Upcoming 2013 13' rMBP w/GT3e - 4K display support?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by icanhazapple, Jun 27, 2013.

  1. icanhazapple macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    #1
  2. B... macrumors 68000

    B...

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    #2
    If TB2 is included, yes. Otherwse no. And the 13" will most likely get the 5100, not the 5200 (GT3e).
     
  3. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #3
    That says that all of the Haswell integrated graphics chips support 4k output, not just the GT3e high end chip.

    The issue is whether the updated MBPs will have a video output connector capable of sending 4k video.
     
  4. B... macrumors 68000

    B...

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    #4
    Right. TB1 does not support 4K output but TB2 does, shown in the new MP.
     
  5. icanhazapple thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    #5
    If that's true then I doubt we will see 4K display support from the 2013 rMBP line. Intel has said that TB2 would be available late 2013 at the earliest. The timelines just don't match up.
     
  6. B... macrumors 68000

    B...

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    #6
    Well, the new Mac Pro coming later this year (fall, says Apple) will have TB2, so the rMBPs could if they come out in September/October.
     
  7. icanhazapple thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    #7
    lol, you might be right. Kind of hilarious/terrible that all the current inventory would then be soaked up by people going back to school.

    It makes sense, in an Apple sort of way ;)
     
  8. stagmeister macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    #8
    A 13 foot rMBP? Sign me up!
     
  9. NewbieCanada macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    #9
    Go for the 13 foot Air. That 270g difference makes a huge difference on a 483.15 kg computer
     
  10. sofianito macrumors 65816

    sofianito

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Location:
    Spain
    #10
    Most of people here can't afford a 4K display, and if some people could, they would likely get a MacPro or at least a 15" rMBP since it has a dGPU. I am not sure a 13" with Iris 5100 and TB2 can handle a 4K display without lagging and spinning fans at max speed...
     
  11. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #11
    4k isn't a super high resolution compared to the resolutions that the retina MBPs are pushing.

    4k is 3840x2160.

    The 13" rMBP in "Looks like 1680x1050" mode is drawing at 3360x2100 and then downscaling it to 2560x1600 every frame. And it does that now with the HD 4000.

    The 15" rMBP in "Looks like 1920x1200" mode is drawing at 3840x2400 which is actually more than 4k. It can manage that on the HD 4000 as well, although people report a bit more lag than running at lower resolutions.

    HD 5100 should be more than enough to handle 4k for things other than games.

    An updated rMBP could have HDMI 1.4 which has 4k support.
     
  12. sofianito macrumors 65816

    sofianito

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Location:
    Spain
    #12
    You are likely right, the 13" rMBP with 2560x1600 native res has ~232 PPI, while for instance the Asus 4K 31.5" with 3840x2160 native res has ~140 PPI. There would be no up/down-scaling if you use the 13" rMBP in clamshell mode with 4K display, but what happens if you use it in dual display mode (external 4K display as primary, retina as secondary)?
     
  13. Populus macrumors 6502

    Populus

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Location:
    Valencia, Spain.
    #13
    One question, sorry for the off-topic

    That brings me a question I've been messing last months: When you have an external display attached to the rMBP, and the rMBP is closed (clamshell down), what's the behavior of the graphics about rendering resolution?

    I mean, Does still rendering the whole retina display, re-scalating it, and managing also the external display (say, a 1080p external display)? Or maybe when you close the lid, the rMBP gains graphic horsepower due to not having to render the retina display and re-escalating it?

    I mean... I will notice a graphic improvement in, for example, gaming performance, if I only use the external display and close the lid?

    Anyone?

    Thanks.
     
  14. sofianito, Jun 27, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2013

    sofianito macrumors 65816

    sofianito

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Location:
    Spain
    #14
    My understanding is that the rendering is specific to display device:

    1) If Mac OS X renders to retina display:
    1.1) Best for retina mode: The image is rendered on a 1280x800 resolution, but for each rendered pixel you'll have 4 physical pixels.

    1.2) Scaled mode: The desired resolution is upscaled then downscaled to fit the 2560x1600. (See Stetrain 1680x1050 example).


    2) If Mac OS X renders to external display it keeps a buffer of the same size of the external display resolution and just pushes that buffer out to render it.

    I am not sure what would happen in dual mode?
     
  15. devilcm3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Location:
    South Melbourne, Australia
    #15
    its not GT3e.
    did you read the news?
    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2060983
    http://ark.intel.com/products/75990/Intel-Core-i5-4258U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_90-GHz
     
  16. DisMyMac macrumors 65816

    DisMyMac

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    #16
    Can they make a dual link TB cable (like DVI has) to achieve 4K?

    I'm guessing "Blah blah controllers... No."
     
  17. Populus macrumors 6502

    Populus

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Location:
    Valencia, Spain.
    #17
    Sorry, but I don't get it: Is the graphic performance improved when you have the lid closed and you only work with an external display, with less resolution (1080p, for instance) ?

    I mean, more Frames per second in gaming, a better scrolling, easier to move and work with high megapixel photos... you know, that kind of stuff that requires graphic power.

    Maybe some 13" retina MacBook Pro users can help us (because the 15" has a discrete and quite powerful graphic chip).

    Again, thanks :)
     
  18. sofianito macrumors 65816

    sofianito

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Location:
    Spain
    #18
    Yes this is my understanding, but I might be wrong...

    The rMBP GPU (integrated or dedicated) is not tighten to the retina display or any other display. Basically, the operating system (Mac OS X) is the orchestrator. He would perform some work on CPU, other on GPU, and then send the output to the display. When using scaled HiDPI resolutions in the retina display, performance is degraded by upscaling scaled resolution and downscaling it to native resolution. But when you use an external display in clamshell mode, my understanding is that each frame buffer pixel is associated to 1 physical pixel. You don't have to up/down-scale frame buffers...

    My 2 cents.
     
  19. Populus macrumors 6502

    Populus

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Location:
    Valencia, Spain.
    #19
    @sofianito Yes, thats what I think too. But I would like to someone, actually being user of a retina MacBook Pro, give his opinion, based on his experience.
     
  20. kaellar macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    #20
    Why do you even think rMBP 13" will have GT3e (which is iGPU used in i7-4xxxHQ quad-core CPUs)?
     
  21. Livewings macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2012
    #21
  22. kaellar macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    #22
    Don't compare apples to oranges.
    Resolution in games isn't scaled by the screen size, and there would be no fps difference between 13" rMBP's internal display and an external one that has the same resolution.
    In other hand, OS X interface scaling has way more to think about. When OS X recognizes the Retina display, it uses more specific upscale/downscale templates to fit the interface to Retina resolution and to show UI elements of appropriate size at the same time. When OS X recognizes external display (or non-Retina (MBA, cMBP) display, if you wish), it knows that there's no need in those heavy upscale/downscale templates and just shows per-pixel UI elements template that fits current resolution. Of course, the second scenario requires way less resources (CPU/GPU) to handle it.
     

Share This Page