Retina MacBook Pro Pushes the Limits of its Graphics Capabilities

[MacGuffin]

Awesome!

So, let's recap.

Siri can't understand me.

The new Retina MBP can't scroll to the end of a page smoothly.

My iPhone can't avoid dropping calls.

Feel the awesome!

----------

The thinness, lightness and cool temps of this also make it impossible to use any other machine at this point.

But the performance makes me want to smash my head into a wall many times over.

Time will tell if it turns out to be a lemon.

If?

What part of your own post about head-smashing do you not understand?

 

[freudling]

So, let's recap.

Siri can't understand me.

The new Retina MBP can't scroll to the end of a page smoothly.

My iPhone can't avoid dropping calls.

Feel the awesome!

----------



If?

What part of your own post about head-smashing do you not understand?

I'm trying to stay positive man.

 

[SPINTHMA]

I'm trying to stay positive man.

That's always good
The Hardware schould be ok but the Drivers, the OS X API levels seems to be insufficient. Maybe OS X is in need for more direct rendering of content like Microsoft Direct X?;
cheers
/K

 

[MH01]

You would be able to pull it off with a single GTX 670/680 of HD 7900 card.

Yeah you can, I just like to max all my games and like my fps to be 60 min, just my personal preference.

 

[MrNomNoms]

Can you honestly, truly not see a difference between the RMBP and the 'standard' 15" MBP in the store? I honestly can't understand why it's taken THIS long to produce a screen with a moderately pleasing resolution. In *my* humble opinion, I wouldn't even consider anything but the RMPB *IF* it functioned without fault as it should. The countless posts about its inability to keep up, however, have me pretty skeptical.

If you're going to quote me how about actually being intellectually honest and quote the WHOLE post, specifically the part before the d-ckwaving quip of mine:

IMHO I don't see the attraction to Retina and the technology becomes more pointless as the size of the screen increases resulting on one being further away from the screen to the point the that an iMac with Retina.....

I never dismissed Retina displays, I simply pointed out that its usefulness decreases as the screen size is larger and one is further from the screen. Again, if you're going to make a reply to me then please at least do the polite thing and quote the whole post rather than just cherry picking what you like/dislike.

 

[SPINTHMA]

Originally Posted by Eidorian
You would be able to pull it off with a single GTX 670/680 of HD 7900 card.

No not at all, as some reported here it's not the performance of the graphics-card but the additional cpu-software-rendering of OS X (single-core used);

Users having Mac Pros and for example the Radeon 5870 installed have the same scrolling issue;

/K

 

[MH01]

No not at all, as some reported here it's not the performance of the graphics-card but the additional cpu-software-rendering of OS X (single-core used);

Users having Mac Pros and for example the Radeon 5870 installed have the same scrolling issue;

/K

Fair enough.

The graphic card debate was in relation what type of current GPU you would need for fluid performance at the native retina res, I was referring to gaming performance.

I think the Retina is brilliant, and has everything I would want in a laptop, that I would not use for gaming.

 

[StarJack]

So, let's recap.

Siri can't understand me.

The new Retina MBP can't scroll to the end of a page smoothly.

My iPhone can't avoid dropping calls.

Feel the awesome!

----------



If?

What part of your own post about head-smashing do you not understand?

I'm trying to stay positive man.

Oh SNAP! Glad I'm on an iPad or I'd need to clean my keyboard!

 

[SPINTHMA]

Fair enough.

The graphic card debate was in relation what type of current GPU you would need for fluid performance at the native retina res, I was referring to gaming performance.

I think the Retina is brilliant, and has everything I would want in a laptop, that I would not use for gaming.

agree!

 

[the8thark]

Obviously you are not an ex Counter Strike player. FPS, mouse polling rates, LCD response times, input lag, screen tearing, micro stutter all matter and all affect immersion in game.

If a few fps (and the minute amount of everything else you said) actually affect your game play then sir you have better then 20/20 vision, reflexes of a hawk and the game playing ability of a pro korean.

 

[Drempel]

I was thinking to myself, how come an os x/apple has an issue thread hasn't turned into attack flash and adobe yet.

You would almost think apple is causing these problems themselves

 

[derbothaus]

If a few fps (and the minute amount of everything else you said) actually affect your game play then sir you have better then 20/20 vision, reflexes of a hawk and the game playing ability of a pro korean.

