Support NeoGAF

[sweetvar26]

Just came in here to posy how awesome my Has well 15inch rMBP is. The only thing I could ask for is probably few more hours of battery life.

I picked it up in November and it is my first retina mac. I appreciate it even more when I use my friends laptops to browse or go through stuff because I realize how much of a difference there is in the screen quality.

 

[Deku Tree]

Just came in here to posy how awesome my Has well 15inch rMBP is. The only thing I could ask for is probably few more hours of battery life.

I picked it up in November and it is my first retina mac. I appreciate it even more when I use my friends laptops to browse or go through stuff because I realize how much of a difference there is in the screen quality.

Yeah the retina screen is incredible.

 

[Baconbitz]

I'm still getting this message when trying to save in pages. Don't mind the stickers. I used them on imgur to cover up my address which could be seen behind the stickers.

 

[Deku Tree]

I'm still getting this message when trying to save in pages. Don't mind the stickers. I used them on imgur to cover up my address which could be seen behind the stickers.

Did you change the Name of your document?

 

[Baconbitz]

Did you change the Name of your document?

Yes, I did.

 

[Deku Tree]

Sounds like you're running some "other application " that is interfering with pages. Any idea what it might be?

 

[BuggyDClown]

So fuckin excited.

Sold my 2010 iMac a couple weeks ago and I'm now upgrading to the 2013 iMac. I decided to deck this one out all the way, going to see massive performance gains especially when my old iMac had 1GB of graphics back then.

3.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7
1TB Fusion Drive
16GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM-2X4GB
NVIDIAGeForceGTX780M 4GB GDDR5

I'm thinking with bootcamp and even my mac games I should be able to run just about any game on max setting right? I mean, I know it's still a mobile graphics chip, but still it should handle just about any game pretty damn well.

Can't wait to do after effects on this too.

Next monday can't get here soon enough!

 

[Water]

NVIDIAGeForceGTX780M 4GB GDDR5

I'm thinking with bootcamp and even my mac games I should be able to run just about any game on max setting right? I mean, I know it's still a mobile graphics chip, but still it should handle just about any game pretty damn well.

Not even close. In desktop terms the 780M is a low midrange chip, not far from the performance of a 660 Ti. For demanding new AAA games, expect mediocre framerates at medium settings. For a smooth experience some games will have to be dropped down to low settings. It's unfortunate the 780M is available only for the 27" iMac, because it would have just the right amount of performance for gaming on a 1080p 60Hz display, while with a 1440p display it's clearly out of its depth.

 

[Fuchsdh]

So fuckin excited.

Sold my 2010 iMac a couple weeks ago and I'm now upgrading to the 2013 iMac. I decided to deck this one out all the way, going to see massive performance gains especially when my old iMac had 1GB of graphics back then.

3.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7
1TB Fusion Drive
16GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM-2X4GB
NVIDIAGeForceGTX780M 4GB GDDR5

I'm thinking with bootcamp and even my mac games I should be able to run just about any game on max setting right? I mean, I know it's still a mobile graphics chip, but still it should handle just about any game pretty damn well.

Can't wait to do after effects on this too.

Next monday can't get here soon enough!

Less severely than Waters, it'll do well on modern games but maxing it at full rez according to user submitted benchmarks, but as a mobile card you are obviously going to face decreased rates playing ultra and full rez rather quickly on future games. Here's the notebook check user-submitted benchmarks:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-780M.88993.0.html

(Caveats that you can expect the Mac benchmarks to be lower apply here.)

And for random interest here's a comparison of Mac Pro upgrade cards, the nMP's D700s in non-Crossfire, and the 780M:

http://www.barefeats.com/tube12.html

The Mac should do nicely for AE work, and you should have enough RAM for quad-core multitasking; I've never actually done CUDA tasks on a very modern NVIDIA GPU so I'm interested if it's fast enough for actual work with a 4GB card (it's dog slow on my FX4800 1.5GB and 4000 2GB).

 

[Water]

Less severely than Waters, it'll do well on modern games but maxing it at full rez according to user submitted benchmarks, but as a mobile card you are obviously going to face decreased rates playing ultra and full rez rather quickly on future games. Here's the notebook check user-submitted benchmarks:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-780M.88993.0.html

Those benchmarks support what I said. The "Ultra" category on notebookcheck shows average FPS at maxed or near-maxed settings at 1080p. As you can see, the 780M can run many games solidly maxed out at 1080p, but drops down to a mediocre 35-50FPS in some particularly demanding games. Unfortunately the iMac has 80% more pixels than 1080p. A game that shows 35FPS average in 1080p will have an unplayable 20-25FPS average on the iMac with dips down to <20 FPS. With such a game, you'll have to drop the IQ settings a good bit to keep the minimum FPS above 30FPS, and getting a smooth 60FPS experience will take big sacrifices.

