XCode and Civilization V

[MacDanF]

I must have read 50 reviews so far but none as helped me decide if I would be happy with one.

I currently own a 2011 Air 11 inch , I loved it but it begins to show it's age and I would like to replace it. I travel -not Starbucks- i mean planes and hotels. Most of what I do is light but I do have to use XCode on occasion. I play Civ 5 on it and it handles it adequately, even if it gets really hot. The battery also gets drained really fast but the bottom line is my Air is adequate even if it is a bit of an underperformer.

Could the Macbook be able to repace my Air ?

 

[rhodesy22]

When my 1.3 BTO arrives I'll be using both Xcode and Civ 5 - I'll be sure to let you know.

 

[Mcdevidr]

I'll put civ V on mine tomorrow. Needed to start a paper tonight and instead got hammered so I'll be up u know what creek tomorrow morning at 5 am.

 

[EnderTW]

Xcode will run fine, will be cramped but will fly on this thing. civ 5.. should be ok if you run it at non native resolution. HD4000 did fine with it on the surface 1.

 

[bmustaf]

Only been a couple of days, but on my 1.2, Xcode performance with even relatively large Swift projects with large storyboards & significant dependency maps and multiple build products is pretty good. Yeah, scientific data for you right there.

Enough that I will leave the rMBP 15" at home for travel and even just around town.

Lack of screen real estate (and using something like ResXtreme can get you a lot more, but it's frankly not usable on this panel) does mean that for primary use, a 15" rMBP is the right choice, if not a 5k iMac and/or external displays.

Running Xcode with an assistant editor and the left and right panes makes for some VERY narrow windows. Tweaking these UI elements could help, but ultimately, it's workable, but not a good substitute for day to day use.

That is the limiting factor, not the CPU, even on large projects.

 

[fatefulwhisper]

I finally had some time to install Civ 5. Game runs fine for the most part; here's some resolutions I've played with (these are very preliminary benchmarks):

1440x900: 50-60fps, CPU was ~75% all settings on High/Med, runs fine

for fun, I tried the setting labeled "2560x1600", set everything at Low/Medium, and it ran about 40-50fps; still playable. Unfortunately, I only have time to play for about 5 mins.

Hope that helps.

FYI, I have 1.2GHz/512 rMB

 

[Billcat]

I finally had some time to install Civ 5. Game runs fine for the most part; here's some resolutions I've played with (these are very preliminary benchmarks):

1440x900: 50-60fps, CPU was ~75% all settings on High/Med, runs fine

for fun, I tried the setting labeled "2560x1600", set everything at Low/Medium, and it ran about 40-50fps; still playable. Unfortunately, I only have time to play for about 5 mins.

Hope that helps.

FYI, I have 1.2GHz/512 rMB

2560x1600-you ran that on displayport?

 

[ProwlingTiger]

2560x1600-you ran that on displayport?

Where did he mention displayport?

 

[rhodesy22]

Only been a couple of days, but on my 1.2, Xcode performance with even relatively large Swift projects with large storyboards & significant dependency maps and multiple build products is pretty good. Yeah, scientific data for you right there.

Enough that I will leave the rMBP 15" at home for travel and even just around town.

Lack of screen real estate (and using something like ResXtreme can get you a lot more, but it's frankly not usable on this panel) does mean that for primary use, a 15" rMBP is the right choice, if not a 5k iMac and/or external displays.

Running Xcode with an assistant editor and the left and right panes makes for some VERY narrow windows. Tweaking these UI elements could help, but ultimately, it's workable, but not a good substitute for day to day use.

That is the limiting factor, not the CPU, even on large projects.

I've been moving between a 27" monitor (iMac and then retina iMac) and a Macbook Pro (some retina, some not) at 1440x900 for quite some time and while the 27" screen is preferred for Storyboards, I've never found there to be much of an issue using the assistant on the MacBook Pro. The MacBook can scale to 1440x900 "natively" so I can't see it being an issue.

 

[fatefulwhisper]

2560x1600-you ran that on displayport?

