Retina MBP a true gaming platform

[imperialnavy]

I did not change anything. Really. I ran everything stock.

But here is a big question: did you install Windows 7 32-bit or 64-bit?

There is a big difference between those 2 in terms of performance... especially with Skyrim.

Edit: never mind, my own rMBP was "afflicted" with the same problem after the 10.8.2 update. Reset your SMC a few times and then try again.

While i also updated to 1.8.2. i dont believe that this is what causes my fps issues. (Fans work normal, no downclocking by the GPU)
Maybe the problem is, that i am using light texture packs as well as some Overhaul mods for trees etc.
Still, i am having a hard time believing how you can actually manage to get nearly 40-60 fps all the time...
Did you really try walking into that forest behind Heartwood Mill? This really can kill your fps...

 

[luffytubby]

I've definitely tried this disabling turbo boost workaround but to no avail. Realised that tat this at best merely delays the GPU throttling since the CPU itself in my case throttles to e bare minium 1.2ghz regardless of whether turbo boost is enabled anot.

While all this might look temperature related on the surface, fact is my macbooks remain relatively cool throughout the whole process, with temperatures tat don't even breach 80deg for both CPU and GPU. Which leads me to think this is power related throttling...

Is it hot in your room?



Fermer from GW2 thread;

Hey guys.

Just wanted to say that I figured out what was causing such a weird range of performance in games and benchmarks. It all came down to ambient temperature. I found that when the temperature in my room is approximately between 70-80F, my GPU will run at a constant core clock of 900MHz. Ambient temperatures between roughly 80-90F will cause the GPU to run mostly constant somewhere between 700-800MHz. 90F+ temperatures cause the GPU to do what happened in my previous MSi afterburner screenshot of wildly fluctuating the core clock which results in absolutely terrible performance.

TLDR; Turn on your A/C or get throttled.

link; https://forums.macrumors.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=15573714

 

[terraphantm]

My system was at a constant 3.4GHz with the GPU running at full speed while I was playing borderlands 2 the other night. At 1440x900, I was getting as much as 80fps in some scenes. Very satisfied with this laptop

 

[bill-p]

While i also updated to 1.8.2. i dont believe that this is what causes my fps issues. (Fans work normal, no downclocking by the GPU)
Maybe the problem is, that i am using light texture packs as well as some Overhaul mods for trees etc.
Still, i am having a hard time believing how you can actually manage to get nearly 40-60 fps all the time...
Did you really try walking into that forest behind Heartwood Mill? This really can kill your fps...

It's not the GPU downclocking. It's the CPU.

After the 10.8.2 update (which also comes with the EFI update), my rMBP could not get its CPU up past 1.1GHz, and that caused all of my games to perform at 10fps or lower.

I had to reset the SMC 3 times before my fps became normal again.

And yeah, I have been to that forest. It doesn't kill that much performance.

 

[SpitUK]

How does Civ V work on the rMBP?

 

[imperialnavy]

It's not the GPU downclocking. It's the CPU.

After the 10.8.2 update (which also comes with the EFI update), my rMBP could not get its CPU up past 1.1GHz, and that caused all of my games to perform at 10fps or lower.

I had to reset the SMC 3 times before my fps became normal again.

And yeah, I have been to that forest. It doesn't kill that much performance.

Well i am at my wits end here I use Skyrim Flora Overhaul, an overclocked gpu, normal cpu clocks (no downclock there) and at 2880x1800 behind that Heartwood Mill i am getting 12-15 fps...

 

[bill-p]

Well i am at my wits end here I use Skyrim Flora Overhaul, an overclocked gpu, normal cpu clocks (no downclock there) and at 2880x1800 behind that Heartwood Mill i am getting 12-15 fps...

Let me see if I can make a video in a few days.

Meanwhile, I think you can try reducing the resolution to either 2560 x 1600 or 1920 x 1200.

I think either of those options is more viable than 2880 x 1800 anyway because some Skyrim dialogs, like the "Level Up" choice between Health, Mana and Endurance, are very very small at 2880 x 1800. They are a lot more legible at 1920 x 1200 or 2560 x 1600.

It's funny, but I think a lot of games just don't scale their assets beyond 2560 x 1600.

 

[klover]

How does Civ V work on the rMBP?

