Retina Hardly Noticeable

[Timmy D]

I have a 15" rMBP that I love!!!! There is a NOTICEABLE difference in the screen. We have a 15" cMBP in the family that was bought after mine and my son keeps asking me to trade him, because of the screen. He only purchased his because it was considerably cheaper. I also use a brand new Dell laptop at work that has me not ever wanting to use it but since I work in AutoCAD, (company provided) I can't use my rMBP, but once I can get them to purchase the Mac version I will never use that laptop. It feels so nice to just look at a crisp beautiful screen...

 

[Handsome Bacon]

LOL some of us don't consider money as an object. In the case of the retina, no thanks, Rev 1 products usually have lots of problems, something obvious by looking at all the retina problem threads here. In two years or so the bugs will be ironed out.

 

[Sean76]

@ the OP...

Unrelated, but Just an FYI

Some of us android owners are on 4.2.2 these days

2.2 is a lil ways behind, just thought I'd point that out to ya! Like the retina display to a reg display, Jellybean is sort of an upgrade to Froyo

 

[yg17]

It refers to "classic" or the non-Retina MacBooks Pros.

Makes sense.

Now proceed with the argument

 

[mykem]

Then the novelty goes off and before you know it what you have is obsolete.

It's a novelty if what you do with laptop doesn't require the all or some of the advantages a HiDPI screen provides. If your 15" rMBP is your main computer and you spend a lot of time within Adobe Illustrator/PS then you'll appreciate the 1920 x 1200 scaling.

Even with the iPad, there's no denying the increase in resolution is much more than just a novelty. The sensation itself- the fact that over period of time you've gotten used to the display thar it doesn't seen quite as impressive- is just human nature. The same reason why romance wanes after a period of time or food that seems to be delicious at first, isn't so much after a few times.

 

[rubxz]

Thanks for an accurate response and respectfully contributing to the conversation So basically, Retina screens on laptops aren't that useful in most cases?

Renta is useful in ALL cases!!!

REAL ESTATE:
You can make the resolution larger for more room on the screen to do stuff.

HEALTH BENEFITS:
You can sit for hours and hours on a project without it straining your eyes.

QUALITY:
Makes the other screens in the house look like crap! and they are all 1080P

Makes my 13 in macbook pro display look like crap!

COST:
Whatever, it's worth it!!!

Took me a week to realize I have been straining my eyes all these years! looking at all these other screens! With this my vision seems to be getting better!

 

[fs454]

I have a 15" rMBP that I love!!!! There is a NOTICEABLE difference in the screen. We have a 15" cMBP in the family that was bought after mine and my son keeps asking me to trade him, because of the screen. He only purchased his because it was considerably cheaper. I also use a brand new Dell laptop at work that has me not ever wanting to use it but since I work in AutoCAD, (company provided) I can't use my rMBP, but once I can get them to purchase the Mac version I will never use that laptop. It feels so nice to just look at a crisp beautiful screen...

Boot Camp is your friend!

 

[Krazy Bill]

Took me a week to realize I have been straining my eyes all these years! looking at all these other screens! With this my vision seems to be getting better!

So your Myopia is cured? I have truly heard it all now.

Whatever helps you ease the pain of that depleted bank account I guess.

 

[prfrma]

I don't think the op is even remotely interested in being convinced. He made up his mind long before trying the product and is now trying to see if he was the only one who sat on his hands.

If go do any serious work, good viewing angles, rich blacks and extended desktop *real estate* more than justify this over the cMBP, that's before performance, build quality (no more flimsy lid or sharp palm rest ) and weight (great if you got desk).

Seriously, these threads are so mid 2012

 

[Queen6]

Well I for one didn't realise that the Retina MacBook Pro was so superior over the MacBook Pro - I assumed it was purely the screen res.

I guess maybe Apple should have adjusted the name more than simply adding 'retina' which denotes nothing more than resolution.

The old days of MacBook and MacBook Pro names made it much clearer that the Pro was superior in a number of ways whereas "retina" suggests just one.