Nope. I drink too much coffee.

 

[magbarn]

If a few fps (and the minute amount of everything else you said) actually affect your game play then sir you have better then 20/20 vision, reflexes of a hawk and the game playing ability of a pro korean.

Lol I'm not an expert player and BF3 at a solid 60 fps is much smoother on my gtx670 powered desktop is a much smoother experience than the 20-30 fps I got on my 2011 mbp 15 in bootcamp with similar quality settings.

 

[haruhiko]

Please just cancel your order so that I can get one shipped within 24 hrs

 

[Casey MAC]

new macbook pro not so pro after all

WOW JUST WHAT I NEEDED! As a professional film and multimedia artist my first priority was to get a MacBook pro that was thinner than my last one. With the new MacBook pro being so thin I will finally be able to squeeze into tight workspaces I never thought possible. I’m also pleased to here that the new MacBook pro no longer has an optical drive (just dead weight, who needs those anyway). Finally, about the retina display.............WOW......now I can finally tweak and colorize photographs, put them online or print them using CMYK and they will look absolutely nothing like they did on my MacBook pro.

 

[SirHaakon]

I never dismissed Retina displays.

Um, but you did. If you meant to write "because" instead of "and," then that's something else. But I can only go by what you say, not what you meant to say.

And the "usefulness" of pixel density as measured by the viewer's distance from the screen is greatly overrated.

 

[MrNomNoms]

Um, but you did. If you meant to write "because" instead of "and," then that's something else. But I can only go by what you say, not what you meant to say.

And the "usefulness" of pixel density as measured by the viewer's distance from the screen is greatly overrated.

No I stated that its usefulness becomes less and less the larger the screen and the further back the viewer is - it is hardly my fault that you fail to read the WHOLE POST and take EVERYTHING written rather than selectively choosing what sentences you like whilst ignoring others.

 

[MorphingDragon]

No not at all, as some reported here it's not the performance of the graphics-card but the additional cpu-software-rendering of OS X (single-core used);

Users having Mac Pros and for example the Radeon 5870 installed have the same scrolling issue;

/K

Try enabling QuartzGL. I think its still disabled by default.

 

[gnasher729]

That's always good
The Hardware schould be ok but the Drivers, the OS X API levels seems to be insufficient. Maybe OS X is in need for more direct rendering of content like Microsoft Direct X?;
cheers
/K

The complaints are from people operating the Retina MBP in 1920 x 1200 mode (which renders 3840 x 2400 pixels), instead of the default 1440 x 900 mode (which renders 2880 x 1800 pixels). What makes you think that Direct X can render that amount of pixels anywhere better than MacOS X can with the same hardware?

 

[MorphingDragon]

The complaints are from people operating the Retina MBP in 1920 x 1200 mode (which renders 3840 x 2400 pixels), instead of the default 1440 x 900 mode (which renders 2880 x 1800 pixels). What makes you think that Direct X can render that amount of pixels anywhere better than MacOS X can with the same hardware?

No reason at all.

I always laugh at people that fall for the Microsoft D3D FUD. No Technical reason for D3D being faster than OpenGL has ever been given.

 

[Karl Berg]

Fair enough.

The graphic card debate was in relation what type of current GPU you would need for fluid performance at the native retina res, I was referring to gaming performance.

I think the Retina is brilliant, and has everything I would want in a laptop, that I would not use for gaming.

But that's the weird part. I already posted how my findings were with a rMBP in a shop and the scrolling through websites and iphoto thumbnails was absolutely horrible. Also loading other ui-elements and launching apps goes slowly, especially compared to a normal 2012 mbp next to it. Nonetheless, there are dozens of gaming vids on youtube of how the retina can perfectly maintain high fps (30+++ up till 60) with high settings in moderate to heavy games. Yet, it has trouble with scrolling on Macrumors. I just don't get it and it makes me force to believe that osx/safari is just very porely written and should be adressed asap; i think its a software problem.

 

[frabber]

if the performance problems are unsolvable given the hardware (which I doubt) they should revert to a 1920x1200 solution, oops but then it can't be called retina by the marketing folks, bummer..

oh and that hdmi port is a fail. why? since it's not the device you should hook up to a tv, there are other streaming devices that should fullfill this role, SJ was a visionary in this respect.

apple should be pushing the industry forward that means :

- kill wifi, and come up with some better standard that works locally without any interference , (untill then I strongly prefer wired solutions)
- make the keyboard detachable to allow for heatless typing
- make the screen detachable, or height adjustable, to allow for better positioning
- if you are like me you don't need the battery 90% of time, I prefer a machine that takes up less battery space, not more.
- better cooling, please go the watercooling route. it is proven to be far more efficient, and it kills the noise problem.

