The pro's use Nvidia chipsets and has been shown running on four displays without any real noticeable performance issues. What the heck more do you want?
If you want a Macbook Air with Macbook Pro features, hold your breath.
Um, didn't you mean to say " don't hold your breath "
Nothing new? Please point to any other laptop that has a 2880x1800 resolution. Oh right, you can't because there are no other laptops that can do this. Yet you say dumb things like "Nothing new"
I dislike the "retina" marketing, but I'm pretty open about that. Give it time. Others have used 1920x1200. Apple stuck to 1680x1050 as a $100 upgrade option or that + anti-glare for $150 (both are $100 now in the standard mbp). Fewer people complained about Apple there. It didn't give the impression of giant blocks. I'm a little tired of the concept that specs only matter when Apple is in the lead. With something like display resolution, what matters is how it looks to you. If you wouldn't have bought the Windows machine for its resolution when Apple was behind in the max res wars, why would you concern yourself with the current comparison? As for IPS, they've become a lot more popular in laptops over the past year. It's getting to a point where more of them will include it as an option.
By the way, I read the comment you were responding to, so don't read this as me being too snippy. I'm slightly annoyed that they dumbed down the math and assigned a shiny label it. That's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
it's a rock and a hard place and it's squarely Intel's fault. Intel blocked others from making chipsets with better iGPUs thus putting OEMs in the position of using Intel solution of adding cost, space, power and cooling needs to any machine that doesn't want to rely on Intel for graphics. We know Intel paid Nvidia $1.5 billion but I think Intel still won, and by a wide margin.
So where are all these original brandings of 2800x1800 IPS displays for notebooks?
Apple "fans" (note I'm interested in them, I just don't necessarily consider myself a fan of any electronics company) can be weird at times. As soon as we had NVidia rumors regarding the Macbook Pro, we started to see the "noooooo remember the dead gpus" posts. In this case NVidia would have been the likely choice. You're right that Intel still won. They wanted to squeeze out NVidia here. They accomplished that. You don't see any of that resolution. Apple stuck to conservative resolutions before given the lack of prior scaling. Some of the other notebooks have gone as high as 1920x1200, sometimes 1920x1080 if they go 16:9. Other IPS displays have appeared in the last year. Prior to that IPS in a notebook was an expensive niche option. HP had a very nice one. Dell had one. I think Lenovo offered it in one of their T series thinkpads. They were low volume special configuration items, so they added several hundred to the price. It's like how high res anti - glare would tack $150 to the 15", but add in IPSness too. Even IPS doesn't mean much if it's not implemented well. I'm not claiming Apple didn't jump to the front of the race here in a sense, but if you pay attention to the other oems, they do still make progressive updates to their display technology.
Holy shit, that's a powerful card, I thought the FPS would be absolute shit. damn! Apple you rawk.
It's not that powerful of a card. Look here: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html (search for 650M on the page to go to the results for the GPU in the Retina MacBook Pro). It's about mid-range.
The three year old desktop graphics card I have is still faster than the graphics in the Retina MacBook Pro.
Of course the graphics is not bad for such a thin and portable computer. The VRAM could be a bit higher, though (just 1 GB for so many pixels).
Anyway, If the game generally plays at 30 FPS on the Retina MacBook Pro, that means it will dip really low (most certainly lower than 10 FPS) when there's a lot of action. I don't think this is good performance at all. But if you have low demands, sure…
It's not that powerful of a card. Look here: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html (search for 650M on the page to go to the results for the GPU in the Retina MacBook Pro). It's about mid-range.
The three year old desktop graphics card I have is still faster than the graphics in the Retina MacBook Pro.
Of course the graphics is not bad for such a thin and portable computer. The VRAM could be a bit higher, though (just 1 GB for so many pixels).
Anyway, If the game generally plays at 30 FPS on the Retina MacBook Pro, that means it will dip really low (most certainly lower than 10 FPS) when there's a lot of action. I don't think this is good performance at all. But if you have low demands, sure…
Dude don't compare desktop video cards with mobile ones! Ever!
A desktop video card will never have to deal with power consumption as a mobile video card, and nor with the space and ventilation. So you can't compare them even if the desktop video card is 10 years old. It's simply apples vs oranges.
The game can play at higher FPS but you need to tune down the resolution and probably other settings a notch. Heck, you will have to at least if you hook it up to a 27" Thuderbolt Display cuz that 27 incher can't show the resoltion of the 15 incher. So it's not athat of a biiggie that you can't play it maxed out on native retina resolution. I wouldn't mind at all but to each of it's own.
The retina MBP has to be seen as a whole pice of a machine that it is: very lightweight for the punch that it's got, elegant design, mobile, state of the art display etc...
If you need ultimate gameplay in mobile (which IMHO is weird) you can get an alienware brick but then i wonder what mobile means anymore when some of the models tip the scale of almost 5 kilos. Otherwise get a decent desktop for a quarter of the money and play it maxed out.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
The pro's use Nvidia chipsets and has been shown running on four displays without any real noticeable performance issues. What the heck more do you want?
If you want a Macbook Air with Macbook Pro features, hold your breath.
