Retina MacBook Pro Pushes the Limits of its Graphics Capabilities

[phantasmagoria]

Benchmarking... so much to answer for.

OK, it's a useful guide, but real world experience is what really counts, and there's very few actual rMBP owners up in arms about the performance of their machines.

Maybe we happy owners are technological philistines. Or maybe, just maybe, scrolling down a Facebook page at 20fps is actually quite acceptable and the quality of the display makes up for that 0.25 seconds of stutter when scrolling down the page real fast.

I don't buy a computer to spend my time ranking it against other computers... the very nature of the beast is that a better one will come out tomorrow. What counts for me is the overall experience and how much I enjoy using it. As someone who spends all day working on their computer, the rMBP wins hands down in that category for me.

 

[gnasher729]

some say a heavily picture laden webpage after being fully loaded exhibits laggy scrolling. so then it must be cpu/gpu. in that case its just moving pixels in the driver that is slow including scaling/downscaling . I wonder how much hardware accelleration they are using in there algorithms right now?

or is it the brute 4 times more pixels factor that slows things down ?

how come a 128bit bandwidth, 384 core GPU isn't sufficient? That should give you 200 FPS in pure moving pixels around.

We are talking about 1920 x 1200 retina display. That is 3840 x 2400 pixels. That's 9.2 million pixels. Times 200 fps, that's 1.84 billion pixels per second, or 5.5 GByte per second, or 44.2 GBit per second. Good luck. "Moving pixels around" means you need to both read and write the pixels. That's 88.4 GBit per second.

Worst and most asinine settings ever.

While anyone who is actually using this machine is happy to get a 1440 x 900 display that is just out of this world in picture and text quality, with the alternative to get a 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1200 display that is better quality than any other display of same resolution.

 

[iBug2]

You've missed the point... If you attach a 2560*1600 display to your Mac that's your decision.

But if you buy a rMBP and you experience low framerate after taking the computer out of the box, that's another story, you didn't even have the chance to use your hardware (as it meant to be used) flawlessly.

Btw, correct me if I'm wrong, but you've just proved in your comment that with your hiper-super GPU (with a lower resolution screen than the rMBP) you also don't have surpassing framerate. And after that you made the conclusion that these experiences with the rMBP (which has much weaker GPU than yours and also a higher resolution screen) have nothing to do with the GPU?

If it had anything to do with the GPU, I would have much better framerates on my own machine. Did you actually read the testing? The GPU is extremely fast yet cannot give better framerates than GT650M while scrolling Facebook. It doesn't have anything to do with GPU, at all. This clearly shows it.

And wth does that even mean that I decided to attach a 30" display to my Mac? That resolution is pretty standard for some time now. Even 27" iMacs with a much less powerful GPU drive a similar resolution out of the box. So where was all this "cry out" when Apple released the first 27" iMac? The GPU is capable of much more than a single 30". The load on the GPU on everyday tasks is basically nothing. Only if I play a demanding game the GPU fans crank up.

Edit: Actually I'd love if someone did this testing on a 27" iMac. It should more or less give similar results to the rMBP.

 

[gnasher729]

Well that is the extreme opposite. Yes, there are dozens of models slightly thicker, slightly heavier, with better performance than the rMBP.

Excuse me, but could you name a few models that have better performance than the Retina MBP? There are some that hive higher CPU performance, and they cost more, but not many. Certainly not "dozens".

Am I the only person who doesn't understand why the GPU needs to render 3840x2400 when switching to 1920x1200 when the screen is only 2880x1800?

Apple could render at 1920 x 1200 (non retina) and scale it up to 2880 x 1800. You would then get artefacts because of the scaling, where every 2 x 2 pixels have to be converted to 3 x 3 pixels. Say you have a black and a white pixel side by side, that would be scaled to one black, one gray, one white pixel. The result would be definitely less good than a "real" 1920 x 1200 display.

Instead the rendering is done at 3840 x 2400 (retina) and scaled down to 2880 x 1800. You still get artefacts due to the scaling, but you start with much much higher quality, so the end result is as good or better than a "real" 1920 x 1200 display.

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?

The whole discussion is about a Retina MBP that was switched from the normal 1440 x 900 display to 1920 x 1200. That adds about 78% more load on the GPU. If you get the regular one, max out the RAM and find a cheap SSD, you end up at about the same price, but you don't have the choice to switch it to 1920 x 1200. It's like your car manufacturer offering two similar models, but with the second model you can add a three ton trailer. And your car magazine complains that with the three ton trailer, the car doesn't accelerate well at all. So you are buying the first model, because you can't attach a trailer that slows it down.

 

[mcr]

obviously, a soft problem

zoom and resizing windows have been the eternal lag of OS X, every tiem they release a new version, the only machine that barely can handle it smooth is the next years computer.

