Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I really wonder if 1400 x 900 resolution looks much less sharp or oversized when compared to 2880 x 1800?
 
I really wonder if 1400 x 900 resolution looks much less sharp or oversized when compared to 2880 x 1800?

It will. no way around it. It's what happens when you pick anything but the native resolution on LCD/LED screens. the further away you get, the more "less sharp" it will look.
 
So gaming on 1400 x 900 must be a little disturbing?

It really depends on that game and your preferences, to be honest I think most people will be fine with the quality and look of games in 1440x900, specially action games where things go a bit faster anyway.

That said, you can easily tell the difference.
 
So gaming on 1400 x 900 must be a little disturbing?


it's not a little disturbing, it's very disturbing. Oversized aliased mouse, and blurry textures. At least the gameplay is smooth.

I think it's because I have the DPI set to 200%, but when gaming at less than native, the games look as if you have beer goggles on.
 
Got it Thomas. Thanks :)

Well that's too bad.. Is there really no way around it :/
 
Got it Thomas. Thanks :)

Well that's too bad.. Is there really no way around it :/

No..this is why you see me rant on other threads where people are all in the sky's over the "amazing" screen that apple has given the world, now knowing anything about what problems it might cause them.

games is one thing, the fact is the native retina resolution is waaaaayy too high for a 15" screen at 1:1 so apple is using some fiddly resizing techniques to make it all readable and seem super sharp! but that only goes for things that is supported, this includes text, programs, web sites and so on.. and at the end of the day I think the average user is going to use the old 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 (which is also common on 15") but that means their entire life will be scaled, which then makes a 2880x screen pointless.

Personally I am just waiting for my work to pay me, and ill get the new macbook pro 15, but non retina display. the new macbook pro is awesome, people just gotta realise their needs and what they are buying.
 
Thursday night. It shipped out sometime during the weekend, and arrived at my house this morning. I was expecting 3-4 weeks

----------

Image

Image

Was pretty stoked


So it actually said 3-4 weeks? Cus I just ordered today and it said That. Did it go though the whole process of preparing , etc. or it just shipped?
 
I finally got to see the new Retina MBP right next to the non retina 15"...words cannot describe that screen. It's crazy!
 
Thursday night. It shipped out sometime during the weekend, and arrived at my house this morning. I was expecting 3-4 weeks

----------

Image

Image

Was pretty stoked

Seriously?! I ordered it Wednesday afternoon. Still processing. Ordered the base model. Hopefully it will ship sooner than 3-4 weeks :/
 
So it actually said 3-4 weeks? Cus I just ordered today and it said That. Did it go though the whole process of preparing , etc. or it just shipped?

Ya, it didn't even change order status until this morning. I awoke to a good suprise.
 
I finally got to see the new Retina MBP right next to the non retina 15"...words cannot describe that screen. It's crazy!

at native res its kind of obvious isn't isnt it? resolution wise its like comparing your old 14" colour TV with your new 60" LCD sony panel.
 
Great new for Skyrim players:

I am able to play at 1920x1200
8x AA
All settings maxed and AA at well over 30 FPS
 
BF3 @ 1600x900 resolution and all settings on high netted 40~ FPS on 64P Metro.

SC2 @ 1920x1200 "high-ultra" 55FPS. Very playable.

No game runs at 2880x1800 unfortunately.
 
BF3 @ 1600x900 resolution and all settings on high netted 40~ FPS on 64P Metro.

SC2 @ 1920x1200 "high-ultra" 55FPS. Very playable.

No game runs at 2880x1800 unfortunately.

Can you take a picture of it showing how bad it looks at 1920x1200?
 
So it completely the video card not letting you play at the highest res? Or will having the 2.6 ghtz and 16 gig ram help at all to play current games at native resolution?
 
Can you take a picture of it showing how bad it looks at 1920x1200?

I'll take one when I'm off work. It looks pretty sharp, just not as good as native.

So it completely the video card not letting you play at the highest res? Or will having the 2.6 ghtz and 16 gig ram help at all to play current games at native resolution?

CPU/RAM is not going to help when games at this resolution are GPU-Bound. I can select higher resolutions but it lags. It appears to be a mix of running out of GPU ram and oversaturating the piss-poor 128bit bandwidth.
 
at native res its kind of obvious isn't isnt it? resolution wise its like comparing your old 14" colour TV with your new 60" LCD sony panel.

Well yah, but I had never actually gotten to see it in stores. It was still pretty cool.
 
So it completely the video card not letting you play at the highest res? Or will having the 2.6 ghtz and 16 gig ram help at all to play current games at native resolution?

You can put an overclocked Ivy bridge at 4.5 ghz and 32gb of ram and it wouldn't be enough... as the current rMBP is very much GPU limited and VRAM limited.

Unfortunately, even $500 video cards like the desktop GTX 680 with 2gb vRAM (not to mention draws over 200 watts!) barely have enough horsepower to push 30 fps 2560x1600 in Crysis tells you how far we have to go in GPU tech before we'll all be routinely gaming at native retina resolution.
 
Hey guys,

I've fiddled around with MSI afterburner and overclocked my 650M to +115/+1000 on core and mem freq.

Yes, +1000MHz to memory speed. Result of this:

Diablo 3 runs SMOOTH @ 2880x1800
Battlefield 3 runs 60+ FPS @ 1600x900 on HIGH Settings
 
Hey guys,

I've fiddled around with MSI afterburner and overclocked my 650M to +115/+1000 on core and mem freq.

Yes, +1000MHz to memory speed. Result of this:

Diablo 3 runs SMOOTH @ 2880x1800
Battlefield 3 runs 60+ FPS @ 1600x900 on HIGH Settings

2 Questions:
1. What settings are you using on D3, and could you press command-R to get a framrate for us
2. How the hell did you order a Retina on Thursday and Get it before the Monday order people?
 
Hey guys,

I've fiddled around with MSI afterburner and overclocked my 650M to +115/+1000 on core and mem freq.

Yes, +1000MHz to memory speed. Result of this:

Diablo 3 runs SMOOTH @ 2880x1800
Battlefield 3 runs 60+ FPS @ 1600x900 on HIGH Settings

Wow, that's cool. Did you decide these values randomly or did u know what you were doing?

+

Can you make a video of Diablo? :)
 
Wow, that's cool. Did you decide these values randomly or did u know what you were doing?

+

Can you make a video of Diablo? :)

I'm a computer engineer, I know a lot about this stuff :p

I'll try to make a video when I get home, I don't have a camera on me.

----------

2 Questions:
1. What settings are you using on D3, and could you press command-R to get a framrate for us
2. How the hell did you order a Retina on Thursday and Get it before the Monday order people?


1. High on Textures, medium on others. No AA. CTRL+ R doesn't work, ill install fraps and check.

2. I have no idea, but I've been playing with it since yesterday :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.