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.
Retina Hardly Noticeable
- Thread starter xShane
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The visual differences for me are:
1) Sharper and clearer fonts (No need for ClearType or similars anymore)
2) Photos look incredidly vivid and realistic
3) Better color depth
4) Icons look stunning
If you look at a cMBP next to a rMBP, you'll see that the cMBP's screen looks kind of dull and blurry. If you don't see this you should seriously consider to make an optician's appointment
.
1) Sharper and clearer fonts (No need for ClearType or similars anymore)
2) Photos look incredidly vivid and realistic
3) Better color depth
4) Icons look stunning
If you look at a cMBP next to a rMBP, you'll see that the cMBP's screen looks kind of dull and blurry. If you don't see this you should seriously consider to make an optician's appointment
.
Last edited:
It depends on your usage. mykem mentioned photo editing with Aperture or Lightroom in his post, and I would imagine that there's a definite benefit there. I edit photos on a dual-screen setup (cMBP + Cinema display) and can think a photo is near-perfect, but then when I view them on my iPad 3 I'll notice small flaws that I missed on my other screens. It's not that it would be impossible to find these flaws without a retina screen, but by showing more detail the retina display is much less forgiving and thus flaws are a bit easier to see.Thanks for an accurate response and respectfully contributing to the conversation
Photo editing (and viewing) is the only application I can think of that would receive a direct and impactful benefit from the retina display. Increased clarity will make everything else look better, but again, it's not an earth-shattering difference.
Personally, even as a photography enthusiast I did not want to spend all of the extra money needed on a retina MBP. I would have paid extra for the screen, but I didn't want to have to make upgrades to the system through Apple. That would cost $500 to do; I upgraded my cMBP to 16 GB of RAM and a 500 GB SSD for $350, and I'll be able to make further modifications to that setup later if I want. Comparing the total costs, my system, including the upgrades, was close to $1000 less than the lowest-end, upgraded rMBP. Basically, for an extra $1000 I get the best screen on a laptop but completely locked-down hardware. It's probably not a big deal to someone who doesn't do their own hardware upgrades, but a major blow to those of us who do. Apple charges an extra $100 for the "high res" screen on a MBP; the idea of paying ten times that for the retina screen (and hardware trade-offs) just isn't worth it to me.
Eventually the retina display will probably become standard across all laptops, and hopefully, computer screens in general. I'm happy to live in blissful ignorance until then... or until Apple offers retina screens as an upgrade option to cMBPs. Unfortunately, my guess is that cMBPs are we know them are on their way out.
Never had a Mac, fail ever since they started making them, as for upgrades RAM is the only real concern 8 or 16 GB is more than enough for the present. External storage is fast and cheap these days at the end of the day it`s generally large media files that are the culprit for overflowing HDD or SSD`s.
As for Retina, there is a little more to them than just a nice screen, i have both cMBP & Retina both 15" and the Retina is far faster simply due to it`s superior thermal management. Where the standard machine will bog down and throttle, the Retina under the same conditions and media will run at 100% indefinitely.
This year or next my cMBP will be gone, replaced with a second Retina. One MBP can push out 3Ghz + all day, the other just has numbers on a box and struggles to get past 2.4GHz when pushed for more than a few seconds.
Agree on that. Given that fact i never upgrade my laptop (that's one of the reasons i buy a laptop to begin with - just use it, don't mess around with X driver or Y card and Z beta patch) - the choice was easy.
If there was a third option - cMBP with Retina - let's say 150-200$ off compared to the Retina versions (slim, light, no opticals etc), i think a ton of people would have bought that version.
Back to the original question however, i think everyone agrees that a sharp screen with vivid colors and stable viewing angles does not offer many disadvantages
What she said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The architecture is faster...it has better heat dissipation. It is lighter and more portable and faster with a better screen.......
The architecture alone lets you get by with 8GB of ram where on a non retina you might have to get 16GB......better performance.
RAM capacity doesn't really have much to do with architecture, but on the programs that you're using. It doesn't matter how fast it is, if Photoshop needs to store 4 GB of textures and imagery, it needs 4 GB. Doesn't matter whether you're using SDRAM or DDR3L.
Speaking of which, the RAM on the rMBP is DDR3L, same as is used in the 2012 cMBPs. The chipset is also the same (Ivy Bridge). Does the soldering really make a difference? I can't imagine why it would, but if anyone has benchmarks to prove otherwise I'd be happy to see them. The real reason the RAM was soldered was simply to get the size down.
Look up the benchmarks, RAM subsystem on the rMBP is around 10% faster. Why? Well, exactly because it is soldered. Soldering RAM modules means that you don't need to design the mainboard to be compatible with the standard, but can optimise voltages and connection quality for the particular modules. It also means a more reliable operation.
