Performance on retina question

[cclloyd]

When you run a game at 1440x900 on the rMBP, would it run at the same speed as a regular MBP with 1GB vid memory, or would it still be more intensive since there is still 4x the pixels?

I guess what I'm asking is, does the fact that there is 4x the pixels still matter if you don't choose that high resolution?

 

[bill-p]

When you run a game at 1440x900 on the rMBP, would it run at the same speed as a regular MBP with 1GB vid memory, or would it still be more intensive since there is still 4x the pixels?

I guess what I'm asking is, does the fact that there is 4x the pixels still matter if you don't choose that high resolution?

No, it doesn't matter. Lower resolutions give better performance, as always.

But on the Retina Macbook Pro, since the GPU is overclocked by default, the performance level is actually high enough that most games should be playable at 1920 x 1200, and some should be playable at 2880 x 1800.

 

[wiznet]

No, it doesn't matter. Lower resolutions give better performance, as always.

But on the Retina Macbook Pro, since the GPU is overclocked by default, the performance level is actually high enough that most games should be playable at 1920 x 1200, and some should be playable at 2880 x 1800.

Correct. Choosing a lower resolution will always boost performance.

OP, no it would not. As said, the GPU is over clocked, and there are 4x the pixels to drive. The performance would not be the same.

That all being said, I can run Diablo III, and Starcraft II at 2880x1800 with high settings and still get very playable frame rates (~30-35).

 

[cclloyd]

So it has the performance of actually running at 1440p instead of the visible pixels of 2880p?

 

[Stetrain]

Correct. Choosing a lower resolution will always boost performance.

OP, no it would not. As said, the GPU is over clocked, and there are 4x the pixels to drive. The performance would not be the same.

I think that if you actually have selected true 1440x900 output (like in a full screen game) the GPU only has to drive 1440x900 pixels. The display controller itself should handle blowing that up to fit the real pixels. At least that's how it works when you send an external monitor a lower-than-native-res signal.

Running a game in 1440x900 on a Retina MBP may actually even be a bit faster because the GPU is clocked higher than in the non-retina models.

 

[bill-p]

So it has the performance of actually running at 1440p instead of the visible pixels of 2880p?

It performs and looks like 1440 x 900 instead of 2880 x 1800.

But you will find that many games, including BF3, is playable up to 1920 x 1200. The GPU is clocked very high in the Retina. I'm seeing a 150% performance improvement over my MBP 15" 2011 model with Radeon HD 6490M.

 

[-BigMac-]

I think that if you actually have selected true 1440x900 output (like in a full screen game) the GPU only has to drive 1440x900 pixels. The display controller itself should handle blowing that up to fit the real pixels. At least that's how it works when you send an external monitor a lower-than-native-res signal.

Running a game in 1440x900 on a Retina MBP may actually even be a bit faster because the GPU is clocked higher than in the non-retina models.

not necessarily true.
Although it is set to 1440x900, it still has to refresh all the 2880x1800 pixels.
So it might not be quicker than a normal 1440x900 screen for fps, and due to the over clock, the performance i believe would be close to identical.

 

[Stetrain]

not necessarily true.
Although it is set to 1440x900, it still has to refresh all the 2880x1800 pixels.
So it might not be quicker than a normal 1440x900 screen for fps, and due to the over clock, the performance i believe would be close to identical.

The question is which component does the 1440x900->2880x1800 scaling. If that's the GPU's responsibility, then yes that would slow down the GPU's framerate, depending on the quality of scaling done. If that's done by the display controller, then the GPU is free to pump out 1440x900 frames as quickly as it can.

 

[robvas]

I think that if you actually have selected true 1440x900 output (like in a full screen game) the GPU only has to drive 1440x900 pixels. The display controller itself should handle blowing that up to fit the real pixels. At least that's how it works when you send an external monitor a lower-than-native-res signal.

Running a game in 1440x900 on a Retina MBP may actually even be a bit faster because the GPU is clocked higher than in the non-retina models.

Looks like the Pro beats the Retina, at least in Starcraft II and Half-life 2. Both set at 1440x900

 

[Stetrain]

Looks like the Pro beats the Retina, at least in Starcraft II and Half-life 2. Both set at 1440x900

Image

Image

Ah, some real numbers!

That's definitely interesting. Either the games aren't able to truly set the GPU output to 1440x900, or the GPU is being burdened with the task of scaling the 1440x900 frames up to 2880x1800.

That does pretty much answer the thread starts question though. The Retina shows slightly lower performance but it's not a huge difference.

It would be interesting to see the same benchmarks done with the laptops in clamshell mode driving an external display. In that situation the performance should be identical, or even favor the Retina.

 

[cclloyd]

Ok so the question behind the technical question.

If Apple were to put say a 512GB card in the 13" rMBP, would it run games fine at the 720p resolution and maybe even at the full retina resolution?

 

[Wafflausages]

Ok so the question behind the technical question.

If Apple were to put say a 512GB card in the 13" rMBP, would it run games fine at the 720p resolution and maybe even at the full retina resolution?

If you're talking about throwing the 650 in the 13" then yes. If you're talking about the HD4000 w/ 512mb, no

 

[bill-p]

Ok so the question behind the technical question.

If Apple were to put say a 512GB card in the 13" rMBP, would it run games fine at the 720p resolution and maybe even at the full retina resolution?

If Apple can somehow fit a discreet GPU (graphics processor unit) into the 13" rMBP...

Assuming the 13" rMBP follows the trend, it will likely be more like the 13" MBP: no discrete GPU and you are left with the internal built-in one.

There is more to a GPU than just 512MB or 1GB, by the way. How fast it is is determined by what you can run on it, and trust me when I say this: even the 15" Retina cannot run all games at full Retina resolution. You can pretty much forget about that with the 13" Retina if it ever gets released this year.

In fact, I'd say... forget any and all gaming with any model of MacBook below 15". You are never going to get anything worthwhile to run well... save for online games.

 

[cclloyd]

Well I'm not a hardcore gamer on PC. I mainly use xbox. All I would want to run well is Portal 2, Civ V, maybe Borderlands, maybe Galaxy on Fire 2.

 

[Exana]

I run Unigine 3 1680x1050 AA 8x, AF 16x (everything set to max) :
cMBP 2,6 GHz : 18,6 fps (send back to Apple)
rMBP 2,3 GHz : 22,4 fps

Retina GeForce GT 650m runs at 900 MHz while classic one only works à 775 MHz. Even with lower CPU, games runs faster on Retina using same settings.

 

[bill-p]

Well I'm not a hardcore gamer on PC. I mainly use xbox. All I would want to run well is Portal 2, Civ V, maybe Borderlands, maybe Galaxy on Fire 2.

On that list, Portal 2 and Borderlands require quite a bit of power. So you are still better off getting a 15" MBP... even if it's not Retina.