rMBP vs. Razer Blade?

[thunng8]

T


You're still throwing around claims I asked you to find links for in my last post. Ether deliver or concede that it's something you can't prove.

Dusk007 is correct. Iris Pro is a power hog when loaded. Don't have rMBP numbers, but the only other laptop with Iris Pro was tested at notebookCheck:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Schenker-S413-Clevo-W740SU-Notebook.98313.0.html

"The Iris Pro Graphics might be the swiftest processor-integrated graphics of all time, but it is also the power-hungriest. 73 watts in 3DMark06 is only an average result considering the performance. The stronger One K56-3F with a Core i7-4700MQ and GeForce GT 750M only consumes about 10 watts more"

Note that the Stronger One K56-3F is a larger laptop with bigger screen, so the actual difference could be less.

And under gaming load Iris Pro uses as much power as the previous generation rMBP 15" Ivy Bridge+650M.

 

[Serban]

Here are my life proof:
Rmbp with 650m we have on diablo 3 about 2.2 hours from fully charged
Rmbp with iris pro we have on diablo 3 about 3.7 hours from fully charged
Razer blade we have diablo 3 about 1.7 hours from fully charged

All of them 900p high settings

 

[thunng8]

Here are my life proof:
Rmbp with 650m we have on diablo 3 about 2.2 hours from fully charged
Rmbp with iris pro we have on diablo 3 about 3.7 hours from fully charged
Razer blade we have diablo 3 about 1.7 hours from fully charged

All of them 900p high settings

I can play Diablo 3 for over 3 hours on my rMBP 650M. Don't have Iris Pro or Razer so can't say.

 

[dmccloud]

Dusk007 is correct. Iris Pro is a power hog when loaded. Don't have rMBP numbers, but the only other laptop with Iris Pro was tested at notebookCheck:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Schenker-S413-Clevo-W740SU-Notebook.98313.0.html

"The Iris Pro Graphics might be the swiftest processor-integrated graphics of all time, but it is also the power-hungriest. 73 watts in 3DMark06 is only an average result considering the performance. The stronger One K56-3F with a Core i7-4700MQ and GeForce GT 750M only consumes about 10 watts more"

Note that the Stronger One K56-3F is a larger laptop with bigger screen, so the actual difference could be less.

And under gaming load Iris Pro uses as much power as the previous generation rMBP 15" Ivy Bridge+650M.

I've been using iStat menus to track temps and wattages (just for personal knowledge), and the highest I've seen the Iris Pro get is 43 watts playing Diablo III RoS at 1920x1200, 2x multisampling and settings at medium-high.

 

[thunng8]

As far as I'm aware istats menu only measures the gpu package wattage, not the entire laptop, as per tested in notebookcheck. If iris pro is really using 43w then it is on par with what 750m uses

 

[dmccloud]

As far as I'm aware istats menu only measures the gpu package wattage, not the entire laptop, as per tested in notebookcheck. If iris pro is really using 43w then it is on par with what 750m uses

CPU total wattage was 61w (only 4w under light load like as I'm typing this post).

 

[Serban]

So with razer blade you can game on the road for 2 hours...so i think better buy a desktop.

 

[cirus]

Here are my life proof:
Rmbp with 650m we have on diablo 3 about 2.2 hours from fully charged
Rmbp with iris pro we have on diablo 3 about 3.7 hours from fully charged
Razer blade we have diablo 3 about 1.7 hours from fully charged

All of them 900p high settings

And then normalization for fps must be done because undoubtedly the razer blade is getting the most fps.

I've been using iStat menus to track temps and wattages (just for personal knowledge), and the highest I've seen the Iris Pro get is 43 watts playing Diablo III RoS at 1920x1200, 2x multisampling and settings at medium-high.

Look at the consumption of the entire notebook.

 

[dusk007]

As far as I'm aware istats menu only measures the gpu package wattage, not the entire laptop, as per tested in notebookcheck. If iris pro is really using 43w then it is on par with what 750m uses

Yes but one can calculate by hand the battery drain by multiplying amps and volt of "DC in". Coconutbattery does it for you but it refreshes slowly.

 

[SarcasticJoe]

Now picking Ice Storm just makes my point. Ice Strom is a benchmark that is specifically tailored to picture mobile gaming performance. It represents the workload games on tablets would have. The CPU, Geometry, Texture, shader workloads representative on these platforms. It is completely pointless for higher performance GPUs because it doesn't scale. Any GPU even a HD 4600 is more than fast enough for anything that resembles that workload.

The reason why I picked Ice Storm is because it was at a resolution where the CPU doesn't skew the score. We are after all talking about a low-range integrated chip, a mid range card and a high range card which are all usually going to come with different CPU's covering a fairly wide range of performance. Apple has a tendency to mismatch and bundle mid range GPU's with high range CPU's and low range GPU's with mid range CPU's, but it's fairly obvious Notebookcheck isn't using Apple machines in it's benches and the CPU's in the tests are going to be in order.