I don't think that's a real resolution on the macbook; it's one of the resolutions mentioned in the game. and no, this is not on displayport; this is natively on the macbook's native display.

 

[johngwheeler]

Will be interesting to experience with external screen

Only been a couple of days, but on my 1.2, Xcode performance with even relatively large Swift projects with large storyboards & significant dependency maps and multiple build products is pretty good. Yeah, scientific data for you right there.

Enough that I will leave the rMBP 15" at home for travel and even just around town.

Lack of screen real estate (and using something like ResXtreme can get you a lot more, but it's frankly not usable on this panel) does mean that for primary use, a 15" rMBP is the right choice, if not a 5k iMac and/or external displays.

Running Xcode with an assistant editor and the left and right panes makes for some VERY narrow windows. Tweaking these UI elements could help, but ultimately, it's workable, but not a good substitute for day to day use.

That is the limiting factor, not the CPU, even on large projects.

I'd be interested in hearing the experience of people who use a largish (23"+) screen via HDMI or DisplayPort cables).

If the rMB runs Xcode etc. OK on external screens, it could be good option for ultra-portable + desktop use.

 

[Serban]

the max resolution of the new macbook is 1440p...how you played that game at 1600p?

 

[bmustaf]

2560x1600-you ran that on displayport?

Nope, on the panel on the MBP, turn off scaling and you can run any number of resolutions on the panel not natively available:

http://resxtreme.com

----------

I don't think that's a real resolution on the macbook; it's one of the resolutions mentioned in the game. and no, this is not on displayport; this is natively on the macbook's native display.

2560x1600 (no scaling) is a res in resxtreme, and I tested it on my 12" rMB, and you can indeed run it on the machine, but it's largely useless for text

----------

the max resolution of the new macbook is 1440p...how you played that game at 1600p?

That is not entirely true or accurate, out of the box/using the AAPL displays pane it's the max you can run it in, you can turn off scaling/pixel doubling and go all the way up to 2650x1600 and others!

 

[dugbug]

Love the op question
Xcode civ v and starships are my primary uses. I had no concerns about Xcode or Sid Meyer starships but civ v was a bit worrisome.

Civ v is the reason I got the 1.3 one. It's a light duty game as games go but I like my fog of war

Thanks for posting results folks.

 

[theSeb]

I finally had some time to install Civ 5. Game runs fine for the most part; here's some resolutions I've played with (these are very preliminary benchmarks):

1440x900: 50-60fps, CPU was ~75% all settings on High/Med, runs fine

for fun, I tried the setting labeled "2560x1600", set everything at Low/Medium, and it ran about 40-50fps; still playable. Unfortunately, I only have time to play for about 5 mins.

Hope that helps.

FYI, I have 1.2GHz/512 rMB

Is this on a brand new game? How big is the map? How many civs? Civ 5 works beautifully on my 2012 rMBP at the beginning, but once you have explored the whole map, it's not so great. I don't expect the Macbook to beat the Nvidia 650M and the quad core CPU in the 2012 rMBP.

----------

the max resolution of the new macbook is 1440p...

No, it's not.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

Exactly the system I am coming from. 2011 11" Maxed i7 MBA.

On paper the 1.3GHz model is a pretty significant upgrade both on the CPU and GPU fronts.

If you have been getting along with the 16x9 1366x768 screen of the 11" MBA, you are going to feel the 12" 16x10 panel of the MB is luxurious, especially if you run the "looks like" 1440x900 resolution.

Civ 5 should run better as well.

I think the other posts here have pretty much confirmed this.

 

[Serban]

Is this on a brand new game? How big is the map? How many civs? Civ 5 works beautifully on my 2012 rMBP at the beginning, but once you have explored the whole map, it's not so great. I don't expect the Macbook to beat the Nvidia 650M and the quad core CPU in the 2012 rMBP.