 

[Baconbitz]

Sounds like you're running some "other application " that is interfering with pages. Any idea what it might be?

No, I don't. That's the problem.

 

[Deku Tree]

No, I don't. That's the problem.

Might want to backup and do a clean install. It is a pain. But sounds like you have something weird going on...

 

[Jo Shishido's Cheeks]

On a Macbook Retina 13" where the resolution is 2560x1600 I get that it's effectively 1280x800 in terms of how things are drawn on screen.

My question is on XBMC where you have the choice between switching the display between 1280x800 and 2560x1600 is there any benefit in choosing the higher resolution setting? Isn't the screen outputting the same resolution in both cases but just rendering things bigger or smaller dependant on setting?
Watching a 1080p file would look the same between both settings wouldn't it?

 

[Water]

On a Macbook Retina 13" where the resolution is 2560x1600 I get that it's effectively 1280x800 in terms of how things are drawn on screen.

If you have it set to emulate 1280x800, yes. If you choose another resolution like 1440x900, everything will be rendered in twice that resolution (2880x1800), then downscaled to 2560x1600.

My question is on XBMC where you have the choice between switching the display between 1280x800 and 2560x1600 is there any benefit in choosing the higher resolution setting? Isn't the screen outputting the same resolution in both cases but just rendering things bigger or smaller dependant on setting?
Watching a 1080p file would look the same between both settings wouldn't it?

If it XBMC offers such a setting, my guess is it will actually scale the video to either 2560x1600 or 1280x800. If so, the difference will be glaring; just try it.

AFAIK totally retina-adapted software shouldn't have such a setting, it should just transparently use the retina display if it's present.

 

[Fuchsdh]

EDIT: Bah missed part of your comment.

Find it funny that the Macrumors forum people are going on all about an "iMac Pro". Not that it's at all possible (and besides, wouldn't an xMac still make more sense) but I do wonder if they kept the enclosure the same size as the 2011 models what hardware they could actually fit in there or how much better performance would be without the thermal constraints. At least in processing power you aren't losing much as it is. Would a desktop GPU ever have been feasible in that case?

EDIT: Also didn't realize that the Haswell i processors can't address more than 32GB of memory. Huh. Wonder whether that hump's going to be surmounted soon or the DDR4 RAM will make up the difference in efficiency and speed rather than pure numbers (although given how Broadwell's been delayed who knows when we're getting that tech...)

 

[Jo Shishido's Cheeks]

If you have it set to emulate 1280x800, yes. If you choose another resolution like 1440x900, everything will be rendered in twice that resolution (2880x1800), then downscaled to 2560x1600.

How good is the downscaling? It makes sense that 1280x800 would be the 'best' resolution as no additional scaling is required, but is this actually noticeable?
I'll have to play around with it when I get home, I've just had it set to '1280x800' out of the box as it was an upgrade from a normal MBP with the same actual resolution so it's something I've never thought about until now.....

If it XBMC offers such a setting, my guess is it will actually scale the video to either 2560x1600 or 1280x800. If so, the difference will be glaring; just try it.

AFAIK totally retina-adapted software shouldn't have such a setting, it should just transparently use the retina display if it's present.

A couple of apps default to 1280x800 so I'd always assumed they were adapting to this resolutions 'size' but actually running at double that. With what you're saying it's just dawning on me that I've been butchering everything I've been watching however!

 

[Water]

How good is the downscaling? It makes sense that 1280x800 would be the 'best' resolution as no additional scaling is required, but is this actually noticeable?

If the 'retina' display was 100% worthy of its name, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between resolutions based on clarity, and there would be no need to designate the 2x integer scaled resolution as "optimal". I have only very briefly used friends' retina Macs. My impression is that I can see a difference (the non-optimal resolutions are slightly blurrier) but they are perfectly usable.

In the 13" size, I much prefer the Air's 1440x900 res for fitting stuff on screen. 1680x1050 might be useful now and then, but usually too much. Consequently I think the 13" Retina screen should be 2880x1800 to provide the optimal experience for 1440x900 emulation, and 15" Retina should be 3360x2100.

