that Apple already made the same decision when it released the 12" MB in 2015. It also is running by default at a higher simulated resolution.
"Up to 2.5x more computing power per watt" is the carefully chosen marketing bs to disguise the overall GPU performance was not a significant improvement. The top of the line GPU in a Late 2016 MBP is slower than a $100 budget GPU RX 460.
Radeon Pro 460 with 16CU @ 900MHz
Radeon RX 460 with 14CU @ 1210MHz
Radeon Pro 460 with 16CU @ 900MHz
Radeon RX 460 with 14CU @ 1210MHz
Last edited:
These GPUs may be better than before.. but it's still a bad reflection on the graphics capability of a $CA 3k machine when comparing against other similarly priced laptops!!
Last edited:
Did you not read the article? They explained this in detail.
In other words, a downgrade from the 2015" but an upgrade in price?
"Breaking news: Macs suck when it comes to gaming capabilities compared to their newer PC counterparts. In other news, water, is it wet? We'll tell you more on this at 11:00..."
Seriously, folks, if you were thinking of getting a new computer for the specific purpose of playing newer games at max resolution and specs, Apple is not your friend, especially with notebook dGPUs. Get a gaming desktop PC from Alienware (Dell), Asus, or Razer.
Seriously, folks, if you were thinking of getting a new computer for the specific purpose of playing newer games at max resolution and specs, Apple is not your friend, especially with notebook dGPUs. Get a gaming desktop PC from Alienware (Dell), Asus, or Razer.
Still, match these to most nVidia mobile GPU solutions and the comparison isn't even a contest.
Not saying that all "pros" need high end rendering performance on a laptop, but there are a slew of much better equipped laptops with higher end GPU's then this if you want to do 3D rendering or video rendering as a profession.
Being a professional doesn't just mean you can barely drive two 5K displays, being able to render content on both of them is also going to be important. I mean at the end of the day rendering emojis on two 5K monitors isn't really a pro requirement.
Not saying that all "pros" need high end rendering performance on a laptop, but there are a slew of much better equipped laptops with higher end GPU's then this if you want to do 3D rendering or video rendering as a profession.
Being a professional doesn't just mean you can barely drive two 5K displays, being able to render content on both of them is also going to be important. I mean at the end of the day rendering emojis on two 5K monitors isn't really a pro requirement.
See this is the problem with Tims Apple. He starts with the exterior and puts whatever fits the thinness or weight he sets as the limit. Steves laptops started with the specs he wanted. He put the best internals they could get and made a nice looking enclosing.
So im reality Apple was like that before. You may not remember. Just watch the first iBook keynote. Or the Powerbook keynotes. Steve was so proud of what those machines could do. The first in the world to do this or the only consumer device in the market to do that.
Because many people consider the gaming use-case when selecting a PC and the associated bunch of parts. Apple isn't catering to the gaming market in that sense, so they don't need a pair of 1080's or a pair of Titan X's to game at 4k+.
You can drive the displays, even a couple of them, for business purposes with far less. I personally don't care about the resolution (though it's a nice to have) and I game.. so I like to run with a single 21:9 3440x1440. I can game on that with a single 1080. It's also great for work without needing 2 displays for the screen real estate.
That's absolute horse hockey. The first-gen MacBook Air immediately disproves that statement. What about the G4 cube? The sad 28.8 modem in the G3 iMac, when it was marketed as an Internet machine?
The first Intel MacBook had less GPU performance than the iBook G4. People on MacWhiners were up in arms about it. Same story with the first Intel Mac Mini.
There are countless more examples. People wear rose-tinted glasses when they talk about how Apple computers used to be.
Also http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-systems/razer-blade-pro
Just saying, not necessarily the most mobile solution these days at near 8 lbs, but if high end performance is required for your job there are companies offering low-compromise solutions that integrate top-of-class GPU and specs, and, OMG, 32gb of RAM and a touch screen if that is your bag. And this thing is only 1/4" thicker than the new MacBook Pro 15 .
I mean come on, what is Apple doing these days that the new MacBook Pro 15 is the best they can offer us?
Just saying, not necessarily the most mobile solution these days at near 8 lbs, but if high end performance is required for your job there are companies offering low-compromise solutions that integrate top-of-class GPU and specs, and, OMG, 32gb of RAM and a touch screen if that is your bag. And this thing is only 1/4" thicker than the new MacBook Pro 15 .
I mean come on, what is Apple doing these days that the new MacBook Pro 15 is the best they can offer us?
So nobody complained about Apple laptops prior to Tim becoming CEO? Thanks for giving me a laugh for the day.
Where I work there is a selling bonus and a store where you can use accumulated points to get products.
They don't carry the Mini but I can special order one. I can also special order the new Macbook pro
They do have the previous 12 and 15 inch macbook pro right now.
I wonder which would be easier to sell on Ebay-the previous model or the newer one? Both have 16Mb RAM
They don't carry the Mini but I can special order one. I can also special order the new Macbook pro
They do have the previous 12 and 15 inch macbook pro right now.
I wonder which would be easier to sell on Ebay-the previous model or the newer one? Both have 16Mb RAM
I hope so because that's the model I have. A maxed out 15" 2015 Pro.
Actually though the 460 should smoke the M370X in the previous model. It has 43% more power than the 455 listed here and 86% more than the 450. The M370X probably sits somewhere between the 450 and 455 in performance (but closer to the 450), so I'm guessing the 460 will have a real 60-70% improvement over the previous model, unlike the 60% we were promised last time which turned out to be only 20-30% in most apps.
If true, 60-70% is actually pretty good for a one year upgrade and it's not bad either for a slim and light laptop of this class. The GTX 1060 I believe has twice the TDP, meaning running that in the MBP chassis would make it very toasty indeed and likely lead to thermal throttling. The Razer Blade is reported to run very hot under load and it's not as slim as the new Pro.
Last edited:
This is why I advocate buying the 13" with touchbar and use the cash saved on an external Thunderbolt 3 GPU such as the Wolfe.
It really depends on what monitors you'd like to connect with straight out of the box.
Last edited:
Been wondering when they would bring back the old "high-res"-option,
maybe, 3360×2100 native and non-glossy for 2017 MBP?
maybe, 3360×2100 native and non-glossy for 2017 MBP?