Benchmarks from Anandtech. Doesn't really show the rMBP as being a better performer across the board. There are a few tests where the rMBP's better performance is likely owed to the SSD (particularly consider that an early 2011 MBP with an SSD outperforms the 2012 MBP with standard HDD on some tests), and there are a few tests where the 2012 MBP is judged as being ahead. Based on their numbers, the difference doesn't seem to be 10%, except for the tests where the SSD comes into play (again, evidenced by the fact that an early 2011 MBP with SSD takes second place).
I'm very skeptical that the soldering did anything other than to reduce physical dimensions. The RAM is still DDR3L clocked at 1600 MHz. Anandtech surmises that the processor may be self-overclocking to a greater extent than in the 2012 MBP, but that's conjecture.
And mine. In any event, not worth the premium it is commanding by a long shot for me
http://macperformanceguide.com/mbpRetina2012-speed-memory-bandwidth.html
Also compare the Geekbench scores - they all show the retina model having around 10% faster RAM subsystem.
P.S. Whether you will notice this effect in applications or not is depending on the software. BTW, your anandtech link shows the retina being faster in every single benchmark (and many of those rely heavily on RAM speeds, like the rendering performance).
I agree. I don't really get why anyone would pay such a premium. But then I guess some people see marginally better resolution as a massively important feature.
Which is why I chose the cMBP. I don't do photography/photo editing and am focused on pure (portable) power. Otherwise I would have gotten an iMac.
I also don't like the fact that by the time AppleCare runs out, my machine is as good as dead (if I were to own a rMBP).
That's definitely not true.
This due to people not fully understanding what they are getting with the Retina MBP as a whole, then comparing third party RAM & SSD`s add on`s with Apple`s own. A 15" Base Retina is priced at $2,199, an equally spec`d standard 15" MBP is $2,299, sure you can do it yourself for less by using third party components, and with varying levels os success.
The Retina is faster, has far more efficient cooling, better audio, is, better connectivity, quieter, lighter, thiner, and likely to be more reliable. Then we have the IPS display on top of this, that brings superior colour reproduction, contrast, viewing angles, reduced reflection, user defined scaling need more workspace you can have it, and of course resolution.
If you still think the 15" Retina is a bad deal so be it, i would say by Apple`s standards it`s a bargain, personally i was surprised at the 15" Retina`s price point, sure it`s not cheap, than again it`s less than you would have paid back in 06 once adjusted for inflation. Most importantly Apple need the Retina to succeed and compared to PC competition the Retina is reasonable spec for spec.
So in this respect i agree that a resolution increase alone does not warrant the price point, however the Retina is very much more than this
Last edited:
The architecture and how it uses the hardware is different.....
Here are some bench marks:
http://www.maclife.com/article/features/benchmarking_macbook_pro_retina_display
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405723,00.asp
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=6495&Review=Apple+MacBook+Pro+2012+Retina+Display
There is a huge difference. I don't know how anyone could not see it. It's like going from an iPhone 3G to an iPhone 4... Everything looks so much crisper.
As an added bonus, it is the first LCD panel I have ever used that is capable of playing games AND LOOKING GOOD at non-native resolutions. I've been playing Skyrim at 1650x900 for weeks and never seen a jagged edge like typical LCD at non-native res.
Some people just don't give a hoot and I'm one of those people.
The details look clearer and a bit finer, but that's about it.
Reason I picked the rMBP is the added portability and better display panel. The rMBP uses IPS panels with excellent color and view angles whereas the other MacBook Pro uses standard TN panels.
The details look clearer and a bit finer, but that's about it.
Reason I picked the rMBP is the added portability and better display panel. The rMBP uses IPS panels with excellent color and view angles whereas the other MacBook Pro uses standard TN panels.
Simply speculation, the more common sense approach is that Apple have designed a simpler more reliable system, as returns offer them no benefit in any shape or form. The Retina`s far more stable thermal footprint alone will aid reliability reducing thermal shock to components, ask anyone who understands electronics to any degree. If your logic board dies, it dies the only additional concern is RAM and this is far from a common failure, especially as there is now no user intervention.
If your cMBP Logic Board fails after AppleCare using your own vernacular your machine will equally be as good as dead. I seriously doubt even Apple have meaningful reliability figures on the Retina. Upgradability is moot with only 8 - 16 GB of RAM being the concern, storage is predominantly consumed by media files and external storage is prolific, fast, and cheap...
Last edited:
Yes, there's a noticeable difference. But nothing spectacular.
That's exactly how I felt. It's like "Yes, it might be a little clearer and more noticeable, but so?" The benefit of the Retina screen did not seem to outweigh the benefits of a cMBP in my opinion.
As long as the Retina fits your needs then that's good. Get what works for you. Personally, I didn't think the Retina would be my ideal choice, so I didn't go for it.
Everything in the Retina is soldered in. Because of that, if something fails, you're looking at a costly repair.
Then....do us all a favor...return the machine buy something else. Get the cMBP and just be happy with it.....
Do you even know what this thread is all about?
It has nothing to do with me buying/returning a machine. I already own a 15" cMBP.
If you revisit the very first/original post, you will see that it's about the Retina screen.