A couple of apps default to 1280x800 so I'd always assumed they were adapting to this resolutions 'size' but actually running at double that. With what you're saying it's just dawning on me that I've been butchering everything I've been watching however!

Report back when you have the chance to test! ^_^

 

[Water]

EDIT: Bah missed part of your comment.

Find it funny that the Macrumors forum people are going on all about an "iMac Pro". Not that it's at all possible (and besides, wouldn't an xMac still make more sense) but I do wonder if they kept the enclosure the same size as the 2011 models what hardware they could actually fit in there or how much better performance would be without the thermal constraints. At least in processing power you aren't losing much as it is. Would a desktop GPU ever have been feasible in that case?

I think the main point is that shaving the iMac below 2011 thickness is pure form-over-function wankery. Even if they are set on sacrificing perfomance at the altar of volume reduction, weight reduction or whatever, they should do it by removing the "lip" rather than thickness. That would have ergonomic benefits in addition to making the machine look better from the direction the user is actually looking at it from. And they should restore VESA compatibility to all models, especially if they can't or don't want to deliver a decent display foot to begin with.

Having more volume and weight allowance for cooling always helps. It's not necessarily just a matter of increasing performance. For instance, a midrange desktop GPU would deliver the same or more as 780M but cost a lot less since it can be a smaller chip, higher clocked, not so highly binned. Higher margin for Apple and/or lower pricepoint for the customer.

Naturally I agree that an xMac would make more sense for any kind of performance. Such a machine existing would let also Apple seriously pursue the design-object mentality on the iMac, go 100% integrated graphics, perhaps 100% passive cooling, to deliver a truly breathtaking machine in that vein instead of these silly compromises.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I think the main point is that shaving the iMac below 2011 thickness is pure form-over-function wankery. Even if they are set on sacrificing perfomance at the altar of volume reduction, weight reduction or whatever, they should do it by removing the "lip" rather than thickness. That would have ergonomic benefits in addition to making the machine look better from the direction the user is actually looking at it from. And they should restore VESA compatibility to all models, especially if they can't or don't want to deliver a decent display foot to begin with.

Having more volume and weight allowance for cooling always helps. It's not necessarily just a matter of increasing performance. For instance, a midrange desktop GPU would deliver the same or more as 780M but cost a lot less since it can be a smaller chip, higher clocked, not so highly binned. Higher margin for Apple and/or lower pricepoint for the customer.

Naturally I agree that an xMac would make more sense for any kind of performance. Such a machine existing would let also Apple seriously pursue the design-object mentality on the iMac, go 100% integrated graphics, perhaps 100% passive cooling, to deliver a truly breathtaking machine in that vein instead of these silly compromises.

I agree to a point on the new iMacs. Doing things like fusing the display to the glass have tangible benefits beyond saving space (complaints about self-repair aside.) I was amazed to learn they were still using 3.5" drives before that revision. And I definitely think they could have made it thinner than the 2011 without going to the 5mm thickness and forcing some of the concessions they did, like the non-upgradeable RAM. The chin is curious&#8212;it's obviously gotten smaller but at this point I'm not sure what the point of it is, besides maybe needed more space than stacking the display on top would provide for cooling? There's nothing but vents down there now. I think there's an argument to be made for aesthetics, but you could still dramatically shrink it down by almost two inches or so and still have room for that strip of aluminum and an Apple logo.

As for the xMac&#8230; I dunno, I feel like with the new Mac Pro, and the continued presence of the Mac mini, that ship has truly sailed (and I mean it was always a dream, wasn't it? I don't think there was ever any indication from within Apple something like that was coming.) Since the demise of the G4 there hasn't been a midrange utility Mac that is more customizable than an iMac or starts off very cheaply. (I remember those $1400 price points for the G4 Digital Audios&#8230 In a sense the Mac Pro does meet some of those goals in being a small and quiet base unit, but of course its designed for external expansion and dual GPUs which non-pro users really don't need, and at least at this point there's no indication that they'll ever be ways to customize it more to your specs (like taking out a GPU and putting another SSD there or summat'.)

Personally my dream new computer would have been something between the old and new Mac Pros&#8212;just something with at least a slot for another SSD inside, and maybe 6 RAM slots instead of four. (I'm holding out hope for another SSD in a later revision, personally; it seems the only reason there isn't another one mounted on the second GPU like on the first one is that there just aren't any more PCI lanes to use on the thing once you've gotten the GPUs and the Thunderbolt busses, as opposed to heat or noise constraints.)

