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 MacBook Pro Pushes the Limits of its Graphics Capabilities
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I said, set the video to the actual native resolution (2880x1800) and use the OS scaling to increase the size of the UI elements.
If you lie about the native resolution, don't expect good results.
Last edited:
Ok not sure why I'd lie, don't see the advantage..
Anyway, I'll do that, not sure I'm in the mood to boot into Windows now even thought it takes a second. Anyway I'll hit you back soon when I do!
Ok not sure why I'd lie, don't see the advantage..
But
1920x1080 is a lie, the native panel resolution is 2880x1800.
Tell Win7 what the *true* native resolution is, and how much you'd like it scaled.
What I don't understand is why no one opened a support ticket, so that Apple can make observations. With other words, Apple knows of any of these problems? I think the whole discussion don't lead to solutions, if Apple isn't involved. Apple must make a clear statement, so that the customer can make decisions "Is Retina for me or not".
I thought this thread would make my decision easier, but it's precisely the opposite. So what can I do. I live in Brazil. The next authorized Apple dealer is about 800Km from here. It's a challenge to go in the next shop and make a test , so I depend on opinions and experiences. In this discussion are about 10 posters that have really experience with the Retina Mac and a lot of experts that know everything without ever having a Retina Mac in hands.
I'm a photographer that needs a good computer for at least the next 4-5 years. I made good experiences with Apple MacBooks. For me it works. My old computer is from 2007 and now with CS6 it's over. I have to calculate and I thought that a Retina Display could bring me some benefits. Btw I work also with an Eizo CG245W, but on the road it's sometimes useful to have a good screen.
I have read this article and it's really interesting:
http://cdtobie.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/retina-display-macbook-pro-for-calibration-and-photography/
I thought this thread would make my decision easier, but it's precisely the opposite. So what can I do. I live in Brazil. The next authorized Apple dealer is about 800Km from here. It's a challenge to go in the next shop and make a test , so I depend on opinions and experiences. In this discussion are about 10 posters that have really experience with the Retina Mac and a lot of experts that know everything without ever having a Retina Mac in hands.
I'm a photographer that needs a good computer for at least the next 4-5 years. I made good experiences with Apple MacBooks. For me it works. My old computer is from 2007 and now with CS6 it's over. I have to calculate and I thought that a Retina Display could bring me some benefits. Btw I work also with an Eizo CG245W, but on the road it's sometimes useful to have a good screen.
I have read this article and it's really interesting:
http://cdtobie.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/retina-display-macbook-pro-for-calibration-and-photography/
Ok when I go to Control Panel-->Displays-->Resolution. It's at 1920x1080. I can change it up to 2880x1800 but everything is just really thing and still blurry.
Yep, Freudling lost all credibility posting a video that misrepresents the rMBP performance like that. I'm running 1920x1200 and the performance is nothing like that video; in fact, it's just about perfectly smooth, easily as good as my previous 2010 Air.
What does "really thing" mean?
If the scaling is set at 100%, and the resolution is set at the native 2880x1800, everything should be crisp but perhaps really tiny. (And note, as I said, that the OS scaling can increase the size of elements but it's only really useful if Win7 has been told the true native resolution of the screen.)
Is the video driver from Nvidia or from Apple? If it's from Apple, perhaps it's an Apple problem.
Post a screen capture if you want....
Last edited:
I tested this on every display setting, including the best for Retina. The result is exactly the same. Exactly.
Haha I mean really tiny. Everything is really tiny and small. And it says it's the Nvidia driver but whatever. I'm going to reinstall Bootcamp anyway because I have to much Windows 7 junk already and I need to size the partition. Having a SSD is nice but 256 is so damn small, I wish I had more space. I guess I'll have to get a Little Big Disk and wait until Late Oct. until OWC starts selling Retina Pro SSD Upgrades.
Blurriness? What? The only blurriness there is is the video quality. The Webpage was already preloaded and I had scrolled it a zillion times before I started the video. Therefore, the Internet connection has nothing to do with this test. Nothing.