Remeber 10.0, so imposible to resize, barely improved in 10.1, no matter the power of the computer you were using.
Until Panther, in a Dual G4 1,25, resizing didn't "start" to becamo smooth.
I remeber the iMac G5 core solo, with problems resizing windows in every system.

That's why you can get uncomparable frame speed rate in Startcraft II in the rMBP, but worst frame rate scrolling.

Anyone remeber scrolling a PDF in their newest G5 multicore under Tiger?


Don't know why, but scrolling, zooming and resizing are the worst experiecnce ever under any OSX version.




http://www.barefeats.com/mbp12gx.html

 

[MEgaMacMan]

I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of a better laptop than the RMBP. I'm just saying. Give me some names. Name a few models which are better. Remember. It has to come with a 512gb ssd. And is atleast as powerful if not more than the RMBP. I also want it under 5lbs and around the same form factor being thin. People keep saying there's better alternatives at cheaper prices or just better machines. Nobody seems to have an exact model which matches the RMBP.


I'm not bothered if people hate this new MacBook pro model but why don't we stop comparing benchmarks and start comparing it to other laptops. And please don't bring price into it anyone buying a Mac shouldn't be worried about price otherwise they wouldn't be using Apple as an alternative to Windows PCs.

 

[Flore]

Disclaimer - I ordered a rMBP. Not sure I will keep it yet, mainly because of the glossy screen and I need to evaluate how it holds up in daily use.

I currently run a 2010 MBP (2.66 i7 / 15' 1650 / 8GB RAM / SSD + HDD Combo) - and I don't get any more than 30fps when scrolling in Facebook. MacRumors goes to 60.

Just as a reference. Don't think there is much to worry about here.

 

[apolloa]

Actually the article is crap, read the source material instead.

Beyond that there is a thing called Mountain Lion coming which greatly expands GPU usage, performance of all Macs should be better with Mountain Lion.


You can wait if you want but there is no certainty that lower power GPUs will arrive in that time frame. TSMC has or is having enough problems at its current node.

Mac Rumors is apparently trolling for page hits or something because the article isn't balanced at all. Give Mountain Lion a chance when it comes out.

Well I will respect the article as Anandtech are not an Apple fan site, they are independent which means a good article. I'm sure many will wait to see what Mountain Lion brings to the table. It's always sad to see when a Mac site posts an article that doesn't put an Apple product in good light it's accused of trolling

And I wasn't implying of lower powered GPU's but ones that use the same power and heat as the current models but are more powerful for the same money, and we will have those next year.

 

[stevelam]

This is the real core (punny) of the problem. I bet Firefox will be the first browser to support multi-cores... mostly because they've been talking about it since 2009. It was supposed to be in Firefox 5...

----------



Me. I'll back him up. I can't remember if Anand touched on it, but I know several sites did mention that it is overclocked pretty much as much as it can be right out of the box. Some sources jokingly called it a 660M, since it is a souped-up 650.

The GPU is fine. It's not the bottleneck ANYWHERE except for intensive gaming. The CPU and the fact that web browsers still only support a single core is the reason for the lag.

----------



Not full-featured? I'm sure they were saying the same thing about the iMacs when they did away with the floppy drive.

Few people need an optical drive, and it's no big deal to attach one in the rare times you do want it. Same goes for the ethernet dongle. 16GB will be enough for 95% of users for the life of the computer. The SSD *will* be upgradable. It's on an easily-removable daughterboard and several sources have said OWC and maybe some other vendors will produce replacements.

It's the most powerful laptop they've made. It's the best screen ever put in a computer. It maintains quality battery life expectancies and has fantastic power management. It stays cool and quiet. Thunderbolt, USB 3.0, AND HDMI. I The only thing it is *truly* missing is software support... Which will come. And that's to be expected for a new line of tech that is less than three weeks old. If only silly ol' Apple had giving software companies the heads-up.

So how is it specialty, and more importantly, how is it not full-featured? It has everything most users need, and nothing that people don't.

----------



It's the CPU, not the GPU (which is extremely adequate). And it's not even the CPU, it's the fact that web browsers aren't programmed to access more than one core. If they were, the lag would disappear. Memory-hogging, bloated, and badly coded websites, combined with web browsers that refuse to innovate... those are the culprits.

Thanks for the useless apple marketing rhetoric but it has less to do with the current crop of browsers and much more to do with apples poor solution to use software scaling rather than finding out a way to push it to the GPU instead.

By your reasoning, the scrolling lag should be much more apparent on older machines then, but this clearly isn't the case.

 

[iBug2]

Thanks for the useless apple marketing rhetoric but it has less to do with the current crop of browsers and much more to do with apples poor solution to use software scaling rather than finding out a way to push it to the GPU instead.

By your reasoning, the scrolling lag should be much more apparent on older machines then, but this clearly isn't the case.

