I agree with your points. My previous post still stands though, as you were more than a tad condescending. People may hope or assume that rMBPs are more capable of gaming than they are. It doesn't pay to judge motive or character on that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Waiting for Haswell MBP Mega Thread
- Thread starter thadoggfather
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Why is it so hard to understand that people use their computers often for MULTIPLE PURPOSES? Many of us use Macs as our primary computers for work or school for any number of reasons. We may also use those same computers for serious gaming.
This should not be difficult to comprehend.
----------
Actually, you appear to have some difficulty with your definitions. As in, they're imprecise and you have things backwards. Significance is a term with a very specific meaning in statistics. It refers to being in excess of a margin of error. "Appreciably" is a subjective term.
What you call "playable" is not "playable" to everyone, especially as different users employ different graphic settings. Further, FPS rates are rarely constant but instead vary with the part of the game you are in, the number of players there, and the ambient "junk" around (lighting, ground effects, etc.). An "average" of 30 is unacceptable in my book--and that of any other quasi-serious gamers.
----------
This just in: iMacs aren't portable.
The rMBP already was a step back in gaming graphics from the previous generation cMBP. Asking for a second regression in a row is brutal.
And i never said anything about that Iris pro wherent enough.
And calling people buying mac to game posers?
Really?
Before haswell. If you wanted a laptop with high resolution and and ok graphics card with a nice exterior. Exactly WHAT computer was able to compete with that?
Just because you game some on your laptop and dont need a huge gaming rig to do it, dont mean you want a big clunky gaming laptop.
So because of that a LOT of people have bought the rMBP to use for their needs with some gaming and all the other stuff they do.
The only poser here is your selfrighteous a**. Spewing crap about people just being posers because they want a laptop that is suited for much more then just to game.
Last edited:
In what world is 30 FPS a playable frame rate for anything besides turn-based games?
I use my laptop mostly for work and barely ever play games but that does not mean apple shouldnt exclude the dGPU if they can put it in.
I would personally play more games on my laptop as a past time if I was able too.
I bought my retina MacBook Pro back on July 10. I know I have a 14 day return policy, but I heard there is a one time exception for a 30 day return. If I am going to a store the week of July 28, will I still be able to return it? That's only if new Haswell models do indeed come out then.
-gamer spotted-
I don't see how that correlates, 30 FPS, 'gamer' or not is not a nice and fluid experience on a fast-paced game. For anyone.
Is it possible to connect a Retina Macbook with my Desktop Gaming-PC via Network or something similar to play with High Settings on the Retina-Display without suffering from enourmous lag?
The average FPS that is playable will vary by game. A first person shooter requires higher frame rates than a RTS or an RPG. For a first person shooter, the higher the better. For an RTS, Racing or RPG, an average of 30 FPS is usually playable. For example, on Metro: Last Light, I would play either card on medium or maybe even low because neither card has playable frame rates above that. Bioshock and Sleeping Dogs, both are good at Medium settings and not much higher. Tomb Raider is playable at high on the 650M, I'd have to see it running on Iris to make that call. Battlefield 3 is the only game in the comparison where the 650m is clearly playable at a better setting (high) than the Iris Pro (medium). Crysis 3, I'd leave both on low. This is my point, yes the frame rates are higher on the 650m, but not so much higher that most games are playable at higher graphic settings than the Iris Pro.
----------
I consider RTS games, racing games, some MMOs, and single player shooters playable at 30 FPS. Playable doesn't mean ideal, it means that you can play the game without it lagging so badly that it as a negative effect on ability to play successfully. Higher frame rates will make it look better and be more enjoyable, but you can play at 30 successfully. A lot of casual gamers are perfectly okay with 30 fps.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7144/msi-ge40-review-a-slim-gaming-notebook
Review of a 14" laptop with the 4700MQ (4600 + 760m). With light usage (igpu only most likely) it got 9 hours of battery life. Seeing this its certainly possible to see the 15" rmbp haswell probably net around the same amount (higher power screen but also larger battery). 13" with 5100 I would guess even higher at 11-12 hours.
Review of a 14" laptop with the 4700MQ (4600 + 760m). With light usage (igpu only most likely) it got 9 hours of battery life. Seeing this its certainly possible to see the 15" rmbp haswell probably net around the same amount (higher power screen but also larger battery). 13" with 5100 I would guess even higher at 11-12 hours.
you simply have higher standards than others, the way you write as if everyone had bad experiences when playing any FPS games under 30FPS.
have people forgotten DirectX days where people still can make kills in CS while playing on a damn 25FPS 15 inch monitor?
fluidity is a luxury, not a necessity.
Expecting gaming graphics performance out of a Mac is where you did it all wrong to begin with. The retina display is something any real gamer understands is actually a huge drawback for gaming on, because its native screen resolution will tax even the most powerful desktop GPUs.
You cannot expect portable + power + hi-res screen + battery life + etc all to come together... its a balance. Even the Razer Blade which has the small form factor relies on a much lower resolution screen to keep things manageable for its 765M and totally throws the battery life and power consumption as nothing more than whatever the battery can provide.
It sounds harsh, but its misplaced expectations... gaming graphics is just contradictory to other things such as portability, battery life, power consumption/green factor, etc.
This is why any real gamer understands that there's a huge inherent compromise with what people are trying to do here and are asking for. You want a Ferrari and you want to carry enough 2x4s to build a house in your Ferrari too... things just can't be built that way.
And the rMBP is not worse performing than the cMBP, if you game at the same lower resolutions. Its just less visually appealing.
On one hand some people are trying to say not everyone needs a gaming desktop/second rig, and then on the other hand the same people are saying the performance is not enough for them. If you can't live with the compromise, then you really need to consider than what you're asking for needs a more purpose built platform to satisfy your needs.