Beautifully. I'm pretty deep into a 150+ turn WWII mod (via bootcamp) and I have everything maxed. Smooth and stutter-free.

Haven't tried it on the MAC side however as that version doesn't permit mods (or at least the ones I use).

 

[imperialnavy]

Let me see if I can make a video in a few days.

Meanwhile, I think you can try reducing the resolution to either 2560 x 1600 or 1920 x 1200.

I think either of those options is more viable than 2880 x 1800 anyway because some Skyrim dialogs, like the "Level Up" choice between Health, Mana and Endurance, are very very small at 2880 x 1800. They are a lot more legible at 1920 x 1200 or 2560 x 1600.

It's funny, but I think a lot of games just don't scale their assets beyond 2560 x 1600.

I think something might be wrong with my driver. I just tried vanilla Skyrim (without any mods or texture packs) and where ever i go near that Heartwood Mill, i am getting 10fps with Retina resolution. I will try Dox´s 306.2 drivers now, maybe these will have better performance...

Edit : Still no luck Change of .ini, change of drivers, nothing will work here. The only thing that guarantees me 30fps near that forest is 1440x900 ...
How about everyone else? Everyone having smooth gameplay??

 

[bill-p]

Can you run Skyrim in a window and then run CPU-Z side by side with it? See what your CPU reports as its clockspeed. Mine says 3GHz.

 

[imperialnavy]

Just tried that. CPU holding steady at 3.4 GHz...

1920x1200 is a resolution that seems to be "barely" acceptable in terms of fps for me, forest is around 20fps..
I will play around with some drivers a little more, but i doubt it will change a lot (after all we arent dealing with AMD here )

 

[Cassadian]

Just tried that. CPU holding steady at 3.4 GHz...

1920x1200 is a resolution that seems to be "barely" acceptable in terms of fps for me, forest is around 20fps..
I will play around with some drivers a little more, but i doubt it will change a lot (after all we arent dealing with AMD here )

I actually suffered from severe FPS decreases on my previous rMBP and after returning it it was fine. I have no conclusive evidence whether it was hardware or software but I still seem to be getting less FPS than some people claim.

 

[Dyno-Mike]

I think something might be wrong with my driver. I just tried vanilla Skyrim (without any mods or texture packs) and where ever i go near that Heartwood Mill, i am getting 10fps with Retina resolution. I will try Dox´s 306.2 drivers now, maybe these will have better performance...

Edit : Still no luck Change of .ini, change of drivers, nothing will work here. The only thing that guarantees me 30fps near that forest is 1440x900 ...
How about everyone else? Everyone having smooth gameplay??

Have you got 8xAA enabled? This causes me a lot of slow-downs. Sometimes sub-15fps at 1920x1200, Without AA it is perfect.

 

[imperialnavy]

Have you got 8xAA enabled? This causes me a lot of slow-downs. Sometimes sub-15fps at 1920x1200, Without AA it is perfect.

I disabled AA. Lets see, at 1920x1200 most areas, that is Whiterun, Riverwood etc. are quite alright (40fps). More intense regions such as forests are around 20-23fps. (23-25 if overclocked to 1035/3000)

ENB mods seem to kill performance completely though. Until now i didnt find one that didnt lower performance. The only one that is somewhat "moderate" is Seasons of Skyrim with its extreme performance setting. (Fps get lowered by around 5-10 --- if you overclocked)

Is it maybe normal now? I mean there are actually desktop gpus out there that can have trouble with ENB...so i shouldnt really get too worried if the 650m cant do this, right?

As for Skyrim at Retina or 2560x1600...performance in towns around 20fps, indoors around 30, forest around 10-15...

----------

I actually suffered from severe FPS decreases on my previous rMBP and after returning it it was fine. I have no conclusive evidence whether it was hardware or software but I still seem to be getting less FPS than some people claim.

I would rather not go down this road Delivery for this one alone took nearly 2 weeks..
I am sure mine is alright, maybe i was just expecting way too much...

 

[Dyno-Mike]

Im averaging 30fps+ in forests and heavy combat areas. 1920x1200 no AA all rest sliders on max

I would never play it at 2880x1800 Thats expecting way to much of this card for this game IMO.

 

[imperialnavy]

Im averaging 30fps+ in forests and heavy combat areas. 1920x1200 no AA all rest sliders on max

I would never play it at 2880x1800 Thats expecting way to much of this card for this game IMO.

