rMBP is bad for power users

[Orr]

I'm pretty sure I'm putting way more load than you on this machine. I even write my own codes because there doesn't exist software that do the types of calculations I do.

And for the really heavy stuff, I have access to servers that makes a $10.000 Mac pro look like nothing. If you claim what I do doesn't constitutes under heavy load, you're the fool.

Pure gold. Hopefully you'll leave some more behind for those as foolish as myself to find!

 

[alphaod]

I think OS X is not extracting maximum performance out of the rMBP hardware. In bootcamp, the machine can use more power than the power adapter can provide. This seems to never happen in OS X.

So to me it seems Apple has engineered OS X to run the rMBP in some kind of energy saving profile which prevents the machine from not using more than 85W, while the hardware is capable of doing more.

We are basically paying for hardware which we cannot use to it's maximum. Apple should use larger power adapters (it's a 2000+ laptop) and let OS X use more power under heavy load.

Last time I ran a video encode for 6 hours, my battery discharged about 7-10%, so I think it's definitely drawing more than my power adapter can supply.

 

[Intelligent]

Well, yes. If you want to play games or do work, get a PC

The rMBP is a $2500 toy, everyone could tell you that.

You will probably call me a fanboy, but what you're saying is not even true, the rMBP is a PC and doing work on it is amazing, because of the power and OS X, and it handles gaming pretty well as a thing on the side.

----------

Tell that to some of the people with 2011 macbook pros.

Why should he do that? I have some macbook pros from 2006 and they work great, have no single physical problems, the only bad thing is that the specs are getting outdated, macbook pros hold way longer than windows pcs, my friends old laptops is non working, not a single one works, but all my ibooks, powerbooks, imacs, macbook pros and MacBooks Are all working, apple computers last longer.

 

[yjchua95]

You will probably call me a fanboy, but what you're saying is not even true, the rMBP is a PC and doing work on it is amazing, because of the power and OS X, and it handles gaming pretty well as a thing on the side.

----------



Why should he do that? I have some macbook pros from 2006 and they work great, have no single physical problems, the only bad thing is that the specs are getting outdated, macbook pros hold way longer than windows pcs, my friends old laptops is non working, not a single one works, but all my ibooks, powerbooks, imacs, macbook pros and MacBooks Are all working, apple computers last longer.

The 2011 15"/17" models were all hit by Radeongate (catastrophic failure of the Radeon GPU due to a manufacturing flaw that Apple refuses to admit).

I was one of those hit by Radeongate.

Apple is charging me USD300 for a new logic board (my AppleCare expired a week ago, and it had to fail a few days after the expiry).

And besides, Apple uses refurb logic boards, that's why some users are complaining that the failures still occur even after a logic board replacement.

I can only hope Apple issues an extended repair program like the one for the 2011 iMac (the 27" models of the 2011 iMac were also hit by Radeongate).

 

[saturnotaku]

Why should he do that? I have some macbook pros from 2006 and they work great, have no single physical problems, the only bad thing is that the specs are getting outdated, macbook pros hold way longer than windows pcs, my friends old laptops is non working, not a single one works, but all my ibooks, powerbooks, imacs, macbook pros and MacBooks Are all working, apple computers last longer.

Because no issues exist on 2011 Macs.

 

[Robyr]

Because no issues exist on 2011 Macs.

While you and others may have a point, this affected literally every manufacturer out there. GPUs in notebooks have always been a weak link, just ask HP dV* owners.

This is a major reason why I feel the discrete GPU is a waste of time and money unless you have a real business case for having it. Buying a high end laptop to play video games and then complaining that it doesn't live for 7 years is ridiculous. The professionals that buy a laptop like that to make money see it as a cost of doing business, and 3-4 years is the depreciation limit anyway, so it fits the upgrade timelines.

The way people complain about the MBP GPU failures lets me know they have never used a high end laptop before. The GPU ALWAYS kills the device, either by unsoldering at the joints, causing high internal heat leading to other issues, etc. It's not simply an Apple or other specific manufacturer's issue.

 

[ha1o2surfer]

A couple things.. Mac OSX doesn't support DirectX so OSX will never have great performance in games (compared to a Microsoft OS) that are designed around that no matter how good Apples' drivers may be.

Having an 85 watt adapter is great for people who do light to medium work in Adobe software and Video encoding using only the CPU. OSX knows how much the system is pulling from the adapter and can scale back according. Windows on the other hand does not and will pull as much power as it wants and the system will then throttle after it's a problem. I believe Apple released a software update to disable discharging of the battery under heavy load but I could be wrong.

I've said this to a lot to people who talk about throttling (not the thermal kind) Everyone says their 750 or 650M can operate at GTX 660M levels, it's just not possible.. I have an Asus laptop with a GTX 660m and a 3840QM and it draws 140+ watts from the wall while gaming. It will be impossible to gain full performance from BOTH the CPU and GPU at the same time on a Macbook Pro. If you don't believe me, try a LuxMark benchmark using all OpenCL GPUs and CPU on sala scene and see what you get.... I'll post my score if you want, but it will be much higher than a Macbook Pro with similar specs...

