New retina MPB + Diablo 3. I don't believe it.

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by knucles, Jun 11, 2012.

  1. knucles macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Location:
    Portugal
    #1
    I am sorry but the guys at the blizzard are saying in the oficial forums that they don't have any new MPB ( and it's easy to believe that), so i highly doubt that these things are going to run 2880x1800 min 30 fps Diablo 3.


    Any proof saying otherwise?
     
  2. Fynd macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    #2
    If it actually "supports" retina, then you'd think it could render at lower res but have the UI retina'd
     
  3. Suno macrumors 6502

    Suno

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    #3
    I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I was under the impression that most games nowadays don't support anywhere near 2800 x 1800? I think the highest I've seen was 1900 x 1200, but that might be because that's the limit on my current monitor, maybe 2800 x 1800 is also standard but I just can't see it because it's not supported on my monitor.
     
  4. henrikrox macrumors 65816

    henrikrox

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #4
    If your question is "will the new retina mbp run diablo 3 in native res at decent fps"

    Then the answer is no. Decent for me is 60fps. Maybe if you set everything on low. But whats the point in that. I would take 1920x1200 or 1680x1050 on high over that any day

    Desktop GPU's have problems with games with that high resolution, so of course a mobile gpu would struggle.
     
  5. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #5
    What guys on the forums? Some Blue with no idea what collaboration Apple have going on, or some regular poster with even less clue?
     
  6. knucles thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Location:
    Portugal
    #6

    You are right, you don't see it because your mac doesn't supports it. On my MPB the top resolution for diablo is 1440 x .....

    It will run on 2880 x 1800 . But at 30fps + i just don't see it.
     
  7. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #7
    You can make games fit funny resolutions though, that's how people with tons of money make a game work across three 30" monitors and I have seen you tube videos of that. You have to change some settings in the games config files as I understand.

    Anyway, in regard to the retina mac, i think we need to wait and see just what gives as it may run at 1440x900 in effect. But in HiDpi mode. So we really need people to test gaming on the machine so we know what is going on. Seems a lot of confusion at the moment with games and the retina screen.
     
  8. henrikrox macrumors 65816

    henrikrox

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #8
    Games usually support the resolution of your monitor. How big or small the resolution you have.

    The problem is that the textures used in games is often low resolution, so you wont benefit that much in using a higher resolution. This is even more true now, because most PC games are console ports, which use lower quality textures.

    ----------

    The Mbp doesn't support 1440x900. Closest is 1680x1050.
     
  9. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #9
    If it's just higher res UI textures, then that's both easy to add and not a very large hit on performance
     
  10. knucles thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Location:
    Portugal
    #10
    Several blues responsible for the mac support....

    Do you believe in 30+ fps on a portable mac? My MBP 9600gt can't do 1024 x .... for more than 20 min before hitting 80* C
     
  11. henrikrox macrumors 65816

    henrikrox

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #11
    You should link stuff instead of typing it, especially when its bad english. Also a 9600gt isnt really comparable to a gt650m, and i dont know why the heat has anything to do with this.
     
  12. corvus32 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #12
    The 650M is about 33% slower than the 6970M that's in the lower res 27" iMac, so it's not hard to predict what modern games will run like at 2880x1800.
     
  13. w00t951 macrumors 68000

    w00t951

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #13
    The 650M is not a high end card, by any means.

    $500 desktop graphics cards with 3GB of GDDR5 and 3X the number of pipelines and transistors have issues running games at 2560x1600, much less 2880x1800.

    You might be able to squeeze 30FPS by lowering all settings and maybe the resolution.
     
  14. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #14
    No, people on here are talking about the Retina screen using HiDpi meaning it is like an iPad retina screen? and although it has the very high resolution, in effect you get 1440x900 but with everything looking incredibly sharp because of the retina resolution?
     
  15. knucles thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Location:
    Portugal
    #15
    1 - link http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/5386228/
    2- heat has a lot to do this because the cpu and gpu will underclock under higher degrees.
    3- i'm willing to bet that my bad english is a lot better than your * insert 2nd language here *

    ----------

    ^wrong
     
  16. henrikrox macrumors 65816

    henrikrox

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #16
    But heat will not be a problem when you are comparing lower tdp cpu's to older generations. Take that into consideration. Also the new mbp got better intake now anyways. And kepler runs cool. And overclocks well.

    So i dont see the issue.
     
  17. insimbi macrumors 6502

    insimbi

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    #17
    This is what makes sense to me. I doubt the game will run at 2880x1800, but more at 1440x900 with Retina support.
     
  18. apolloa, Jun 11, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012

    apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #18
    Exactly, which is why I think we cannot say for sure HOW games will run until someone does some tests like Bare Feats. We should all know by the end of the week. And if games do run great on the new machine, I'll buy one, once I have the money haha. And I can't believe I would say that!!
     