Speaking of which, someone was talking about whether or not Apple would make the Mac mini smaller, and I honestly hope they don't. It's a great little computer with the two drive bays. I'd love for them to offer some of the MBP's features like the Iris Pro graphics, too--the past couple of revs the Mini has sort of tracked along with the 13" MBP rather than the 15", in terms of graphics capability.

EDIT: One thing though, isn't VESA compatibility still a thing? The only caveat being you have to specially order it and you can't use it with a regular foot, it[s VESA only at that point. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5619

 

[Deku Tree]

I want a redesigned Mac Mini that has a top range model which is on par with the top range 27" iMac personally. 16-32gb RAM. Quad Core processor at 3++Ghz. Good graphics chip. 4K monitor support. External upgradability via TB2 ports. And a new form factor wouldn't hurt either. If we are making a wish list...

 

[Water]

Since the demise of the G4 there hasn't been a midrange utility Mac that is more customizable than an iMac or starts off very cheaply.

Customizability isn't the only thing Apple is failing to offer. What I'm personally after, and what would have sold me a desktop Mac at any point during the last decade if Apple had ever offered it, is simply good (desktop) GPU performance at a price that is not totally ridiculous. In today's terms, I'm talking about something like a GTX 780. I can buy one off the shelf for 450ish euros, and build a good desktop PC with it inside for a little over 1K euros. It has double the performance of the top iMac GPU (minimum price 2.3K euros). It's faster in single-GPU performance than a maxed out Mac Pro (minimum price 4.1K euros). Apple could put absolutely massive margins on it, and it would still be a vastly better deal than any other machine they offer in terms of GPU.

Speaking of which, someone was talking about whether or not Apple would make the Mac mini smaller, and I honestly hope they don't. It's a great little computer with the two drive bays. I'd love for them to offer some of the MBP's features like the Iris Pro graphics, too--the past couple of revs the Mini has sort of tracked along with the 13" MBP rather than the 15", in terms of graphics capability.

The mini's usability already suffers from the obsession with shaving off size for visual effect. It's already smaller than it needs to be for any practical purpose. Making the drive bays user serviceable would be a great improvement, for instance, and it wouldn't take much space to do.

EDIT: One thing though, isn't VESA compatibility still a thing? The only caveat being you have to specially order it and you can't use it with a regular foot, it[s VESA only at that point. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5619

That's why I said "all models". It's not excusable that every single iMac you can buy at a physical store has shit ergonomics, and you can't even fix them after the fact. Making the iMac VESA incompatible is the absolute lowest point of design wankery from Apple so far; they are crippling 99% of the iMacs they ship for no other reason than to make the back of the computer look smoother.

 

[Deku Tree]

If there is one thing Apple seems to know most of the time these days, it is what people who buy the vast majority of their devices seem to want. Apple is increasing market share or maintaining dominance across the board in the categories that they care about.

It seems to me that Apple has concluded a long time ago that people who want an AAA gaming quality graphics cards and the ability to tinker under the hood are not a segment of the market that where they find it worth their time to compete.

You could always try a Hackintosh Water.

 

[Fuchsdh]

If there is one thing Apple seems to know most of the time these days, it is what people who buy the vast majority of their devices seem to want. Apple is increasing market share or maintaining dominance across the board in the categories that they care about.

It seems to me that Apple has concluded a long time ago that people who want an AAA gaming quality graphics cards and the ability to tinker under the hood are not a segment of the market that where they find it worth their time to compete.

You could always try a Hackintosh Water.

Judging by the efforts of my colleagues who have built Hackintoshes, you're better off just biting the bullet and accepting generally cheaper parts, more customization, and the pains of the Windows ecosystem than trying to stick OS X on non-Apple hardware. Things like Thunderbolt being finicky, the system not booting if USB sticks are plugged in, graphics driver problems, etc. Macs draw a lot of their appeal and performance from the tight integration of hardware and software, and that's never going to be ideal on a Hackintosh.

I personally do love watching the Hackintosh scene, though. Seen some awesome case reuses and mods with the Quicksilver G4s and PowerMac G5s.