I think that this is exactly what many of the protagonists against the Retina want people to believe, that it`s just a bump in resolution. It`s all documented on Apple`s site, and when you use the Retina back to back with a comparable standard system it`s very obvious which is the better...

For some the cMBP will be a must, for the vast majority the Retina offers by far the better user experience.

 

[Ledgem]

Well I for one didn't realise that the Retina MacBook Pro was so superior over the MacBook Pro - I assumed it was purely the screen res.

It isn't "so superior." The difference in benchmarks is so small that you're not going to notice it. If you need the absolute fastest laptop and every little bit will make a difference in what you're doing then sure, the retina systems may be worth it. For everyone else, I'm very doubtful. As I said before, if you're going to pony up the extra cash, do it for the right reasons. You're getting a better screen, slimmer form factor, lighter weight, and two Thunderbolt ports. You are not getting something that performs significantly better than the classic MBP.

Although the comment about how 8 GB on a retina is equal to 16 GB on a non-retina was a good laugh Where do people come up with this stuff?

 

[Funkmasta]

Retina also has USB3 and HDMI.

This is really a no-brainer, at similar configs the cMBP and the rMBP are the same price

 

[Tankmaze]

The same thing goes thru my mind when I want to buy the iPhone 4 3 years ago, can't notice the difference with the 3GS. and then I started to use it, and everything change. you should use daily I think to know the difference.

 

[rubxz]

So your Myopia is cured? I have truly heard it all now.

Whatever helps you ease the pain of that depleted bank account I guess.

Haha, some people only hate what they want so bad and can't afford. Yet you waste time talking crap to us mac enthusiasts!

----------

Retina also has USB3 and HDMI.

This is really a no-brainer, at similar configs the cMBP and the rMBP are the same price

Definitely get more bang for ur buck with the retna.

 

[vatter69]

Letting everything else aside (smaller build, improved thermals, lack of peripherals etc) - side by side comparison of the screen only between cMBP and rMBP of the same size - no sane person can say that this is "Hardly Noticeable".

That's just fishing for arguments.

 

[rubxz]

4got to mention, I am running 3 external monitors with my retna. Say somethin now! Come on!!!

----------

Letting everything else aside (smaller build, improved thermals etc) - side by side comparison between cMBP and rMBP of the same size - no sane person can say that this is "Hardly Noticeable".

That's just fishing for arguments.

I remember when people were like, I can't tell the difference in HD and SD or Bluray and DVD, so dumb. If I was to pull up to a light in a ferrari, this cat would be like oh WOW a Ferrari! What's the big deal? ...All while he's really dreamin of driving it!

 

[AppleMacFinder]

Look up the benchmarks, RAM subsystem on the rMBP is around 10% faster. Why?
Well, exactly because it is soldered.

It is not true. If you take the "classic" SO-DIMM memory
with the same latency and bandwidth, the performance is completely the same.

Why benchmarks were 10% higher, from your point of view?
Because the soldered RAM used in rMBP is good - 1600 MHz CL9.
Meanwhile, most people are buying 1333 MHz CL9 or 1600 MHz CL11 for their cMBP,
which is slower and cheaper. If you buy 1600 MHz CL9, for example, KHX16LS9P1K2/16 ,
and compare, the benchmarks will be the same! However, it costs $140.

 

[AppleMacFinder]

With the same specs, you get the same benchmarks on cMBP and rMBP.
The only significant difference is high-resolution screen.
This fancy screen looks good, but for some situations it is worse than a classic resolution screen
(for video games, retina sucks, because the same GPU needs to calculate and draw much more pixels,
and FPS is lower as result)

 

[leman]

It is not true. If you take the "classic" SO-DIMM memory
with the same latency and bandwidth, the performance is completely the same.

Could you provide a source on this? I seriously doubt that Apple uses different RAM modules between the cMBP and the rMBP.

 

[AppleMacFinder]

Could you provide a source on this? I seriously doubt that Apple uses different RAM modules between the cMBP and the rMBP.