Not trying to be biased, just stating the facts. The Macbook Pro is great machine just use it within it's limits just like any other machine!

 

[agaskew]

I'm going to have to disagree with your disagreement. There's very little that a rMBP can do that a Macbook Air couldn't do. And of the things that a rMBP can do that a MBA cannot do, there's even less that a rMBP can do better than a $2000 Dell.

So at the end of the day, you can get a great little Air for play or light work, a dell for heavy work, but the rMBP is this awkward stepchild that can't do CPU + GPU intensive tasks for a long time without throttling, can't be upgraded, can't even use commonly available external storage, and generally just doesn't have a place in a computer lineup. I mean it has a gorgeous screen, the MBA screen is "good enough" for any work that doesn't require a $3000 screen. And the same could be said for just about any computing uses. See where I'm going with this?

Can I get a Macbook Air with more than 8Gb RAM? Or more than 512Gb storage?
No.

Can I get a Dell that comes with OS X?
No.

Do I want 2 laptops, each with a different operating System?
No.

 

[goMac]

A couple things.. Mac OSX doesn't support DirectX so OSX will never have great performance in games (compared to a Microsoft OS) that are designed around that no matter how good Apples' drivers may be.

There's been a lot of discussion on the topic, but DirectX doesn't offer any speed advantages compared to OpenGL.

Valve even has their games running faster under OpenGL under Linux than DirectX in Windows.

Saying DirectX is faster than OpenGL is like saying English is faster than Spanish. They're just two different languages to do the same thing.

 

[ha1o2surfer]

Can I get a Macbook Air with more than 8Gb RAM? Or more than 512Gb storage?
No.

Can I get a Dell that comes with OS X?
No.

Do I want 2 laptops, each with a different operating System?
No.

Techincally he is right.. a MBA just can't do it as fast..

----------

There's been a lot of discussion on the topic, but DirectX doesn't offer any speed advantages compared to OpenGL.

Valve even has their games running faster under OpenGL under Linux than DirectX in Windows.

Saying DirectX is faster than OpenGL is like saying English is faster than Spanish. They're just two different languages to do the same thing.

You're absolutely right. But if a game is designed to run with features that DX11 supports that OpenGL doesn't; then performance can be different since that feature will have to be omitted or rendered differently.

It is off topic, but in general you are right.

 

[goMac]

You're absolutely right. But if a game is designed to run with features that DX11 supports that OpenGL doesn't; then performance can be different since that feature will have to be omitted or rendered differently.

It is off topic, but in general you are right.

OpenGL has a concept called extensions, which let's GPU vendors add features that aren't part of the OpenGL spec. Usually all DirectX features are mirrored in extensions if they haven't been added to the OpenGL spec yet.

For example, here was an extension that was added to OpenGL that added the DirectX 10 tessellation features when DirectX 10 came out.
http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/ARB/tessellation_shader.txt

Most of the OpenGL problems don't really have to do with OpenGL itself, but specifically Apple's version of OpenGL. Apple doesn't always ship all the latest extensions, or ship them without bugs.

For example, this tessellation extension looks like it was added in 2010, but it doesn't look like Apple added it until Mavericks.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I think see where your are headed. Same line of thinking as a Ford Focus is better than a Porsche for driving day in day out right?

Sort of. A more apt comparison would be a Prius vs a (non hybrid) Fusion vs an 18-wheeler for city driving. They'll both get you from point A to point B, and there are very few reasons to buy a Fusion as opposed to a Prius. And chances are if the Prius isn't what you're looking for, neither is the Fusion, and you need a big rig.

And maybe there's that one time in 10 years you can say "I wish I had a Fusion right now", but how often is a Prius going to be insufficient where a Fusion wouldn't be? I can't think of a single time...

And bringing it back around to computers, I have a 13" MBA, a 13" rMBP, and a 17" MBP in front of me right now and the 17" is my work machine. I find the 17" is more than "fast enough" for my needs, while the MBA is my "go to" machine because of it's weight. The rMBP is just... there, because it has some files on it that I need. Not because it does anything good though.

And that's the problem with the rMBP lineup. They're still heavy compared to Apple's own lineup, but they don't have large screens or fast CPU's. So, what are they good for?

 

[whitedragon101]

they don't have large screens or fast CPU's. So, what are they good for?

I think a 17" rMBP is what the doctor ordered

 

[thekev]

Why should he do that? I have some macbook pros from 2006 and they work great, have no single physical problems, the only bad thing is that the specs are getting outdated, macbook pros hold way longer than windows pcs, my friends old laptops is non working, not a single one works, but all my ibooks, powerbooks, imacs, macbook pros and MacBooks Are all working, apple computers last longer.

Sorry I missed the problem before. Quite a few from 2010 and 2011 have experienced gpu failures. It's not a case issue. The only significant problem I had with my old macbooks was battery swelling. My G4 powerbook years ago had some problems that would cause it to randomly lose power. It was out of warranty and old at that point, so I didn't bother with the repair cost ($350 flat rate IIRC).

 

[5to1]

Techincally he is right.. a MBA just can't do it as fast..