I really don't know what else to say - that's just the literal truth. A compromise is always a compromise, its just accepting it or shopping for something else if it isn't acceptable. The other alternative is to just skip a generation, and wait for the Broadwell refresh.
Do you even play games? Or are you just guessing at what you think might be "playable" after reading Anand's review?
30 FPS on average is an absolute joke. Any time the action heats up, the lag makes you toast. I found friggin' World of Warcraft to be borderline unplayable on my rMBP in raids when a lot of crap was happening, with pretty much every setting turned down, and that game is ridiculously old. Yet I could sit in Orgrimmar getting...you guessed it...30 FPS.
----------
I never "expected" all of those things to come together. I simply said that the cMBP offered better performance. You'll recall that when the rMBP came out, it even struggled with system graphics (zooms, etc.) and web page scrolling in Lion. So, naturally, gaming sucked, even in windowed mode due to all the rendering. (You said the rMBP isn't inferior than the cMBP; actually, for many games, it is. WoW, for example, insists on rendering all the pixels, even if you are running at a lower resolution.)
My objection is being asked to wait another generation for a problem that can be significantly improved right now. You talked about balance and compromise. An alternative compromise is to ship a 2.7Ghz chip with integrated HD 4600 graphics alongside a GT 750M. That would have comparable costs to the 4950HQ, still have great battery life on integrated graphics, and give gamers something to be happy about when plugged in.
Photoshop ? Illustrator ?
Photoshop makes heavy use of OpenGL, and will most likely take a hit in performance.
Illustrator doesn't seem to have any hardware acceleration, so I think you just want to throw the fastest CPU you can afford at it.
its not highest resolution laptop screen on the market
there is FUJITSU UH90 with 3200x1800 IGZO panel you can buy it now in japan
and its all iGPU
Oh ya. That one came out a month ago.
More horizontal pixels than Apple's rMBP, but not more vertical pixels.
i do heard about how players can "cheat" some games by simply maintaining a high fps ( 60+ ? ).
having high FPS count sure gives one advantage over others.
but experiences are subjective, some demand 60+ while others are content with playable rates about ~30.
the other guy simply generalize everybody won't enjoy games running on 30fps, which is untrue.
games are played for fun afterall, and not bragging high framerate numbers.
----------
16:9 ratio ... bleaaaaaarghhhh
Interesting. GTX760M + 4702QM and 90W Power supply. Another intersting thing. The battery is actually smaller than in cMBP(5900 mAH vs 6900 mAH). I know its smaller design, but...
Im really starting to think that rMBP of next gen CAN have GTX760M as an option rather than GT750M...
But is there a big enough market for this. Yet another thing to consider when building a mass market product.
And the HD4600 will be far worse off when not gaming and not running on an external display. So you are actually losing some performance for day to day tasks while gaining that little bit extra on the gaming side.
Don't see the point really. If Apple was serious about gaming graphics, they'd stick in a 765M minimum. The 750M 4600HD combo is just a plain waste of time, resulting in yet more compromises.
Dispensing with graphics switching entirely keeps one consistent user experience across all tasks... seems like a much better goal than fretting over the loss of a not so great dGPU option.
I think it's less about the size of the market and much more the marketing.
You say the HD4600 will be worse when not gaming. That's true. At the same time, if the dGPU dynamic switching is "smart" (tons of threads about that issue, so I'll not touch on it), the 4600HD will be used when it's appropriate, and the dGPU would be used when it's appropriate. In other words, that inferior performance won't matter much for the types of tasks when it would be invoked.
I agree with you 100% about the 765M, but Apple has never been really serious about gaming, and they have almost always not used latest generation graphics in their laptops. This has been the case both with NVIDIA and ATI Radeon chipsets for several years now. And that very logic is the reason why I've gradually come around to believing that the dGPU won't even be a BTO option, and it will be the Iris 5200 across the board on all the 15" rMBPs. Apple will swallow the decreased performance now--even though the manufacturing and component costs would be the same with my option--because it's simpler to market, and because it's clear that Intel's GPU roadmap will be sufficient going forward.
I have to disagree, however, with the argument about the "consistent user experience." Unless you're someone like me running gfxCardStatus, the switches between the dGPU and iGPU are virtually invisible to the user. So I don't see that as being much of an argument either way.
The 750M would be a significant and substantial FPS improvement for gamers over the Iris 5200. It's more than an "extra little bit." But to return to my original point in this post, my guess is that Apple is more than willing to give that up for marketing. They'll be able to claim the longer battery life as it applies to all tasks--including gaming. Heck, they could even show some battery life benchmarks for gaming comparing the previous generation rMBP to the current generation one, and conveniently exclude the performance differences. It wouldn't be the first time Apple marketing didn't tell the whole story. (Everyone remember the "Megahertz Myth"?
)There is an issue no matter how you frame it that you are regressing on performance. Sure the iGPU can compete or be close in some games but need it be said that it is competing against last year's model. In what other areas of tech do you see graphics performance drop from one generation to the next for devices of such premium?
And that's what I've been trying to say in the other thread for a long time.
Iris Pro is far more power hungry than regular Haswell + HD 4600, so when the dGPU isn't on, Haswell + HD 4600 is more power efficient.
And when the need arises, GT 760M can kick Iris Pro up and down the stairs multiple times.
Could it? Yes. Will it? I don't think so anymore, per the above. (And I admit I have done a 180 on this. A week ago, I thought we'd see separate configurations, with an iGPU in the base and dGPUs in higher end models. I think this is less likely now.)
----------
We saw it happen a couple years ago when Apple used an iGPU only in the entry level MBP while dropping its price.
- Status