On my 2008 Mac Pro with Radeon 5870 (A 3.5 times faster GPU than the one in the rMBP), I also have similar fps scrolling facebook on a 2560*1600 screen. (So, 3.5 times faster GPU, and even less resolution, still get crappy fps on Facebook). Meaning, this isn't really about the GPU. I'm sure the GPU has some minimal effect, but not a lot. One CPU core is capped at 100% while scrolling on Facebook yet it's on 8% while scrolling on Macrumors. So I'm assuming on a 27" iMac, which has a 50% less powerful GPU than mine, and which drives a very similar resolution as mine, the fps should be similar to mine and the rMBP.

 

[JazzyFizzle]

This and all the other problems is why I'm waiting for this new standard to be established properly.

 

[jefftomascak]

Are you going to use all three displays at once or close the lid and just use the two externals? It can probably handle all three just fine, as you aren't likely to be running motion content on all three at the same time. Probably will have workspace or toolbars on one, content on another, etc. You are only going to have the mouse on one screen at a time doing something.

If you will have motion content on all monitors, well you may be the first to try it. See my comment above about an old iMac running three displays just fine. I'm sure this one will be fine too.

If you are going to close the lid while using the external monitors on a desktop, then that should be no problem at all.

----------



No, and most people whining about it don't even have a rMBP.

Good observation.

thanks! as soon as it shows up I will send a report.... never had to wait 3 weeks for a new apple product, the displays and cables showed up in 2 days... ugh

 

[JohnDoe98]

There is a key bit of wrong information in this explanation. There is no upscaling going on. The OS is actually drawing everything in that higher resolution. So it will draw into a 3480x2400 'image', and then scale the 'image' down to 2880x1800.

If there was no upscaling many images and programs would look miniscule. You say the OS "actually" draws into a 3480x2400 image, but since the source is 1920x1200, how do you imagine the OS gets the image to 3480x2400?

Upscaling + Downscaling doesn't actually work any better, as you still get the same distortions of the image (fuzziness/etc). To keep it tack sharp, you have to actually produce the image at 2880x1800 or higher so that you are sampling 100% of the detail.

Take any picture, zoom in 5 times from the actual size. Then zoom out 5 times from the actual size. What looks better? The zoomed out or zoomed in image?

----------

It's not really a higher end model unless you max out all upgrades. It's exactly the same (minus form factor obviously) as the non-retina version minus the ability to actually upgrade yourself. That's hardly a good long term investment.

I think the context of what I was talking about made it clear I meant "high end model" as a 2k computer vs a 500$ or 1k computer.

A lot of reading and writing? Are you kidding me? So every laptop before the RMBP couldn't be used for simple reading and writing?

I didn't say that so why twist what I'm saying? Reading and writing on the Retina screen is much nice and more enjoyable compared to traditional screens. If you deny that, I doubt you ever used the Retina screen.

The battery life is pretty much the same as the non retina version.

Who cares? The point is the Retina MacBook Pro has very good battery life.

Performance will pretty much be slower on the RMBP since it has the overhead of having to use resources just to power the retina display properly.

All benchmarks indicate otherwise, especially since the GPU is overclocked and actually runs faster than on the non-retina models.

Sorry but trying to justify the RMBP as a need for college is the dumbest thing I've read today.

Who said anything about need? Maybe you need to learn to read more carefully. I said it was desirable, not needed.

----------

What you'd get without a Retina screen.
-Cheaper entry level price (that's subjective to Apple)

False, there doesn't appear to ever be an price premium for the Retina screens. Apple charged the same for the iPhone 3gs and iPhone 4, the iPad 2 and iPad 3, and if you add a SSD into the cMBP it costs the exact same price as the RMBP.

 

[phantasmagoria]

If there was no upscaling many images and programs would look miniscule. You say the OS "actually" draws into a 3480x2400 image, but since the source is 1920x1200, how do you imagine the OS gets the image to 3480x2400?

The clue is in the ratio. 3480x2400 is literally twice that of the original source, so it's easily scalable without loss by doubling the pixels. Rendering it at that higher resolution and scaling it down will produce an image that is better than upscaling a lower resolution image, where pixels have to be "invented" to fill in the gaps.

 

[JohnDoe98]

That is a very good explanation, thank you very much.

Do you know if there are any utilities that would be able to run the display at 1920X1200 with the "1.5x" multiplier to decrease stress on the GPU?

It makes sense that it would not quite look as clean and crisp as full retina, but it would still make for a higher than average pixel density. And if GPU performance is increased enough, it may be worth it for me in certain situations.

I don't know of any such utilities nor do I think they would be desirable for the overwhelming majority of people. Seriously the performance of this computer is very very good. The complaints are considerably overblown.