The 3 rMBPs we have in the office, every one running ML DP4, is slower and more choppy than our 2011 MBPs (15") running Lion with 256 MB VRAM. And we notice it each time we use the machines. It is a noticeable difference.
Just stop it already. I feel annoyed that these machines aren't performing well. Do you get it? That's why I'm posting here. It's concerning at the least.
Now you're just trolling.
I like:
1. Thinness.
2. Lightness.
3. Runs cooler.
4. Screen is better.
I don't like:
1. The performance is sub-par. In some areas, not acceptable.
----------
Sure, I lost all credibility. I put a disclaimer in that performance takes a hit on screen grabs. Period.
My performance is much worse on this machine than my 2011 MBP 256 MB VRAM. That's a fact.
Anyone who doesn't believe the rMBP has performance issues is incredulous.
Ok.
That's unfortunate.
I do get that. And I can certainly relate with someone who is dissatisfied with the performance sharing that with others so they can make an informed decision. Surely you can get that I also own this machine and do not share the same experience as you do. I couldn't care less if others buy the laptop, I already have mine. I only post so as to share my experience with others. So when I see a video like yours, and do not experience those issues myself, I am lead to try to understand what is going on with your system. I speculated the issue with the blurriness was related to your internet connection. You now assure me that it is not, so I'll happily abandon my conjecture regarding the blurriness on the website you scrolled on.
Being that as it may though, the fact that you reported strikes me as highly inaccurate. You claim screen recording has little impact on performance, yet on my machine it has a huge impact. That indicates to me your video is highly unreliable and not representative of the system's general performance, even if you are genuinely experiencing the performance issues you claim to be experiencing.
Bottom line, if you are entitled to share your experience with others, so am I, even if my experience contradicts your own. But what distinguishes us is you are calling anyone with different experiences than your own liars, whereas we merely say we don't experience what you do. Notice who is engaged in ad homonyms and who isn't. Also notice that people who typically don't have a real case to make are the ones to resort to such insults.
Yeah, right. More insults.
Me too, that's why I bought this computer. But if you think about those features for a minute, you will realize that thinness and lightness come at a cost of serviceability, which was the complaint I was responding to. For people whose primary feature is upgradability, in terms of importance, the best suited machine for their needs isn't the Retina MacBook Pro, it's the classic MacBook Pro.
Then bring it back already. What more do you want us to say? You made your point that the system doesn't perform as you'd like. Many of us don't share that problem and shared that opinion. For you to complain about those reports raises some red flags concerning your motive, especially when you resort to insults.
----------
Bingo. And as was pointed out, to expect the same level of smoothness in your UI and scrolling as on traditional screens may be unrealistic at this point. The hardware isn't capable of it just yet. Software optimizations might mitigate the problem to some extent, but as AnandTech made clear, the software "cures" will not be miracle cures. They will only help mitigate the performance issues.
So at the end of the day, either you put a premium on the Retina Display or on the performance. For many of us, the performance is more than adequate, and the UI and scrolling smooth enough, so we are happy to have the best display on the market. For others, wait till the CPUs are more capable, or until the software cures are good enough.
I think the issue many of us have is the constant whining, sense of entitlement, and exaggerations that are on display here.
whatever dude. i'm pretty sure i know how to launch some apps to see if i can slow down a computer.
Most of the apple guys I know of say forget the air for now-Stick with the MBP(not the retina). The best configured are the non-retina mbp. Best power and bang for your buck. SO they're 1.5 pounds heavier. Big deal. I also prefer the iPad 2 over the iPad 3. The retina demands make it suffer performance wise over my ipad2
it's a completely rational thought process, but it ignores wether a user genuinely values the retina displays. Which i do. But that's not to say they're better performing machines either, but i think they are quite more than adequate and worth the resolution. i personally think once you go retina you never go back. but that's just my opinion. I'm well aware i could probably get a faster machine for less if i just maxed out a MBP. but i can't ignore that retina display.