  19. knucles thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Location:
    Portugal
    #19
  20. Speedy Gonzalez, Jun 12, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012

    Speedy Gonzalez macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Location:
    Alligator Bayou
    #20
    What about running the game at half the resolution like iPad games on the new iPad you be able to play any game with the 650M
     
  21. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #21
    What's wrong with 80 degrees C?
     
  22. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #22
    That doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying the screen UI overlays (the stat bars and such) would be 2880x1800, but the other gameplay elements would be 1440x900? That shows a complete lack of understanding about what a resolution is and how 3D games work. If your screen display resolution is set to native (2880x1800 in this case), then that's the display resolution, period. A 3D game isn't going to pixel double every pixel in the 3d environment portion of the game...The game engine will output to the target resolution. If the MBP is put in charge of the pixel doubling, then it will pixel-double all screen elements, including the IU, and the effect will be exactly the same as looking at a 2011 MBP screen with it's native 1440x900 resolution, excepting some small fuzziness induced by the pixel doubling (as long as the scaling remains 2x or 4x or a multiple of 4, the pixels won't get super-blurry due to interpolation).

    If that's what they were talking about, then it's not Retina-enabled at all.

    The only possible interpretation of that marketing point from the presentation is that D3 will run at full 2880x1800 resolution. You can completely disable AA for any game running on that screen due to the super-tiny pixels, which will free up a lot of graphics power to do other things like shadows and pixel shaders, so it probably won't be the huge performance hit that many are worried about.

    Frankly, this first generation of "retina" laptops are not the ones you want to buy...Too many new things going on here. Next year they will be much more capable of pushing all of those pixels.

    ----------

    Can't speak for that guy, but on my 2011 MBP, that's about where the overdrive fans kick on and you have to yell to have a conversation with someone else in the same room.

    ----------

    You wouldn't want to do that, though, because it's not 1/2 or 1/4 resolution, so the pixels would have to interpolate and get all fuzzy.

    It would, on this screen, look significantly better if you played the game at 1440x900 with AA turned on than it would if you played at 1920x1080, with or without AA.
     
  23. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #23
    AnandTech already have the new MacBook Pro with Retina display and did try running Diablo 3 at its native 2880 x 1800 resolution.

    Blizzard should release an update in the near future supporting retina 1440 x 900 though for smoother performance.
     
  24. catalyst6 macrumors 6502a

    catalyst6

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Location:
    Berlin
    #24
    I'm very interested to see how traditional downscaling works on this computer. Most gamers know to avoid anything besides native resolution when gaming on LCDs. Using a LCD's non-native resolution obviously makes things look blurry and crappy.

    There has been a lot of theorizing around here that due to the pixel density of this display, the blurring won't be noticeable when using non-native resolutions. I'm not sure I buy this, but I do think the reasoning is sound. I guess I've just never seen a display that is this dense.

    Will be very curious to pop into an Apple store in the near future and try and run a 3D app on non-native res and see the effects on image quality. If this display can truly run all resolutions as "native," (meaning every resolution looks as good as an LCD with a matching native resolution) I think that will be the biggest triumph of this technology.
     
  25. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #25
    That is not a thing!

    it's either 2880x1800, or it is 1440x900.

    The OS has a "doubled screen elements" thing that functions basically the exact same way that Windows XP's "use big text" accessibility option worked...

    If Blizzard releases a "retina-aware" option for D3, it will just double the size of the IU elements on a 2880x1800 screen, while the 3D portions of the game will continue to be 2880x1800. this would make the IU take up more screen room at the expense of gameplay visibility. There might be a happy medium in between that would make sense when you see how small some of the UI elements will be at 2880x1800, but that won't make the game run any faster, because the 3D portion will still be rendering 2880x1800. "retina" doesn't mean anything. You can turn on "retina" mode on any Mac with 10.7, and all of the screen elements double in size. It's a good option to have, but believe it or not, some people might want to have non-doubled 2880x1800 available all the time on their macbooks. That would allow for some significant reduction in the screen real-estate taken up by UI elements and toolbars/panels in various production apps.

    A game can't "run" at 1440x900 AND be "retina" because by definition, 1440x900 only has 1440x900 pixels. Unless you mean that the UI is set up to look like 720x450.

    ----------

    The blurring effect on LCDs is dramatically reduced when you resize to exactly 1/2 or 1/4 the pixel count, because what was 4 pixels across become exactly 2 or 1 pixels across. You run into trouble when you try and resize from something like 1920x1080 to 1440x800, because each real pixel has to try and display some fraction of a virtual pixel. That's one of the main reasons Apple chose to exactly double resolutions with the whole "retina" concept...legacy pixels just get doubled, and they can have hard edges instead of blurry ones.
     

Share This Page