What driver and settings are you using? Is there some way to somehow share those settings? Also, how about your skyrim inis? Maybe those would help

 

[Dyno-Mike]

Ive just noticed my shadows were on medium on those tests.

At ultra shadows the FPS are averaging 22-28fps in the forest areas

 

[Dahkot]

While I'm sure it's "decent" , in no way is the Retina Display Macbook in the same realm as true gaming laptops , a much cheaper priced Asus G75 with the 670m or a Samsung with the 675m is good bit faster alone at a cheaper price.

More to the point, I just got an MSI Gt70 with 680m w/4gb vram , 16gb ram , 2 128mb SSD's in raid 0 +750 g hd , core i7 etc. It will crush , absolutely CRUSH , any Retina Macbook in any game , not even in the same league when it comes to gaming. The 680m makes the 650 look like a POS at any resolution with features turned on.

I love my Macbook pro's I've had in the past and my new 2012 cmbp comes in this weekend , but Apple is smart to not even attempt to push the Retina or any Macbook Pro as a gaming platform when cheaper/equal priced gaming laptops on the windows side beat them hands down in this department.

Gaming is not the Retina's strong point to try and sell itself on. Actual gaming platform laptops with have either the ATI 7970 or the Nvidia 680m , and either of these mobile video cards are far , FAR , above all the other mobile cards in peformance in games. I think Apple is smart to not try in any way and push it as a gaming platform laptop.

 

[DTKblaster]

While I'm sure it's "decent" , in no way is the Retina Display Macbook in the same realm as true gaming laptops , a much cheaper priced Asus G75 with the 670m or a Samsung with the 675m is good bit faster alone at a cheaper price.

More to the point, I just got an MSI Gt70 with 680m w/4gb vram , 16gb ram , 2 128mb SSD's in raid 0 +750 g hd , core i7 etc. It will crush , absolutely CRUSH , any Retina Macbook in any game , not even in the same league when it comes to gaming. The 680m makes the 650 look like a POS at any resolution with features turned on.

I love my Macbook pro's I've had in the past and my new 2012 cmbp comes in this weekend , but Apple is smart to not even attempt to push the Retina or any Macbook Pro as a gaming platform when cheaper/equal priced gaming laptops on the windows side beat them hands down in this department.

Gaming is not the Retina's strong point to try and sell itself on. Actual gaming platform laptops with have either the ATI 7970 or the Nvidia 680m , and either of these mobile video cards are far , FAR , above all the other mobile cards in peformance in games. I think Apple is smart to not try in any way and push it as a gaming platform laptop.

Would you really call that a laptop? DTR is just that, a desktop machine.

 

[Dahkot]

Would you really call that a laptop? DTR is just that, a desktop machine.

And thus proved my point that the Retina Display is NOT a "true gaming platform".

Gaming platform rigs both laptop and desktops are built for that , gaming and performance , power saving and lightness and battery life are not concerns whatsover for "true gaming platforms".

The OP asked about the Retina MBP being a "true gaming platform" , his/her words.

If you are going to try and throw it in the ring as a "true gaming platform" , then you have to compare it with other machines built to be "true gaming platforms".

So yes , again , if you want to put your Macbook Retina against my MSI GT70with the 680m , and test which one is a "true gaming platform" laptop , I'm fairly confident which one comes out crushing the other.

Like I said , I like Macbook Pro's lots , and its nice to be able to fire up a game here and there and play decently , but if gaming is your thing , the Macbook Pro is NOT what you should consider a "true gaming platform".

Again , I love OS X , prefer Fusion often doing server migrations of Windows Server with swinging them over on VM's etc , and it's only for gaming I still have a windows laptop and gaming rig in my house , I carry about both the MSI GT70 and Macbook pro and MUCH rather have just the Macbook Pro and OS X for most everything even though I'm working much more often in the Exchange/SQL/Windows world. But when it comes to "true gaming platform' , you can't pick and choose what you compare the Macbook Pro to , as for that purpose and "true gamer" will take less battery life and heavier for EXTREME performance difference.

So if you are going to call the RMP a true gaming platform , the you're going to have to compare it to the other "true gaming platform" laptops. And it trounces them all in weight and battery life. And far down the list do you think those pluses are when it at the same time gets killed in comparison to those using the 680m or 7970's ?