 

[kyeblue]

the start of the falling of an empire?

under Jobs, Apple is best known to put user experience above tech specs and engineering wonders. It probably just matter of time that Apple will return to be just a regular company after Steve is gone.

 

[mykelala01]

There's no reason to believe this couldn't be sorted out through software.

This! Agreed! Hardware issue is a hardware issue. Apple might released some firmware update on the GPU. Possibly overclock the GPU. But system can only go as far as its limitation.
Better wait for the technolgy to catch up

 

[iBug2]

False, there doesn't appear to ever be an price premium for the Retina screens. Apple charged the same for the iPhone 3gs and iPhone 4, the iPad 2 and iPad 3, and if you add a SSD into the cMBP it costs the exact same price as the RMBP.

Actually the regular MBP with 512 SSD costs 300$ more than the Retina of the same config.

 

[phantasmagoria]

This kind of debate crops up with every major new iteration of hardware, and will go on until the sun goes down. But how many rMBP owners actually regret their purchase? Isn't that the key factor? I'll go on record as saying that I don't.

 

[JohnDoe98]

The clue is in the ratio. 3480x2400 is literally twice that of the original source, so it's easily scalable without loss by doubling the pixels. Rendering it at that higher resolution and scaling it down will produce an image that is better than upscaling a lower resolution image, where pixels have to be "invented" to fill in the gaps.

I know that, that's precisely what I said and the poster to whom I am responding claimed was false. He claimed there was no upscaling or downscaling going on, dispite the fact that OS X even says there is scaling happening.

----------

Actually the regular MBP with 512 SSD costs 300$ more than the Retina of the same config.

Perhaps, but I was thinking of the 2.3 GHZ base config models. If you upgrade the cMBP base 2.3 model to a 256gb SSD it'll be the exact same price as the base RMBP, even though it'll have less ram, less VRAM, and a worse screen. So it appears those things were freebies on the RMBP model. I think it's clear why Apple made the RMBP a better bang for your buck, they want to sell them in such high numbers they can kill off the cMBP next year, claiming no one really bought them anymore, just like no one buys the 17" MBP.

 

[Riemann Zeta]

I am really happy I went with the non-retinized "classic" MBP 2012. With a 2.7 GHz Ivy Bridge CPU and the GT650M GPU, I have way more than enough power to drive 1680•1050 pixels. But for those early adopters with the retina version, I think everyone knew that there would be a lot of OS-related bugs, as Apple had to make a custom build of Lion that was about 60% ready. Once Mac OS 10.8 is released and third party developers have time to update things, support will get better. The biggest problem will be MS Office, which has always used its own proprietary text rendering engine (and always will) and is still rooted in the Carbon APIs.

Apple certainly chose an interesting way of implementing high res support, massively oversampling then scaling back down.

 

[gotluck]

Maybe one day apple will use top of the line video cards but I'm not holding my breath.
What keeps me away from Mac computers most is lack of choice/upgrade ability of video cards.

 

[MacSince1990]

On the desktop front you are looking at a GTX 670/680 for this kind of power in 3D. I know this is on the 2D/desktop rendering side but going from 1356 shaders down to 384 and at lower clocks is going have a large impact.

1440 x 900 or 900p is going to be the native turf for a GT 640/650M

Right, because shaders matter in 2D Quartz/OpenGL environments.

If anything, it's the drivers, or possibly VRAM... You've got PLENTY of GPU power... pushing pixels has never been an issue; the original Radeon Mac Edition PCI could push 1920x1440 no problem.

Granted at 9.2MP you're going to be using a LOT of VRAM; the dedicated GPU is basically out almost instantly, and the 1 GB can be eaten up fairly quickly if you've got a lot of VRAM-intensive applications open@9.2MP downscaled.

 

[Riemann Zeta]

^^^
The NVIDIA GT650M is a pretty damn fine mobile GPU. Very competitive with AMD's mobile offerings right now with reasonable heat output. I'm not sure what kind of GPU you expect, as the only other options are desktop-grade, like the NVIDIA GTX680, or the AMD Radeon 7970M. While both are absurdly powerful, they also require massive amounts of electricity and cooling. Any laptop with a GPU like that would be 2-3" thick and 10lb.

 

[ikir]

Unfortunately yes they would still have this problem. Most likely it isn't VRAM it is 10.7's crap GPU (over) usage and underpowered shader processors on the chip they selected. If it plays better in 10.8 then there you go. EVERY user who has moved to 10.7 on ALL apple products notices a GPU slowdown with Lion. Why do you think so many are still using 10.6.8?

10.7 has much more better GPU performance with the same machine with 10.6 in gaming and all other 3D. So...

We are talking about a no problem, which barley can be seen and with early drivers. Sure if you reach gfx card performance limit you can do little with software but i'm pretty sure that it will be better soon in the next months. So don't need to worry imho.