So let's look at another bench, 3DMark 11 at 720x1280:
HD 4600: 1230 (median)
GTX 750M: 2543 (median) - About 107% faster
GTX 870M: 7270 (median) - About 186% faster

So it's still not the figure you were pulling out of your ass and the difference is going to be mitigated by the Macbook Pro having a faster CPU than the machine used to run the benchmark.

Cinebench is cross plattform but it renders a static picture with a set amount of effects (In real workload the effects change with more available processing power because you can do more and the additional effects usually put more load on the GPU). This isn't what those GPUs are geared for and does only represent workload somewhat well for people that use such software, who'd likely pick a workstation GPU notebook if they went for a 2000+ price range notebook if they can.

Now you're talking about the CPU benchmark in Cinebench, the bench figure I brought up is for rendering a short car chase scene which done in real time and most certainly not a static image.

...

You do know how the Pro powers the discrete graphics under load? Because of the meager power supply Apple uses to keep energy efficiency (higher wattage GPU's generally waste more power than lower wattage one even at the same loads) machines use the battery to supply a high enough voltage to power it. This is why a lot of people with machines that have batteries that have gone bad and are too cheap to buy a new one complain about crap performance in games.

Also, the model you used to attempt to calculate relative performance can actually be somewhat accurately used to calculate relative power consumption under load. Gaming laptops like the Asus G73 with similar GPU's have always had some pretty big batteries (they're huge boat anchors after all) and they've still only usually lasted about an hour and maybe a bit more when playing games. With something trying to be a Macbook Pro, a machine with some pretty serious design constraints when it comes to both battery sizes and cooling, for gamers I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the Blade eats trough the battery in less than an hour and gave you first degree burns while doing so.

 

[Mattjeff]

Why can't mac users have both?

A we bit off topic but why can't apple put in a more powerful dedicated GPU?

If the razer can pull off an 870 why do we have to have a 750? I was looking at this computer for the hell of it and thought I would com here to find a discussion on it because I too am looking at dropping $2300 on a MBP soon and am feeling a bit let down. If its battery life the graphics switching should solve that.

I love OSX and apples build quality but I also love gaming and that 870 would help with school too. I want both sides of the fence for $2300+.

 

[Orr]

A we bit off topic but why can't apple put in a more powerful dedicated GPU?

If the razer can pull off an 870 why do we have to have a 750? I was looking at this computer for the hell of it and thought I would com here to find a discussion on it because I too am looking at dropping $2300 on a MBP soon and am feeling a bit let down. If its battery life the graphics switching should solve that.

I love OSX and apples build quality but I also love gaming and that 870 would help with school too. I want both sides of the fence for $2300+.

Power has never been the Apple prerogative.

 

[leman]

A we bit off topic but why can't apple put in a more powerful dedicated GPU?

If the razer can pull off an 870 why do we have to have a 750? I was looking at this computer for the hell of it and thought I would com here to find a discussion on it because I too am looking at dropping $2300 on a MBP soon and am feeling a bit let down. If its battery life the graphics switching should solve that.

Basically, because the Blade has a 70Wh battery and the rMBP has a 95Wh one. I mean, just compare the sizes of the mainboards. Blade vs. rMBP(you can use the RAM chips as a measurement unit). The Blade has much more space to incorporate bigger chips and cooling systems.

Although I agree that Apple should finally refresh the rMBP with an 850M.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

Power has never been the Apple prerogative.

I think the real reason is because gaming has never been Apple's mission.

 

[CycloneRcr]

The reason why I picked Ice Storm is because it was at a resolution where the CPU doesn't skew the score. We are after all talking about a low-range integrated chip, a mid range card and a high range card which are all usually going to come with different CPU's covering a fairly wide range of performance. Apple has a tendency to mismatch and bundle mid range GPU's with high range CPU's and low range GPU's with mid range CPU's, but it's fairly obvious Notebookcheck isn't using Apple machines in it's benches and the CPU's in the tests are going to be in order.

So let's look at another bench, 3DMark 11 at 720x1280:
HD 4600: 1230 (median)
GTX 750M: 2543 (median) - About 107% faster
GTX 870M: 7270 (median) - About 186% faster

So it's still not the figure you were pulling out of your ass and the difference is going to be mitigated by the Macbook Pro having a faster CPU than the machine used to run the benchmark.

Do you realize that you are in fact proving his numbers "pulled out of his ass"?

GTX 750M is about 2 times faster than the HD 4600 and on top of that GTX 870M is close to being 3 times faster than the 750M. Exactly what he said!

 

[nando87]

A we bit off topic but why can't apple put in a more powerful dedicated GPU?

If the razer can pull off an 870 why do we have to have a 750? I was looking at this computer for the hell of it and thought I would com here to find a discussion on it because I too am looking at dropping $2300 on a MBP soon and am feeling a bit let down. If its battery life the graphics switching should solve that.