All right for you and the rest of the delusional crew... Here's a video of a side-by-side comparison of my 2011 MBP with 256 VRM and a 2.2 GHz processor next to the rMBP 256 GB HD 8 GB RAM 1 GB VRAM. The video was taken with my iPhone 4S. You'll see how there's a slight delay before a UI event is actioned on the rMBP that is more pronounced than the old MBP. Also, you'll notice things like Windows minimizing and maximizing is faster on the older MBP. Even though the differences may seem subtle via video online, when you use a computer everyday it makes a huge difference and you can notice every little bit.
http://s675.photobucket.com/albums/vv116/freudling/?action=view¤t=SBYSC.mp4
Oh, and, the Cinebench score for the old MBP is:
36.36 fps.
Guess what it is for the rMBP?
34.27 fps.
Both machines running ML DP4. How do you like them Apples?
Also, the fact that you actually notice an increased performance hit when screen grab is on and you don't when using the older MBP is something that speaks volumes about performance of the rMBP.
How about iMovie? It's choppy as hell. And so are UI events online with things like modal pop ups.
But go ahead, buy it. I'm just saying, from someone who has been using one for over 1 week, the performance isn't good. I hope it gets better, but no guarantees. There's lots to like about this machine, but it's hard day-to-day to not notice the sluggishness. It crops up all over the place, from working in iMovie and iPhoto to general OS stuff. It's specifically about the graphics performance here.
People keep spreading this nonsense, but when you actually compare spec for spec, the Retina models end up being cheaper. Just take a look at the 2.3ghz models for instance.
non-retina MBP = 1829$ for 2.3 ghz, 4 gb of RAM, Nvidia GeForce GT 650m with 512mb VRAM, and 500gb HDD.
The Retina MBP = 2229$ for 2.3ghz, 8gb of RAM, Over-clocked Nvidia GeForce GT 650m with 1gb VRAM, and 256gb SSD, plus it has Retina screen, and better built-in speakers.
Well, how much to upgrade the HDD to a SSD in the non-retina? 400$ on Apple's site. So, that equalizes the prices and you still don't get the rest of the enhancements. Yeah you lose ports, but buying the adapters is cheaper than paying for a RAM upgrade on the non-retina model, and you can't even upgrade the GPU to = the Retina Model's one, nor can you upgrade the speakers or shave some weight off the non-retina model.
So bang for bung, excluding performance, the Retina MacBook Pro is a better deal.
There is an honest video. Notice the lag isn't at all like in the prior video. I'm happy to concede the RMBP is slower than the one you compared it to for those tasks. How do I like those Apples? Love them. For a couple FPS I'll take a Retina screen any day.
Nah it just means screen capture is poorly coded. Now, since you have DP4, if you or someone could show me how Airplay Mirroring works, showing the performance on the TV and the computer, that I'd be interested in. If performance sucks there then I would be disappointed, if not the problem is with the way screen capture and Quicktime X works, nothing else.
Anandtech claims otherwise. Also, people with Mac Pros and far stronger machines also experience slower UI, scrolling etc, yet they have significantly stronger GPUs, nor does turning on the dGPU make any difference, which suggests this is primarily a CPU/Software issue.
PS: What's your battery's maximum capacity and cycle count? Mine seems to be decaying rather quickly
Last edited:
By subtle, do you mean non-existant? I'm currently a fence-sitter waiting to see how perceptions end up after ML's final release and I couldn't see the difference with this video. What should I be looking for?
don't take this to seriously but am I the only one who thinks that danial tosh blowing up that macbook pro was a hate crime against macs
Side by side makes it even more impressive when you consider that the retina MBP is pushing 4x the number of pixels...I don't think that was your point but that's what I take away from your comparison.
1) Javascript was designed around executing all the events as if it were on one thread. There is no parallelism expected. And therefore there is no easy way to make a browser's javascript engine make full use of multiple cores for one web page's javascript interpreter. (independent pages or tabs can be run on separate cores, but this doesn't affect the facebook scrolling benchmark because it's just one page you're working with. It's functionally equivalent to launching a separate browser per page, which is what Chrome does on OSX and Windows.)
2) Packets are simply chunks of data. Not even complete chunks of data. I'm not sure what you mean by "treat packets as threads", but chunks of data are simply a bunch of numbers that may or may not have meaning. Can you clarify?