Retina MacBook Pro Pushes the Limits of its Graphics Capabilities

[strausd]

Can somebody explain to me why running the RMBP at 1920X1200 really means that the GPU is rendering the display at 3840x2400?

I thought the GPU would just render the pixels at 1920X1200 and then just basically take that image and scale it up, but not actually render any additional pixels.

 

[doelcm82]

The early adopters here defend their purchases vociferously, and that's great for them.

Everyone here is vociferous. You, for example, vociferously suggested that you chose the non-retina display because you are "not deluded".

I am devoted to Apple, but I am not deluded. That's why I went with the mid 2012 non-retina.

Later, you admit that you use your MBP with an external display. So to be non-deluded like you requires the use of an external display.

I'm not deluded enough to carry an external display around with me, so I vociferously defend my decision to purchase the Retina MBP.

 

[nutjob]

Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.

You got it right - first version rule holds yet again, no-one in their right mind would buy this model with its underpowered display chip(s). By the next version (or two) they'll have much better hardware driving the display and you'll actually get a screen that actually works as intended.

 

[saud0488]

It's funny that anything that is perceived as being anti apple on this thread is downvoted quite a bit. Like the headline had you all on the edge already. I suspect this post will suffer the same fate.

 

[coolfactor]

Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.

A 2008 MBP that's on its last legs? I'm curious what that means. I'm on a 2007 MBP that still runs like a charm, and it makes miles every day between towns, sometimes up to 20 hour work shifts. Yes, it's lost some of its coating from so much typing, and the hard drive is taxed, but it's definitely not on its last legs.

Do you just want the latest and greatest because you can have it, or is there something physically wrong with your current machine? Either way, I don't know if frustration is warranted. You have several quality options.

 

[Raizen.Z09]

Do you actually believe that the GPU is capable of running a 3D game at retina resolution at great framerates but cannot scroll a webpage at the same framerate? Do you actually believe that a 2D webpage puts more work on the GPU than a fully featured 3D game like Diablo 3?

This is not about the GPU. The GPU is capable of pushing even more pixels at really high framerates than that. This is simply the software and scaling algorithms. It'll be faster in time due to optimisations in software.

My 9400M in 2009 MBP can even scroll Facebook at 1920*1200 resolution at smooth fps. GT650M is 4-5x faster than 9400M and yet it is trying to push 2.25X many pixels. So basically the GT650M performance should be more or less equivalent to 2x performance I get from 9400M.

I totally agree with you!

 

[Aodhan]

Everyone here is vociferous. You, for example, vociferously suggested that you chose the non-retina display because you are "not deluded"... Later, you admit that you use your MBP with an external display. So to be non-deluded like you requires the use of an external display...

By deluded I meant I was not caught up in the hype, I was able to look at the practical benefits and drawbacks to the Retina. Drawbacks which included an overtaxed graphics card and the inability to repair or upgrade the machine. I don't see how that is being vociferous, but whatever.

The external monitor I am using is 1920x1080, which while it does put an additional strain on the 650M, nowhere near meets the demands placed upon the 650M in the Retina.

I would not warn anyone off the Retina, it is a great machine, sorry if you felt I was attacking your decision. I simply advocate really looking at what you need or want from a machine. The Retina is not the answer to every question.

 

[coolfactor]

It's funny that anything that is perceived as being anti apple on this thread is downvoted quite a bit. Like the headline had you all on the edge already. I suspect this post will suffer the same fate.

Downvotes usually got to those that are ignorant, selfish, spoiled or just plain annoying.

 

[djzapp]

Like people MUST use the retina display at all times on the MBP. It's a really nice addition, but if you are experience lagging during everyday internet surfing, turn the resolution down. I doubt you would notice a substantial difference in quality on a 15" screen. Same goes for gaming, I am sure it would look good enough on 1440x900. The way they have done the pricing is sneaky tbh, they have made the upper end 15" the same price as the lower end retina. Which one to go for...

So if I run my DJ program at 1440X900 would this affect the video load, being it is at a lower resolution or is the vram going to be the same if it was at a higher more retina resolution?

 

[marcusj0015]

This is why I feel like waiting for the 2nd revision really is a good idea.

I was planning on getting the Retina Macbook, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe I should just get a regular one and max the ram and hopefully find a cheap SSD?

 

[jav6454]

Thanks for your highly sought opinion, it's good we have experts like you to help inform us, rather than relying on things like this:

An expert opinion is useful to me as I want it. I never claimed to be an expert. He may be impressed, but I am not and will call it out. Stressing one core is not the way to do things in my opinion.

Apple can definetly do it better than a single core stress.

 

[wiz329]

And this is exactly the problem with Apple computers for, dare i say it Decades.

They pretty much always have fitted poor graphics cards.
Probably the main reason why the Mac almost died when the PC gaming was zooming ahead. Apple just did, and do fit poor sub par graphics to their consumer machines.

Even the top iMacs have laptop graphics are they are obsessed about saving the extra half an inch of thickness on a desktop machine.

It's been Apple computers weak spot for so many many years and STILL they never seem to get it.

Save it.