 

[unwinded]

Define gaming. The rMBP has a better GPU than the unreleased Wii U. It will be able to run UE4. Not at native res, but non-native looks fine here down to 1440x900 which is exactly 1/2 on each axis (1/4). Gaming laptops are a niche. The GPU is better than the last gen's high consumer end. It's about the same as this gen's high consumer end. Yes there are better GPUs but at that point it is no longer affordable for the average consumer. It becomes a niche and is too expensive for normal people to justify. You won't normally find them in major brands or in major stores. There are currently 10 non-SLI or crossfire single chip GPUs better than in the rMBP. And SLI solutions above that. Yes they are better but they are all very expensive even compared to the rMBP (a couple may be slightly cheaper or the same price).

You're better off with a gaming PC at that point. It would save a significant amount of money for the same performance.

Right now the rMBP is fine for gaming for the average gamer, especially console gamers. Normal people here, not super hardcore or those who can't stomach less than 60fps. There will be a paradigm shift in PC gaming as PC games are finally leaping ahead of antiquated console ports (which the Wii U is not much better than). So with future games, it might not be adequate. For everything available right now, it's fine. Unless of course you are hardcore and can't stomach less than 60fps. No offense. We all have our niches.

 

[bill-p]

I disabled AA. Lets see, at 1920x1200 most areas, that is Whiterun, Riverwood etc. are quite alright (40fps). More intense regions such as forests are around 20-23fps. (23-25 if overclocked to 1035/3000)

ENB mods seem to kill performance completely though. Until now i didnt find one that didnt lower performance. The only one that is somewhat "moderate" is Seasons of Skyrim with its extreme performance setting. (Fps get lowered by around 5-10 --- if you overclocked)

Is it maybe normal now? I mean there are actually desktop gpus out there that can have trouble with ENB...so i shouldnt really get too worried if the 650m cant do this, right?

As for Skyrim at Retina or 2560x1600...performance in towns around 20fps, indoors around 30, forest around 10-15...

You seem to be getting roughly 50% less than what I'm getting on average for some reason... Did you install any mod?

And I know Skyrim by playing it on my desktop prior to getting the rMBP. There are desktop cards that can't handle ENB mods. Apparently, you need more than 1GB of VRAM to get decent performance at resolutions higher than 1920 x 1200.

Like I said, the rMBP is strictly VRAM-limited.

 

[Dahkot]

Define gaming. The rMBP has a better GPU than the unreleased Wii U. It will be able to run UE4. Not at native res, but non-native looks fine here down to 1440x900 which is exactly 1/2 on each axis (1/4). Gaming laptops are a niche. The GPU is better than the last gen's high consumer end. It's about the same as this gen's high consumer end. Yes there are better GPUs but at that point it is no longer affordable for the average consumer. It becomes a niche and is too expensive for normal people to justify. You won't normally find them in major brands or in major stores. There are currently 10 non-SLI or crossfire single chip GPUs better than in the rMBP. And SLI solutions above that. Yes they are better but they are all very expensive even compared to the rMBP (a couple may be slightly cheaper or the same price).

You're better off with a gaming PC at that point. It would save a significant amount of money for the same performance.

Right now the rMBP is fine for gaming for the average gamer, especially console gamers. Normal people here, not super hardcore or those who can't stomach less than 60fps. There will be a paradigm shift in PC gaming as PC games are finally leaping ahead of antiquated console ports (which the Wii U is not much better than). So with future games, it might not be adequate. For everything available right now, it's fine. Unless of course you are hardcore and can't stomach less than 60fps. No offense. We all have our niches.

Excellent post and points.

I just think (and I believe most of the pc gaming folks ) if you say "true gaming platform" and are referring to to a laptop , they expect it to play everything and everything well for some time to come, which I think the RMP won't be able to.

On the other handle true gaming platform for basic , IOS style games is a different story , just as are console games and etc. So it can mean different things.

I just believe if you enter into the true gaming platform discussion as a laptop , you have to put it up against existing true gaming laptops is all.