I love OSX and apples build quality but I also love gaming and that 870 would help with school too. I want both sides of the fence for $2300+.

The fact they don't use a more powerful GPU, as a lot of other things, is because AAPL tends to achieve about 40% profit margin, as shareholders know. If the margin declines, the stock plunges. What is curious is, even selling their MacBooks with inferior graphic cards a lot of their users are happy to have less for some intangible reason like "hey I would hate to have a gtx graphic card because it is not what apple offers!!!". Then jony Ive says something romantic about not having pro graphic cards with british accent and we are in happy land. The day they offer better graphic cards, it will be the best thing in the world also for them, something like "see, apple offers pro performance!!"

Don't misunderstand me, I like my macbook pro, but I would prefer it to have external battery, more graphic card options, upgradable ram and some other things which it lacks just for profit margin and quarterly growth.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

The fact they don't use a more powerful GPU, as a lot of other things, is because AAPL tends to achieve about 40% profit margin, as shareholders know. If the margin declines, the stock plunges. What is curious is, even selling their MacBooks with inferior graphic cards a lot of their users are happy to have less for some intangible reason like "hey I would hate to have a gtx graphic card because it is not what apple offers!!!". Then jony Ive says something romantic about not having pro graphic cards with british accent and we are in happy land. The day they offer better graphic cards, it will be the best thing in the world also for them, something like "see, apple offers pro performance!!"

Don't misunderstand me, I like my macbook pro, but I would prefer it to have external battery, more graphic card options, upgradable ram and some other things which it lacks just for profit margin and quarterly growth.

lol i am misunderstanding you because you think RAZER doesn't have margins? RAZER? The maker of overpriced mouse and keyboards?

you've got to be kidding me. things like this baffle me, that you are just so convinced of the "apple is greedy" narrative that you can convince yourself of anything.

 

[Yoshi Yogurt]

Always found razer stuff to be cheap and janky for the most part. I have a mousepad from them which is actually pretty good, but it's a freakin mousepad.

Also have the deathadder which I love but it require this silly software to set up that doesn't work properly. Took me hours to get the mouse to function at first. Synapse is pure garbage and I use the old 3.01 drivers on both PC and Mac. The mouse is comfortable once it got going and I love using it.

This is also razer's first laptop no? Was considering it over the rMBP pro as well but I decided I'm much more of a Nintendo gamer(cough*username*cough) and mostly enjoy console games...still going to play the occasional PC game though. If you are hell bent on some PC gaming I would try it...

 

[Meister]

lol i am misunderstanding you because you think RAZER doesn't have margins? RAZER? The maker of overpriced mouse and keyboards?
you've got to be kidding me. things like this baffle me, that you are just so convinced of the "apple is greedy" narrative that you can convince yourself of anything.

razer doesnt work for profit. Its a charity organisation.

 

[827538]

Just wondering, regarding that.

The Razer (new) Blade's form is very similar to that of a rMBP, and actually has dedicated GPU, i7, and a screen resolution far superior to that of a rMPB.

The best/closest specced rMBP available is with a 2.8/3.3 i7 + Intel Iris, 512 ssd, and 2560x1600, at $1999.

The lowest specced Blade is at $2199, with 2.2/3.2 i7, 3gb 870m vram, 8gb ram, 3200x1800, and 128 ssd. Does seem to be a little heavier.

Is the rMBP worth it? The last time around, I got a '11 MBP for it's aesthetics, as well as internals...and as much as I love MacOS, my next computer might not be a Mac.

I do a lot of gaming on my rMBP and love it - this is coming from someone who used to game on liquid cooled quad core extremes and SLI setups.
It's a seriously capable gaming machine, is the Blade better for gaming? Yeh probably. Is it a better and nicer machine to use? I doubt it.

I bootcamp with W7, works flawlessly. The higher resolution of the blade will not be that noticeable, I can't distinguish the pixels on my Mac even up close.

Like one of the other posters said, you might want to wait for the Late 2014 refresh as those 20nm Maxwell chips are shaping up to be a massive improvement (+50% for the same power consumption), couple that with a more power efficient Broadwell chip (30% less energy) and it will be a great gaming platform, so much so that I intend to sell my current rMBP and upgrade.

I had the option to build a desktop or buy a monster gaming laptop, but I don't regret for a second buying the rMBP. Just started playing Tomb Raider (steam sale) on a mix of high and ultra settings. Looks and runs great, plus when I'm not gaming it's easily the best laptop money can buy. Over six months on and the novelty hasn't worn off.

 

[nando87]

lol i am misunderstanding you because you think RAZER doesn't have margins? RAZER? The maker of overpriced mouse and keyboards?

you've got to be kidding me. things like this baffle me, that you are just so convinced of the "apple is greedy" narrative that you can convince yourself of anything.

Maybe I was wrong, excuse me.

 

[nando87]

razer doesnt work for profit. Its a charity organisation.

OK, I understand you.