Nvidia GT 650M on rMBP actually better than Nvidia GTX 660M!

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by luigi.lauro, Jun 25, 2012.

  1. magbarn macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #76
    It looks like crap though.
     
  2. doh123 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    #77
    in your opinion... I find pretty much every game looks fine at lower resolutions than native. Its noticeable on many monitors, but less noticeable on the Retina since the pixels are so small anyways. I think saying it looks like "crap" is a complete over-exaggeration. I can usually only tell the difference if I sit two side by side and look.
     
  3. terraphantm macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #78
    I wonder why they didn't just call it the 660M or even 655M... The 650 and 660 do have the same number of shader processors, right?
     
  4. IceAero macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    #79
    Could this have more to Nvidia? While the 650 and 660 have the same core they might not have the same bulk price to get the chips certified at the higher clock speed. Knowing that this is distinction without a difference, Apple pays for the 650 (and enters into a contract to label it as so) fully expecting as the OEM to be able to clock is they please because they are providing the warranty.
     
  5. TheMacBookPro macrumors 68020

    TheMacBookPro

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #80
    What kind of games are you playing? I've tried a bunch of Call of Duty games and GTA IV/EFLC and they all look fine at 1920 or even 1680 resolution. There's a very small difference in clarity- nowhere near as major as 'crap'.
     
  6. magbarn macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #81
    Never liked the look running a non native resolution on a LCD. I know there's plenty of people here who can't notice or don't care, but it's quite noticeable for me. OTOH, d3 runs super smooth and looks great on my rMBP hooked up to a 24 inch 1900x1200 LCD.
     
  7. TheMacBookPro macrumors 68020

    TheMacBookPro

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #82
    Running an OS on a non-native resolution and a game are two different things. Change the resolution of the display on the desktop and I can easily tell the difference, but in a game it's very different.

    I have Windows 7 set to 2880x1800- anything less and it's awful to my eyes. But the few games I have, I've set them to 1920 and there's little difference, even in a direct comparison.
     
  8. The-Pro macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #83
    Interesting thread :)

    Does anyone know if the nVidia performance tools work with the 650M (in windows). I use them on my 2010 15" and I like those tools the most for overclocking.
     
  9. Anician macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    #84
    Has there been any tests conducted on the cMBP 2012? I'm getting mine in a week or two and judging by the posts here I'll play with overclocking the GPU a bit.

    Also, I know the fans for the rMBP are redesigned, but are they significant cooler?
     
  10. Lord Appleseed macrumors 6502a

    Lord Appleseed

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    Location:
    Apple Manor
    #85
    They are redesigned to fit the slim form factor and to provide good cooling despite the slim design.
     
  11. Zeov macrumors 6502a

    Zeov

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Location:
    Odense
    #86
    No it doesn't .. 1080P gaming looks super crisp, i've checked with my friends laptop.. Hell, even 1680x1050 looks just as good as the older macbook pros.
     
  12. mykelala01 macrumors 6502

    mykelala01

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    #87
    Nvdia 650M is no match against Flight Simulator X. On high settings busy airport like KLAX. 1680x1050 res.still gives me into a teen or even single digit Frame rate.
     
  13. Dangerous Theory macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Location:
    UK
    #88
    How does EFLC perform - what settings/FPS? Barely get by on my 13" with everything low but look forward to this game on the retina when I get it.
     
  14. terraphantm macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #89
    It appears to run cooler since the rMBP apparently does not throttle nearly as much as the cMBP. Not sure if that's in comparison with the 2011 or 2012 models though.
     
  15. pacman7331 macrumors regular

    pacman7331

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    #90
    Also feels cooler imho... as in not as hot
     
  16. appletechpro macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    #91
    This thread makes me feel slightly better about my rMBP purchase. lol
     
  17. TheMacBookPro macrumors 68020

    TheMacBookPro

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #92
    With the resolution set to 1920x1200, I just used auto-configure to set the distances and densities, then manually set all of the texture/shadow/reflection/night settings to High and Water to Low (because I don't particularly care about how the water looks, and I found that it improved FPS quite a bit when in areas around the water).

    Benchmark tells me I'm getting 25-35 FPS with a +135 overclock in MSi Afterburner... it doesn't sound like much but gameplay is smooth to my eyes.

    I couldn't see a major improvement in graphical quality between 2880 and 1920 (the only difference I could see was that the text in the menu was a bit crisper), but there was a big FPS improvement, so 1920 is perfectly fine imo.
     
  18. mykelala01 macrumors 6502

    mykelala01

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    #93
    If ever rMBP throttle down their speed it would be a whole lot of a drop frame rate.
     
  19. macbook123 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    #94
    I have yet to find a use for the card. Every graphics task I throw at my RMBP is handled just as well by the integrated card as by the dedicated one. As far as I'm concerned Apple should sell two versions of the RMBP, one for heavy gamers and one for everybody else. Seems like 90% of people will never need the nvidia card and would be better served by a computer that doesn't have it.
     
  20. Dangerous Theory macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Location:
    UK
    #95
    Does it dip down a lot when a lot is happening on screen, or is 25 fps like rock bottom? Im sure I can compromise anyway. Its good to know it can run high details.
     
  21. TheMacBookPro macrumors 68020

    TheMacBookPro

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #96
    It does go down to 20 or so occasionally, but it's only in intense shoot outs in missions. It's never unplayable.
     
  22. magbarn macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #97
    It's all subjective and depends what is acceptable. Just like many here who state non-retina ready Office 2011 and CS6 look 'fine' with retina scaling (it looks horrible to me) 1080P IMHO is even worse than 1440x900 as you're not running a properly 2:1 scaled resolution. Are you playing Java games or what? Try running the game at full 2880x1800 vs 1080p, anything other than full res will look 'fuzzy' in comparison.
     
  23. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #98
    The key word is in 'comparison'. Of course it will look bad in comparison to 2880x1800. But will it look bad in comparison to a native 1080p panel? I don't think so. The pixels are small enough for the interpolation to be very close to emulating a native display.
     
  24. gentlefury macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #99
    well, it looks exactly as it looks on low res screens...so if you think that is crap, then I guess the retina screen is great!

    Most games that won't run fluidly at 2880x1800 run at 1920x1200...and many even run at 2048x1536. Everything looks amazing.

    ----------

    While I agree that games look perfectly fine at 1920x1200...they do not, in any way, look the same as 2880x1800! 2880 is twice the resolution and it looks vastly superior! So, the games that run smoothly at that res are a treat! For all else, it looks great...but the clarity at 2880x1800 is just unbelievable! It makes Call of Duty 4 look like a brand new title!! If they had a high res texture pack it would compete with Battlefield 3!
     
  25. AZREOSpecialist macrumors 68000

    AZREOSpecialist

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    #100
    Your previous experience won't apply here. Everything on the Retina display looks smooth and solid in all of the different scaled modes. You have to see it to fully appreciate it. The reason is that even when you choose a lower resolution display mode, your UI elements and fonts are still rendered at the high Retina resolution. Fonts and UI elements are larger at the lower resolution settings, but those elements are still rendered using 2880x1800 screen pixels.

    You just have to see it to believe it - previous experience doesn't apply here.
     

Share This Page