Um, didn't you mean to say " don't hold your breath "
Pretty damn excited for this.
Ordered my RMBP a couple of days ago. This will be my first personal mac....
It's awesome to see Blizzard going out of their way just to make the experience better on this single computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
Nothing new? Please point to any other laptop that has a 2880x1800 resolution. Oh right, you can't because there are no other laptops that can do this. Yet you say dumb things like "Nothing new"
I dislike the "retina" marketing, but I'm pretty open about that. Give it time. Others have used 1920x1200. Apple stuck to 1680x1050 as a $100 upgrade option or that + anti-glare for $150 (both are $100 now in the standard mbp). Fewer people complained about Apple there. It didn't give the impression of giant blocks. I'm a little tired of the concept that specs only matter when Apple is in the lead. With something like display resolution, what matters is how it looks to you. If you wouldn't have bought the Windows machine for its resolution when Apple was behind in the max res wars, why would you concern yourself with the current comparison? As for IPS, they've become a lot more popular in laptops over the past year. It's getting to a point where more of them will include it as an option.
By the way, I read the comment you were responding to, so don't read this as me being too snippy. I'm slightly annoyed that they dumbed down the math and assigned a shiny label it. That's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
it's a rock and a hard place and it's squarely Intel's fault. Intel blocked others from making chipsets with better iGPUs thus putting OEMs in the position of using Intel solution of adding cost, space, power and cooling needs to any machine that doesn't want to rely on Intel for graphics. We know Intel paid Nvidia $1.5 billion but I think Intel still won, and by a wide margin.
So where are all these original brandings of 2800x1800 IPS displays for notebooks?
Apple "fans" (note I'm interested in them, I just don't necessarily consider myself a fan of any electronics company) can be weird at times. As soon as we had NVidia rumors regarding the Macbook Pro, we started to see the "noooooo remember the dead gpus" posts. In this case NVidia would have been the likely choice. You're right that Intel still won. They wanted to squeeze out NVidia here. They accomplished that. You don't see any of that resolution. Apple stuck to conservative resolutions before given the lack of prior scaling. Some of the other notebooks have gone as high as 1920x1200, sometimes 1920x1080 if they go 16:9. Other IPS displays have appeared in the last year. Prior to that IPS in a notebook was an expensive niche option. HP had a very nice one. Dell had one. I think Lenovo offered it in one of their T series thinkpads. They were low volume special configuration items, so they added several hundred to the price. It's like how high res anti - glare would tack $150 to the 15", but add in IPSness too. Even IPS doesn't mean much if it's not implemented well. I'm not claiming Apple didn't jump to the front of the race here in a sense, but if you pay attention to the other oems, they do still make progressive updates to their display technology.
Holy shit, that's a powerful card, I thought the FPS would be absolute shit. damn! Apple you rawk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusj0015
Holy shit, that's a powerful card, I thought the FPS would be absolute shit. damn! Apple you rawk.
It's not that powerful of a card. Look here: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html (search for 650M on the page to go to the results for the GPU in the Retina MacBook Pro). It's about mid-range.
The three year old desktop graphics card I have is still faster than the graphics in the Retina MacBook Pro.
Of course the graphics is not bad for such a thin and portable computer. The VRAM could be a bit higher, though (just 1 GB for so many pixels).
Anyway, If the game generally plays at 30 FPS on the Retina MacBook Pro, that means it will dip really low (most certainly lower than 10 FPS) when there's a lot of action. I don't think this is good performance at all. But if you have low demands, sure…
Quote:
Originally Posted by a Martin
It's not that powerful of a card. Look here: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html (search for 650M on the page to go to the results for the GPU in the Retina MacBook Pro). It's about mid-range.
The three year old desktop graphics card I have is still faster than the graphics in the Retina MacBook Pro.
Of course the graphics is not bad for such a thin and portable computer. The VRAM could be a bit higher, though (just 1 GB for so many pixels).
Anyway, If the game generally plays at 30 FPS on the Retina MacBook Pro, that means it will dip really low (most certainly lower than 10 FPS) when there's a lot of action. I don't think this is good performance at all. But if you have low demands, sure…
Dude don't compare desktop video cards with mobile ones! Ever!
A desktop video card will never have to deal with power consumption as a mobile video card, and nor with the space and ventilation. So you can't compare them even if the desktop video card is 10 years old. It's simply apples vs oranges.
The game can play at higher FPS but you need to tune down the resolution and probably other settings a notch. Heck, you will have to at least if you hook it up to a 27" Thuderbolt Display cuz that 27 incher can't show the resoltion of the 15 incher. So it's not athat of a biiggie that you can't play it maxed out on native retina resolution. I wouldn't mind at all but to each of it's own.
The retina MBP has to be seen as a whole pice of a machine that it is: very lightweight for the punch that it's got, elegant design, mobile, state of the art display etc...
If you need ultimate gameplay in mobile (which IMHO is weird) you can get an alienware brick but then i wonder what mobile means anymore when some of the models tip the scale of almost 5 kilos. Otherwise get a decent desktop for a quarter of the money and play it maxed out.