If Apple put in a more powerful discrete card, everyone would be complaining about how it got too hot (iPad 3 anyone?) and how the battery life sucked. Apple made the right call with the graphics card -- the technology just isn't quite there to deliver flawless graphics on a retina panel, while keeping within notebook thermal and power restrictions.

Did you even read the rest of Anand's article?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/8

...Like the whole first half of the article that talks about how Apple has been the major player in pushing Intel to beef up their graphics for the last 4-5 years in preparation for these hi-DPI panels?

You're as bad as the fanboys.

 

[eyehop]

Hmm... This is a little bit frustrating. I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.

To those on the fence and disappointed by this report, don't be. The overall performance is great. The retina display is awesome, and worth minor inconveniences like a little slowdown when scrolling. The real disappointment is those of us who still have to use non-retina displays when we aren't at our MBPR.

 

[phantasmagoria]

Can somebody explain to me why running the RMBP at 1920X1200 really means that the GPU is rendering the display at 3840x2400?

I thought the GPU would just render the pixels at 1920X1200 and then just basically take that image and scale it up, but not actually render any additional pixels.

I may be wrong, but as I understand it the rMBP renders your 1920x1200 as 3840x2400 pixels which it downscales to the native 2880x1800 display. That produces a better image than scaling 1920x1200 up to 2880x1800.

 

[r.harris1]

It's funny that anything that is perceived as being anti apple on this thread is downvoted quite a bit. Like the headline had you all on the edge already. I suspect this post will suffer the same fate.

Posts also get down voted if they make inane, too obvious, or baiting statements. I make my share of such, of course, but it isn't always anti-Apple posts that get down-voted.

 

[Oflife]

Solution is the VW Campervan technique...

...are you ready?

Remember when you're trying to get up to speed or go up that steep hill?

Grab the wheel hard and in sync, you and your fellow passengers move your upper bodies back and forth to give the can that essential extra oomph.


So, to give your Pro Retina some extra zippy zippy, sit your ass tight in the chair, grab your mouse and summing all the energy and spiritual force you can muster, lean back and forth staring deep into the display.

There, 27fps, or even 30 if you are really tuned in!

Works for me anyway.

xx

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Just after the launch of the Retina MacBook Pro earlier this month, AnandTech provided a first glimpse of the machine's display performance, noting the various resolution options available to users and examining how its color and contrast compares to other notebooks.

After having more time to analyze the new machine, AnandTech last week published its full review of the Retina MacBook Pro, bringing its thorough and technically-detailed perspective to the report. While the whole review is definitely worth a read, the section on graphics performance bears special attention.

With the integrated Intel HD 4000 and discrete NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M graphics units responsible for driving 2880x1800 pixels in standard Retina mode and as many as 3840x2400 pixels before downscaling to display 1920x1200 at its highest non-Retina resolution, Apple is clearly pushing the limits of the machine's graphics capabilities.AnandTech goes on to assess this graphics performance, noting that the Retina MacBook Pro at times struggles to maintain a "consistently smooth experience".Focusing on browser scrolling behavior, which also involves substantial CPU load, AnandTech notes that the resource-intensive Facebook news feed pages can display at over 50 frames per second on a 2011 MacBook Pro, but that the new Retina MacBook Pro struggles to hit 20 frames per second as it pushes so many more pixels.

Image


Retina MacBook Pro at 21 frames per second while scrolling (See meter at top left)​

The report notes that OS X Mountain Lion will help address some of these issues by leveraging Core Animation, but in AnandTech's testing it was still only able to achieve 20-30 frames per second under Mountain Lion. Further improvements in performance will have to wait for hardware capabilities to catch up with demands imposed by these new ultra-high resolution displays.

Article Link: Retina MacBook Pro Pushes the Limits of its Graphics Capabilities

 

[gnasher729]

So much for the full retina version of Diablo 3. If this has lag scrolling on Facebook, I can't imagine the poor frame rates it will get in a game at full resolution...

That's because you didn't pay attention.

First, there is no "lag". There is a low framerate. Calling it "lag" is abuse of the English language. There are LCD monitors available that do actually lag - and are perfect for playing movies. That's because "lag" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Second, these framerates were not on "full retina resolution". They were on 78% higher resolution than "full retina resolution". They were on 3840 x 2400 pixels, while "full retina" resolution is 2880 x 1800, but Diable 3 will run just fine on 1440 x 900 and I bet you can't see the difference. That's because you don't see the resolution at fast action displays.

Can somebody explain to me why running the RMBP at 1920X1200 really means that the GPU is rendering the display at 3840x2400?

I thought the GPU would just render the pixels at 1920X1200 and then just basically take that image and scale it up, but not actually render any additional pixels.

If Apple did that, then the 1920 x 1200 display wouldn't look good. It would look less good than a native 1920 x 1200 display, because any scaling that is not by a factor 2 loses quality. By rendering 3840 x 2400 pixels and then compressing to 2880 x 1400, you lose some quality, but you start with same insanely good quality, so the result still looks good. Possibly better than a native 1920 x 1200 display.