For cMBP, Apple uses completed SO-DIMM modules, which are 1600 MHz CL11.
For rMBP, Apple uses memory chips and solders them, which are 1600 MHz CL9.
CL9 is faster than CL11, hence the difference in benchmarks.

For example, watch this video in high-definition,
you could see 1600 MHz CL11 Samsung modules preinstalled inside cMBP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV3E48tPCGo

These CL11 modules of course are not good enough.
But they are cheap for Apple, that is why they are used.

 

[Queen6]

With the same specs, you get the same benchmarks on cMBP and rMBP.
The only significant difference is high-resolution screen.
This fancy screen looks good, but for some situations it is worse than a classic resolution screen
(for video games, retina sucks, because the same GPU needs to calculate and draw much more pixels,
and FPS is lower as result)

Another with selective memory loss:
This due to people not fully understanding what is on offer with the Retina MBP as a whole; The Retina is faster, has far more efficient cooling, better audio, 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.

irrespective if you own a Retina or don't, these facts don't change; a Retina is highly likely to outperform it`s similarly specified standard counterpart as it`s thermal management is just so much better, where the standard system will bog down and choke due to throttling the Retina does not from my own experience my own Retina will run indefinitely at full load, at maximum CPU/GPU frequency.

These posts are simply tiring, loaded with negative comment by those that either only have about ten minutes experience of a Retina at Best Buy, don't have the $$$ and are just pissed off, have no clue about the engineering involved, bought a Mac at the wrong time and unhappy with their decision. Anyone actually using a Retina in direct comparison to a comparable standard model will know the difference.

For some the Retina wont work, and in general this is tied to software, equally this does not make the Retina the lesser machine. Once software catches up no doubt many more will make the switch. FWIW i have three 15" MBP`s two are quad cores with comparable processors, the Retina simply outperform`s the the standard system; same media, same environment, by a significant margin, the difference; sustained performance not a 60 second benchmark...

 

[leman]

For cMBP, Apple uses completed SO-DIMM modules, which are 1600 MHz CL11.
For rMBP, Apple uses memory chips and solders them, which are 1600 MHz CL9.
CL9 is faster than CL11, hence the difference in benchmarks.

According to iFixit teardown, the rMBP uses Hynix H5TC2G83CFR chips which are rated 11-11-11 at 1600MHz (see specs: http://www.skhynix.com/inc/pdfDownl...pdf/dram/Computing_H5TC2G4(8)3CFR(Rev0.2).pdf )

 

[jamezr]

With the same specs, you get the same benchmarks on cMBP and rMBP.
The only significant difference is high-resolution screen.
This fancy screen looks good, but for some situations it is worse than a classic resolution screen
(for video games, retina sucks, because the same GPU needs to calculate and draw much more pixels,
and FPS is lower as result)

Can you show us those benchmarks? I would be interested in seeing them.

 

[Ledgem]

These posts are simply tiring, loaded with negative comment by those that either only have about ten minutes experience of a Retina at Best Buy, don't have the $$$ and are just pissed off, have no clue about the engineering involved, bought a Mac at the wrong time and unhappy with their decision.

To be fair, many of the "positive" posts could be described in much the same manner. For my part, I just don't like the thought of someone buying something based on false information.

 

[swerve147]

To be fair, many of the "positive" posts could be described in much the same manner. For my part, I just don't like the thought of someone buying something based on false information.

Welcome to the reality distortion field, where problems are both made legitimate and blown out of proportion due to it being an Apple product. THE flagship Apple computer, no less. This whole Retina display-ed, sealed case thing, beautiful yet fatally flawed product is going to be polarizing simply because it is what it is.

The sum of it, from an actual owner's perspective, is yes, it does have significant flaws (IR dilemma, random fan issues, EFI bug, limited upgradability), but as a whole it is the best notebook computer I have ever owned (Retina display, pure performance, thin and light form factor). It is up to the potential buyer to weigh all this stuff and decide whether or not it's worth it.

It sure is fun talking about it, though.