Sorry if came across rude about it as really am pro Apple/OS X even as an IT engineer , in fact I could convince several friends to go all Apple if they would actually release a new Mac Pro with current (580/680 gtx video cards.) While it sounds expensive , I know lots (including myself at times ) who have nice Imacs alongside monstrous gaming rigs built themselves. Simply because for 1500-1600 you can build a PC gaming rig with high end video card that kills the Mac Pro in one area , gaming. And it would actually be cheaper to do just the Mac Pro instead of 2k Imac plus 2k ish (including good monitor ) if Apple just would offer the current high end video cards as an option.

On the Macbook Pro line , retina or not , I know its impossible to put a 680m in there , its not going to handle the size or heat , and thats the tradeoff , but in a Mac Pro theres zero reason not to offer the current gen high end video card , never understood why they wouldnt do that (yes I know you can flash and try it yourself , but why not offer it up as an official option).

I would have loved to have a Mac Pro and only Mac pro instead of Imac + PC gaming rig over the years.

 

[terraphantm]

And thus proved my point that the Retina Display is NOT a "true gaming platform".

Gaming platform rigs both laptop and desktops are built for that , gaming and performance , power saving and lightness and battery life are not concerns whatsover for "true gaming platforms".

The OP asked about the Retina MBP being a "true gaming platform" , his/her words.

If you are going to try and throw it in the ring as a "true gaming platform" , then you have to compare it with other machines built to be "true gaming platforms".

So yes , again , if you want to put your Macbook Retina against my MSI GT70with the 680m , and test which one is a "true gaming platform" laptop , I'm fairly confident which one comes out crushing the other.

Like I said , I like Macbook Pro's lots , and its nice to be able to fire up a game here and there and play decently , but if gaming is your thing , the Macbook Pro is NOT what you should consider a "true gaming platform".

Again , I love OS X , prefer Fusion often doing server migrations of Windows Server with swinging them over on VM's etc , and it's only for gaming I still have a windows laptop and gaming rig in my house , I carry about both the MSI GT70 and Macbook pro and MUCH rather have just the Macbook Pro and OS X for most everything even though I'm working much more often in the Exchange/SQL/Windows world. But when it comes to "true gaming platform' , you can't pick and choose what you compare the Macbook Pro to , as for that purpose and "true gamer" will take less battery life and heavier for EXTREME performance difference.

So if you are going to call the RMP a true gaming platform , the you're going to have to compare it to the other "true gaming platform" laptops. And it trounces them all in weight and battery life. And far down the list do you think those pluses are when it at the same time gets killed in comparison to those using the 680m or 7970's ?

The 660m (which is essentially what the rMBP has) is sufficient for most modern game at non retina resolutions. Will it be as powerful as the desktop replacements? No. But it's not like those are as powerful as a proper desktop either. I've been playing a number of games at 1920x1200 (external monitor) and have been quite happy. I haven't used my desktop in months (though it is a bit more powerful).

There are other laptops billed as gaming machines (e.g Alienware M14x) which also come with the 660M. The rMBP is just as capable as those, while offering significant improvements in other areas.

 

[imperialnavy]

You seem to be getting roughly 50% less than what I'm getting on average for some reason... Did you install any mod?

And I know Skyrim by playing it on my desktop prior to getting the rMBP. There are desktop cards that can't handle ENB mods. Apparently, you need more than 1GB of VRAM to get decent performance at resolutions higher than 1920 x 1200.

Like I said, the rMBP is strictly VRAM-limited.

After tweaking and tuning a lot i am getting around 23-24 fps on high/ultra settings at 1920x1200 in that forest. I am however also using this ENB package (extreme performance reason though).
Also, i have a light overclock on my system, so it seems to be a little bit better now.
Now my Skyrim Installation has about 120 mods, some of them being minor mods, others being overhaul mods, such as Skyrim Flora Overhaul.
(Compared to vanilla Skyrim, my VRAM usafe is indeed higher, but most of the time i am scratching the top level and it doesnt really get choppy. It only gets really noticeable when i switch to an even higher resolution)

Nevertheless, can you please upload your Skyrim.ini and Skyrimprefs.ini?
I would like to compare it to mine, maybe its possible to get some additional fps.


By the way, can anyone tell me on how to overclock the 650m to a core frequency of 1200Mhz?
Everytime i try it with NvidiaInspector (P1), it just resets itself back to 405Mhz.
There is no way to increase P0 range is there? This one only allows me to overclock until 1035Mhz...
I am getting very reasonable temperatures without any downclocking, so my guess is that an additional 165MHz on the core will give me a few fps more.