 

[pesos]

To those on the fence and disappointed by this report, don't be. The overall performance is great. The retina display is awesome, and worth minor inconveniences like a little slowdown when scrolling. The real disappointment is those of us who still have to use non-retina displays when we aren't at our MBPR.

^This.

I can't speak to OS X because I can't stand and don't use it, but now that drivers are out Windows 8 runs great at 2880x1800, including browser scrolling.

I *need* a high res display for the nature of my work - anything less than 1200 vertical pixels is a serious efficiency-killer for me. This machine is pretty close to the perfect laptop given the low weight and high resolution. With 16gb ram and a 512gb drive I can easily virtualize an entire server lab on my laptop for demos and POCs and it performs like a champ.

 

[wiz329]

Can somebody explain to me why running the RMBP at 1920X1200 really means that the GPU is rendering the display at 3840x2400?

I thought the GPU would just render the pixels at 1920X1200 and then just basically take that image and scale it up, but not actually render any additional pixels.

Nope.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/6

If it rendered the pixels at 1920x1200, that's exactly what you'd get -- a screen rendered with that resolution, scaled to fit the screen, thus not taking advantage of the full amount of pixels available on the screen.

This way, by rendering it at 3840x2400, you can almost fully take avantage of the full display resolution, while simultaneously having the advantage of the higher amount of screen real-estate that 1920x1200 brings.

Its the best of both worlds. Only -- there's a catch. It works the GPU pretty darn hard -- hence the "performance" warning in system preferences.

 

[marcusj0015]

Apparently a 256GB SSD and 16GB of ram will only cost ~$300 on top of a macbook, any SSD or RAM recommendations?

and if anyone knows of any affordable 512GB SSDs please, speak up.

This is the RAM I'm looking at: http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/1333DDR3S16P/

Well, the regular macbook includes 8GB of ram, so that'll be fine, but I'm spending more money to upgrade the SSD... hmmmm. Choices choices...

 

[pmau]

To those on the fence and disappointed by this report, don't be. The overall performance is great. The retina display is awesome, and worth minor inconveniences like a little slowdown when scrolling. The real disappointment is those of us who still have to use non-retina displays when we aren't at our MBPR.

I disagress. Here's why. Memory bandwidth.

1024x1024x4 (8bit RGBA) means 4MB
If you want 60fps this is 240MB/s

Now I all hear you. "It's done on the GPU, not the CPU. It's already in VRAM."

Actually, no it isn't. If you scroll a large website with images and all of these are not yet visible, they will be transferred from RAM to VRAM.

Imagine a Webpage 1024x2700 (3 times 900).
Now remember that the images are usually not in retina resolution.

Each image will be scaled up to maintain the correct aspect ratio.
Since it's really impossible to cache them in retina resolution, they will be transferred from RAM to VRAM.

Remember: 1920x1200 = 3840x2400x4 = 36MB for the desktop alone.
Then add up covered windows that need to be drawn quicky when exposed.

Add images, add the scaled up textures.

Finally you are out of VRAM.

That's why scrolling has to suck. It'll max out the bus, meaning the available memory bandwidth.

You have to access program data, too. It's not only the graphics.
This is not about theoretical CPU or GPU speeds, it's simple math.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Can somebody explain to me why running the RMBP at 1920X1200 really means that the GPU is rendering the display at 3840x2400?

I thought the GPU would just render the pixels at 1920X1200 and then just basically take that image and scale it up, but not actually render any additional pixels.

The native screen is 2880x1800, that is where you will get the best quality picture. Trying to go higher or lower will result in image distortion. So whatever image you send to the display, it should be at 2880x1800 to get the best possible image.

Now, given that the typical screen real estate on the 15" is 1440x900, Apple figured it could just double the pixels in each direction and that'll achieve your 2880x1800. So everything there is rosy.

Now, with the 1920x1200 real estate, you have two options. You can either just bump it up to 2880x1800, which gives you a multiples of 1.5x which are not rounded numbers, or you can double the pixels in each direction to achieve 3840x2400 and then downscale it to the 2880x1800. Upscaling with non-rounded numbers causes more distortion in your final image than does downscaling with non-rounded numbers, so Apple figured since it always wants to run the display at 2880x1800, it might as well upscale with rounded numbers and then downscale with the non-rounded numbers to achieve the best final solution.

With screen real estates of less than 1440x900, it'll upscale as much as possible with rounded numbers and do the rest with non-rounded numbers to hit the 2880x1800 again. I hope this helps, I tried to present it as accurate as I could in simple terms.

 

[parapup]

So Apple released tech that wasn't ready yet. Awesome.

Yep. The pressures of innovation without Steve. Retina display on MBP won't be ready until there is true resolution independence - even if in few years the GPUs do catch up.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

This is a little bit frustrating.

No, that's life.

I NEED a laptop for college this year (current is a 08 MBP on its last legs). I'm most likely going for the MBPR simply because it's barely cheaper to get the MBP with the specs I want. Frustrating knowing Apple decided to ship with hardware that isn't ready./sigh.

A rMBP for college. *ROTFLMAO*

 

[marcusj0015]

So, what's the problem with the graphics? is it the VRAM or the PCI bandwidth?