----------



No, it's not.

http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs/
So apple is lying ? 2304-by-1440 resolution
i guess you are

 

[bmustaf]

http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs/
So apple is lying ? 2304-by-1440 resolution
i guess you are

Yes, AAPL's spec sheet is based on pixel doubling/scaling - if you disable that (you can very easily), you can drive that resolution *EASILY* (and even higher).

I wouldn't say AAPL is "lying", but they are spec'ing something with a given set of parameters (pixel doubling/scaling), and when you disable that, much higher resolutions are possible.

 

[theSeb]

http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs/
So apple is lying ? 2304-by-1440 resolution
i guess you are

Yes, I am lying, because I have nothing better to do.

 

[dugbug]

I must have read 50 reviews so far but none as helped me decide if I would be happy with one.

I currently own a 2011 Air 11 inch , I loved it but it begins to show it's age and I would like to replace it. I travel -not Starbucks- i mean planes and hotels. Most of what I do is light but I do have to use XCode on occasion. I play Civ 5 on it and it handles it adequately, even if it gets really hot. The battery also gets drained really fast but the bottom line is my Air is adequate even if it is a bit of an underperformer.

Could the Macbook be able to repace my Air ?

You def are a candidate for the rmb

 

[Mcdevidr]

Is this on a brand new game? How big is the map? How many civs? Civ 5 works beautifully on my 2012 rMBP at the beginning, but once you have explored the whole map, it's not so great. I don't expect the Macbook to beat the Nvidia 650M and the quad core CPU in the 2012 rMBP.

----------



No, it's not.

Mine won't lag on the biggest map and maxed out civs. Why? Because I'll be playing it on mY i7 desktop using steam stream.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

Yes, AAPL's spec sheet is based on pixel doubling/scaling - if you disable that (you can very easily), you can drive that resolution *EASILY* (and even higher).

I wouldn't say AAPL is "lying", but they are spec'ing something with a given set of parameters (pixel doubling/scaling), and when you disable that, much higher resolutions are possible.

Yes, I am lying, because I have nothing better to do.

Gentlemen, the onboard screen of the MB is a 2304x1440 panel, that means physical pixels.

Using 3rd party apps like QuickRes and similar, my 11" MBA can display a screen that "looks like" 1080p, 1600p, etc. but those are not 1 to 1 pixel displayed resolutions. They also look like crap, besides being way too small to be useful on the 11.6" screen because there are missing pixels - text is jagged, UI elements are visibly jagged and distorted, etc.

The maximum 1 to 1 physical pixel resolution on the onboard screen for my MBA is 1366x768. Using these 3rd party apps, I can also do some hiDPI resolutions, but they don't look as good as when Apple does it because they don't use the same method as Apple to produce them. Instead of having the computer generate a double resolution and then scale back down, all 3rd party resolution apps tell the computer to render using a best guess algorithm within the confines of the screen native physical 1 to 1 resolution.

So yes, using 3rd party apps, the MB is capable of displaying a screen that "looks like" higher resolutions than 2304x1400, but they will not actually be physical 1 to 1 representations of those resolutions, there will be a good percentage of pixels missing (sort of the opposite of thhe retina display pixel doubling), with the 3rd party app telling the computer how to display and compensate for the lack of physical pixels.

 

[theSeb]

Gentlemen, the onboard screen of the MB is a 2304x1440 panel, that means physical pixels.

Using 3rd party apps like QuickRes and similar, my 11" MBA can display a screen that "looks like" 1080p, 1600p, etc. but those are not 1 to 1 pixel displayed resolutions. They also look like crap, besides being way too small to be useful on the 11.6" screen because there are missing pixels - text is jagged, UI elements are visibly jagged and distorted, etc.

The maximum 1 to 1 physical pixel resolution on the onboard screen for my MBA is 1366x768. Using these 3rd party apps, I can also do some hiDPI resolutions, but they don't look as good as when Apple does it because they don't use the same method as Apple to produce them. Instead of having the computer generate a double resolution and then scale back down, all 3rd party resolution apps tell the computer to render using a best guess algorithm within the confines of the screen native physical 1 to 1 resolution.