Now here is the challenge, how to create something maclike with these requirements. Left as an exercise for apple designers.

 

[Abhorred]

- kill wifi, and come up with some better standard that works locally without any interference , (untill then I strongly prefer wired solutions)
- make the keyboard detachable to allow for heatless typing
- make the screen detachable, or height adjustable, to allow for better positioning
- if you are like me you don't need the battery 90% of time, I prefer a machine that takes up less battery space, not more.
- better cooling, please go the watercooling route. it is proven to be far more efficient, and it kills the noise problem.

I'm not going to critique your suggestions, as they represent what you'd personally like in a computer. That said, they kind of painted this picture in my mind as an analogue of what the computer might look like:

 

[frabber]

I'm not going to critique your suggestions, as they represent what you'd personally like in a computer. That said, they kind of painted this picture in my mind:

That is some funny stuff. But no seriously, the laptop formfactor is seriously flawed. If you want to break away with the past, break away with the old notebook formfactor alltogether.

- you don't want heat whilst typing
- you don't want to sit inclined because the keyboard is attached to the screen, hence you will use a laptop stand, rendering the keyboard useless
- you don't want any overheating or fan noise given that there are better water based cooling solutions out there.

I'd say the dock is the computer, now build around that. The lenovo A720 comes to mind.

 

[pubwvj]

Yesterday I got to try a new MacBook Pro and a MacBook Pro Retina side by side at an Apple retailer. (Not a full Apple store as they don't exist out here in the sticks.)

Both machines were outfitted with the same processors, speed and RAM. The MacBook Pro had the lowest screen resolution option. I could not see any difference between the two with them set at the same resolution. With the Retina set at more work space, e.g., higher resolution, I did not like it as things were too small. Quite frankly, I can't see pixels on the 1440x900 screens so any more than that is a waste to me. To see a pixel I need a magnifying glass and to get up very close with even the older notebooks (1440) thus adding more pixels for Retina is not worth it because it places more drain on the processor, GPU and battery. I would rather have more speed and battery life. If you have hawk eyes you might feel differently.

Both notebooks felt to be the same speed doing work even with the Retina at the highest resolution which should use more GPU resources. Yet there was no noticeable difference that I could tell so the difference in normal work is insignificant. I did not get the chance to run a heavy duty performance graphics load like X-Plane 10 but I did use Adobe's software which was on the machines as well as Apple's software.

The Retina version is, of course, lighter and thinner but I did not actually like that as it made the machine seem physically less stable and less rugged. I want a very solid physical machine. I also like the end of the line machines as they've had the kinks worked out - I'm very wary of the 1st Gen machines like the Retina. I like the heavier base of the regular MacBook Pro as it makes it set on the table better. Both were lighter than my existing much older MacBook Pro and PowerBook 15.2" notebook computers. I suppose if I was constantly traveling the little bit of saved weight might be nice but for my application of mostly working at a desk and occasionally taking the computer with me I would rather have the addition I/O and optical disk drive.

Disk access seemed the same but again I had nothing to really push it hard so I couldn't test the difference between a hard drive and SSD.

The store was noisier than my home office so I could not really compare the machine noise to my existing MacBook Pro and PowerBook. The Retina made no sound to my fingers so it is probably completely quiet. The new MacBook Pro I could feel operating which was likely the hard drive. Getting it with the SSD option would put the price about the same as the Retina and probably the same speed and sound level.

Hands on conclusion:
I would go with the MacBook Pro non-Retina because the extra Retina screen does nothing for me, is possibly a resource drain and I do want the extra traditional I/O ports and the optical disk drive which I would have to buy separately for the Retina. Having it all in one package is better. I would max out the RAM and go with the 512GB SSD in the MacBook Pro for speed, silence and hopefully lower power consumption and longer battery life. The upgrade to the 768GB SSD is not worth it to me as I would rather put that extra money towards an external networked RAID drive for reliable backup and storage which I would be able to access over WiFi using the Airport Extreme's disk ability.