Retina MB-Pro Gaming capabilities...?

[Lord Appleseed]

Hello!

While i saw that the benchamark results of the GT 650m are only slightly below the HD6970m's of the 2011 iMac, i am interested in your opinions in the matter of how the stock Retina Pro in general handles gaming.

I own the 2011 iMac and i'm very halpy with its gaming performance, yet i find myself playing games while having it hooked up to my 40 inch TV instead.
Since i thought that carring arround a 10kg machine back an forth just to play games is a bit tideous, i was starting to think that the Retina Pro might just handle my needs in terms of working and would also let me hook it up to my TV for playing much more easy.

Any advice or thougths?
Thanks!

 

[Stetrain]

It should work pretty well for that purpose. Some people have reported that it struggles a bit when trying to play modern games at full retina (2880x1800) resolution but that it does really well at lower resolutions.

Since gaming on your TV will be at 1080p at most I think it should do just fine. As you said it should be pretty close to your iMac. The built in HDMI port is a plus as well.

There should be more specific benchmarks coming in the near future though, it might be worth waiting for those. Keep an eye out for Anandtech's review, they are usually very thorough.

 

[SaleenS351]

Will it be able to play civ V?

 

[Rmafive]

Will it be able to play civ V?

It should be able to destroy Civ V and perform extremely well at retina resolutions. My 2008 MBP performs quite well at the medium setting on Civ V.

 

[beestigbeestje]

performance

The retina display really put's a strain on the performance of the machine..
Wondering if I shouldn't buy the regular 2012 macbook pro version instead of the retina.
I've read Diablo 3 isn't performing that well on the retina macbook pro's, but perform good on the regulars.


Also, I'm fighting over which configuration to choose. Will the 2,66ghz retina version make such a big performance difference to the 2,3ghz version?
Benchmarks say nothing compared to realtime performance, but according to geekbench, the 2,3ghz retina macbook pro isn't any faster than the 2011 macbook pro.
Any thoughts on that?

I'm upgrading from a 2,4ghz intel core2duo santarosa macbook pro (with ssd) so I'm sure I'll be an incremental update no matter which configuration I choose.

 

[Bradllez]

I am really interested in how well the Source Engine plays on these things.

 

[henrikrox]

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

Portal 2:
Retina MBP 2012: 54 fps on 2560x1440 everything on maximum.
MBP 2011 (6770m): 46 fps 2560x1440 everything on maximum.

Wow:
Retina MBP 2012: 56 fps on 2560x1440. Ultra preset
MBP 2011: 27 fps on 2560x1440. Ultra preset

Starcraft 2:
Retina MBP 2012: 29 fps on 2560x1440. Ultra preset
MBP 2011: 17 fps on 2560x1440. Ultra preset

The new card and the new mbp destroys the old one. If they turned down shadows which kills fps on blizzard games, they would get even more fps. Also under windows u will get even better results.


----------

The retina display really put's a strain on the performance of the machine..
Wondering if I shouldn't buy the regular 2012 macbook pro version instead of the retina.
I've read Diablo 3 isn't performing that well on the retina macbook pro's, but perform good on the regulars.


Also, I'm fighting over which configuration to choose. Will the 2,66ghz retina version make such a big performance difference to the 2,3ghz version?
Benchmarks say nothing compared to realtime performance, but according to geekbench, the 2,3ghz retina macbook pro isn't any faster than the 2011 macbook pro.
Any thoughts on that?

I'm upgrading from a 2,4ghz intel core2duo santarosa macbook pro (with ssd) so I'm sure I'll be an incremental update no matter which configuration I choose.

Games isnt very cpu dependent, some are, but u will not see much difference between the two CPU's. You are not going to notice it. Also remember that many games still only take of advantage of 2 cores.

I dont why u are thinking of the non retina model. You can still pick a different resolution inside the game, and still be higher then the 1440x900 standard non retina. If the games i posted do so well at 2560x1440, at ultra. THink how great they will peform at lets say 1920x1200 or 1680x1050. And you are still way over the non retina mbp's resolution. Therefor it will look better and crispier.

I dont get why u have read that the non retina model is peforming better then the retina model. Thats just not true. Yes of course if you play in native resolution. But why would u want that. U can turn the resolution down, and still be higher then the non retina mbp.

 

[goldsaint]

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

50+ fps portal 2. on 2560x1440 everything on maxium. The new card destroy the 6750m.

----------


Games isnt very cpu dependent, some are, but u will not see much difference between the two CPU's. You are not going to notice it. Also remember that many games still only take of advantage of 2 cores.

I dont why u are thinking of the non retina model. You can still pick a different resolution inside the game, and still be higher then the 1440x900 standard non retina. If the games i posted do so well at 2560x1440, at ultra. THink how great they will peform at lets say 1920x1200 or 1680x1050. And you are still way over the non retina mbp's resolution. Therefor it will look better and crispier

enough with your craps. you know you lie retard. 6750m gets 130fps on portal 2 all maxed out u lying prick

 

[henrikrox]

enough with your craps. you know you lie retard. 6750m gets 130fps on portal 2 all maxed out u lying prick

At 2560x1440. Sure it does haha. Not even a imac with a 6970m gets that. Think you didnt read resolution

look again didnt need to defend your 2011 inferior mbp so hard.

 

[goldsaint]

At 2560x1440. Sure it does haha. Not even a imac with a 6970m gets that. Think you didnt read resolution

look again didnt need to defend your 2011 inferior mbp so hard.

eat that : " However, if you opt for the entry level 15" 'mid 2012' MacBook Pro 2.3GHz, it gets beat by the best 'late 2011' MacBook Pro in two out of three tests above."

and fyi do not dare thinking the gt650 is a beast or clearly above the 6750m because its a midrange mobile card.

everybody know how ****** nvidia are with mobile gpu, yourself included

 

[henrikrox]

eat that : " However, if you opt for the entry level 15" 'mid 2012' MacBook Pro 2.3GHz, it gets beat by the best 'late 2011' MacBook Pro in two out of three tests above."

and fyi do not dare thinking the gt650 is a beast or clearly above the 6750m because its a midrange mobile card.

everybody know how ****** nvidia are with mobile gpu, yourself included

Read more. The base NON retina mbp is hinderd by 512mb video memory. at that resolution (2560x1440) the games will use more then 500mb video.

If you read:
What about the fact that the 2.3GHz MacBook Pro has half the video memory of the other two?" That could be a factor. Using OpenGL Driver Monitor, we determined that Portal 2 used 680MB of video memory during our run. Cutting the resolution down to 1280x720 dropped it to 536MB. Going from "BEST" quality to "DEFAULT" brought the video memory use down to 325MB.

See how better gt650m 512mb version does against the 6770m even though it has 500mb less vram in wow, because it doesnt use up all the vram.

Case closed. Eat that?

Not saying gt650m is a beast card. But the amd 6770m is clearly inferior compared to it.

Also you do know its comparing the entry level non retina mbp against the top of the line specced 2011mbp. Heh.

If you compare the most specced out RMBP to the most specced out 2011 mbp (which you should - best last gen vs best current gen), the graphs tells it own tale.

 

[Zeov]

I am really interested in how well the Source Engine plays on these things.

don't worry about that CSS, Half-life 2, Team Fortress 2, L4D2 all those games play extremely well on my 15" MBP with 6770M 1GB (1680x1050)