So yes, using 3rd party apps, the MB is capable of displaying a screen that "looks like" higher resolutions than 2304x1400, but they will not actually be physical 1 to 1 representations of those resolutions, there will be a good percentage of pixels missing (sort of the opposite of thhe retina display pixel doubling), with the 3rd party app telling the computer how to display and compensate for the lack of physical pixels.

No, there is no percentage of pixels missing when you go to resolutions above the panel's native resolution. Pixels don't just magically disappear, or go missing. They are not a set of car keys. If pixels were going missing, then the "retina scaled" resolutions would look terrible due to how the process works.

They also look like crap, besides being way too small to be useful on the 11.6" screen because there are missing pixels - text is jagged, UI elements are visibly jagged and distorted, etc.

Again, this might be the case for a 11" MBA, but I can tell you that on a 15" rMBP I can set the resolution to 3840 x 2400. The native resolution of the panel itself is 2880 x 1800. Apart from the text being quite small and hard to read, you will be hard pressed to find these missing pixels, distortion, or jaggedness.

To illustrate the point I set the resolution to 3840 x 2400 and took a screenshot so we can investigate this jagged text and missing pixels in a scientific manner. If you zoom in on this image on a small resolution monitor, then it won't look great. But it looks great on a 15" rMBP

Regardless of all of that, there is another point here. I responded to this post:

the max resolution of the new macbook is 1440p...

First of all this only quoting the height when talking about resolutions needs to stop, but before I digress... The Macbook is capable of driving external displays at higher resolutions than the native resolution of the built-in panel, so that's another way to look at the answer to the question.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

No, there is no percentage of pixels missing when you go to resolutions above the panel's native resolution. Pixels don't just magically disappear, or go missing. They are not a set of car keys. If pixels were going missing, then the "retina scaled" resolutions would look terrible due to how the process works.

Again, this might be the case for a 11" MBA, but I can tell you that on a 15" rMBP I can set the resolution to 3840 x 2400. The native resolution of the panel itself is 2880 x 1800. Apart from the text being quite small and hard to read, you will be hard pressed to find these missing pixels, distortion, or jaggedness.

To illustrate the point I set the resolution to 3840 x 2400 and took a screenshot so we can investigate this jagged text and missing pixels in a scientific manner. If you zoom in on this image on a small resolution monitor, then it won't look great. But it looks great on a 15" rMBP

First of all this only quoting the height when talking about resolutions needs to stop, but before I digress... The Macbook is capable of driving external displays at higher resolutions than the native resolution of the built-in panel, so that's another way to look at the answer to the question.

Can you please post screen shots of the exact same desktop at native display resolution, and also at Apple's default retina resolution? I will then be able to illustrate my point.

You absolutely do lose fidelity with higher "looks like" resolutions than the panel's physical number of pixels. It is physically impossible to display 3840x2400 actual pixels on a screen that only has 2880x1800 actual pixels. Surely you cannot be disputing that? It may look "ok" to you on a 15" high res display from a certain distance, but the loss of fidelity is much more pronounced on my inferior 11" 1366x768 display even when going to 1920x1080.

See my attached zoom in of your 3840x2400 screen shot. I'd like to do the same to native resolution and Apple's default retina resolution to illustrate the vast difference.

And yes, of course you can drive external displays at higher resolutions, that wasn't the question, the assertion was being applied to the MB's onboard display.

 

[dyn]

The scaled versions are just the basic resolutions we've known for years multiplied by 2 (not by 4! that's mathematically incorrect). It makes everything look crisp and the same size as we were used too.

There are also resolutions that are non-scaled. What Apple does there is multiply them by 2 and then scale it back down to fit the physical pixels. That's why it is "like resolution R" and not "resolution R". And that's also why it looks either bigger or smaller and a little bit fuzzy. The fuzzyness is due to the fact that it is not the native resolution of the panel. It is something that is calculated which means that you do lose information (read: pixels). It will happen to both retina and non-retina panels. Retina panels only show less fuzzyness due to the much higher pixel density; it's just sharper by nature.