----------

Why does one draw the line there. After all, what can a $2k dell do that a $200 medion (substitute suitable regionally relevant brand) can't, given enough time. For that matter what can any laptop do, that can't be done on a far cheaper and more capable desktop, given enough time to get back to one we could of course continue this until we have everyone sitting at a desk with an abacus, paper, pencil, .......

 

[5to1]

Sort of. A more apt comparison would be a Prius vs a (non hybrid) Fusion vs an 18-wheeler for city driving. They'll both get you from point A to point B, and there are very few reasons to buy a Fusion as opposed to a Prius. And chances are if the Prius isn't what you're looking for, neither is the Fusion, and you need a big rig.

And maybe there's that one time in 10 years you can say "I wish I had a Fusion right now", but how often is a Prius going to be insufficient where a Fusion wouldn't be? I can't think of a single time...

And bringing it back around to computers, I have a 13" MBA, a 13" rMBP, and a 17" MBP in front of me right now and the 17" is my work machine. I find the 17" is more than "fast enough" for my needs, while the MBA is my "go to" machine because of it's weight. The rMBP is just... there, because it has some files on it that I need. Not because it does anything good though.

And that's the problem with the rMBP lineup. They're still heavy compared to Apple's own lineup, but they don't have large screens or fast CPU's. So, what are they good for?

Then you should probably sell it, as you place no value on the key merits of the machine. There's nothing wrong with that, horses for courses.

Just as I don't value the weight difference between the MBA and rMBP when set against the display (I need the real estate and regularly use it at native). I also don't like the fact the ultra portable MBA has a larger footprint then the rMBP. And I certainly don't require or value a 17" screen with the piss poor res of the MBP17. The only real feature of value to me, from your other machines, is the MBAs potential run time on battery.

 

[ha1o2surfer]

Why does one draw the line there. After all, what can a $2k dell do that a $200 medion (substitute suitable regionally relevant brand) can't, given enough time. For that matter what can any laptop do, that can't be done on a far cheaper and more capable desktop, given enough time to get back to one we could of course continue this until we have everyone sitting at a desk with an abacus, paper, pencil, .......

again, true words lol

 

[Joelist]

I use a rMBP for power user tasks and it is fine. The CPU is more than up to the task and the SSD combined with it (early 2013 model) lets me run my development work at nice, high speeds.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Then you should probably sell it, as you place no value on the key merits of the machine. There's nothing wrong with that, horses for courses.

Just as I don't value the weight difference between the MBA and rMBP when set against the display (I need the real estate and regularly use it at native). I also don't like the fact the ultra portable MBA has a larger footprint then the rMBP. And I certainly don't require or value a 17" screen with the piss poor res of the MBP17. The only real feature of value to me, from your other machines, is the MBAs potential run time on battery.

See, that pretty much proves my point. You are one of the few people who find the smaller footprint more important than weight, but also can't use the 11" MBA.

And while I wouldn't mind selling the rMBP, it's not mine to sell.

 

[whitedragon101]

I certainly don't require or value a 17" screen with the piss poor res of the MBP17.

Its not retina but piss poor is a bit harsh.

 

[ha1o2surfer]

Everyone go ahead and download LuxMark and set it to render with all OpenCL CPUs and GPUs. And if you have a watt meter, see how much your laptop draws while doing the benchmark and post the score. If your battery is charging, try the test as well to see if your scores differ.

 

[5to1]

Its not retina but piss poor is a bit harsh.

As I said before, its horses for courses. To me it was piss poor, because I didn't see the point in carrying around something that big, with a display that couldn't give me any more real estate then the 15" machines we had (we even had a pre unibody 15" MBP on which we swapped the panel).

 

[5to1]

See, that pretty much proves my point. You are one of the few people who find the smaller footprint more important than weight, but also can't use the 11" MBA.

And while I wouldn't mind selling the rMBP, it's not mine to sell.

I don't think anyone's said anything which proves who's in the minority

I want a 13" machine and value a smaller footprint and the ability to present as much information visually to the most important processor I own. Surely my requirements can't be that rare :/

 

[blackhand1001]

Apple should have given them a proper power supply. Its ridiculous that it could drain while on AC power.

----------

Why should he do that? I have some macbook pros from 2006 and they work great, have no single physical problems, the only bad thing is that the specs are getting outdated, macbook pros hold way longer than windows pcs, my friends old laptops is non working, not a single one works, but all my ibooks, powerbooks, imacs, macbook pros and MacBooks Are all working, apple computers last longer.

I disagree. My mid 2008 macbook can't run the latest mac OS but it can run the latest version of windows as can any pc from the same time and many much older. Other than the crappy touchpad drivers apple provides for windows, the machine runs much better in windows than it does in Mac OS.

 

[matthewadams]

I believe at least one of the reasons Windows eats more power than OSX is thermal management.
While Windows solely relies on the CPUs internal throttling (see "Turbo Boost), OSX goes a bit further and implements additional throttling measures.
Just load up terminal, hit "pmset -g thermlog" and fire up something CPU/GPU intensive...