I didn't even think about the gaming aspect though, which Water is correct about. You're getting a screaming deal on the workstation cards with the nMP, but they're still only going to be good and overpriced compared to dedicated gaming cards; as I'm going to get a Pro for the workstation performance first and gaming second it's fine for me but it's too high an entry price for most. Still, there's definitely stuff Apple can do to improve its attractiveness—namely, SLI support, keeping OpenGL updates more rapid with each OS X release rather than the punctuated equilibrium we were getting, etc.

 

[Water]

If there is one thing Apple seems to know most of the time these days, it is what people who buy the vast majority of their devices seem to want. Apple is increasing market share or maintaining dominance across the board in the categories that they care about.

I think what they are doing is shortsighted and unfortunate, because when their hardware selection ignores entire categories of user needs, they are shrinking the OS X ecosystem. I went Mac-only for years, and essentially only got back into Windows PCs on the desktop because of Apple's awful HW selection. The more I use non-OS X systems and the more I have invested to be comfortable with them, the lower my threshold is for dumping OS X altogether. Even if that doesn't happen, what Apple's attitude is accomplishing is that I'll always buy the cheapest or near-cheapest Apple HW, and then go spend as much or more for competing HW. To get all my business, they wouldn't need to match the competing HW in price - just to make it a better overall deal for me than buying completely separate hardware with all the redundancies and headaches that entails. I'll pay a considerable premium on hardware to be able to run OS X. I just won't pay the +300% or +400% which Apple is offering me in iMac and Mac Pro.

It seems to me that Apple has concluded a long time ago that people who want an AAA gaming quality graphics cards and the ability to tinker under the hood are not a segment of the market that where they find it worth their time to compete.

Thing is, I'm not interested in tinkering. Didn't build my last desktop myself to save hassle. And I don't ask for the absolute fastest thing on the market, just performance proportional to cost. I have always bought midrange desktop GPUs before. If Apple had offered a desktop with a midrange GPU, I'd have bought that.

It's also not just about gaming. Even a weak Nvidia GPU in the 13" MBP would sell me a new laptop, for CUDA support and for the best OpenGL drivers under Windows/Linux. But nope, the "starting from" price of the only good GPU in the whole Apple laptop range is an absurd 2.7K euros, and it comes attached to a 15.4" laptop.

 

[Deku Tree]

Apple has always for as long as I have been paying attention de-emphasized the GPU's in their consumer focused "non PRO" computers. And the Mac Pro is designed for video graphics type workers. It's true they don't make a product for your needs. They're the kind of company that tries to make a small number of great products that are excellent for a lot of people (but unfortunately not for every single person).

Apple has never been the kind of company that produces an overwhelming huge variety of products in every conceivable category. It's a big part of what makes them able to be so great at the few things that they focus on doing right.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Apple has always for as long as I have been paying attention de-emphasized the GPU's in their consumer focused "non PRO" computers. And the Mac Pro is designed for video graphics type workers. It's true they don't make a product for your needs. They're the kind of company that tries to make a small number of great products that are excellent for a lot of people (but unfortunately not for every single person).

Apple has never been the kind of company that produces an overwhelming huge variety of products in every conceivable category. It's a big part of what makes them able to be so great at the few things that they focus on doing right.

Apple has always for as long as I have been paying attention de-emphasized the GPU's in their consumer focused "non PRO" computers. And the Mac Pro is designed for video graphics type workers. It's true they don't make a product for your needs. They're the kind of company that tries to make a small number of great products that are excellent for a lot of people (but unfortunately not for every single person).

Apple has never been the kind of company that produces an overwhelming huge variety of products in every conceivable category. It's a big part of what makes them able to be so great at the few things that they focus on doing right.

This is true, but I think it's also a case of Apple "oversteering". Big changes are often rough—sure, now we look back on the genius of the products, but those initial iterations were sometimes bumpy roads. Pro Macs ditching the floppy (I believe the Bondi G3 was the first)—absolutely the right move, but until better mass storage came along you were SOL for anything cheaper than ZIP drives. iMacs moving to USB—absolutely the right move—but you were stuck with a paltry number of peripherals at first. OS X was visually kind of a mess for several iterations before it figured out what it wanted to be (I don't miss the tabs, brushed metal, and translucent header bars, but I kind of miss the larger pills and Panther-era pinstripes, meself), and performance-wise it was a year or two before the software got optimized and the hardware got fast enough to adequately run it. Ditching optical media, abandoning Firewire for Thunderbolt, switching to PCI flash drives, moving to glossy displays—all done a bit earlier than comfortable (and in the case of glossy displays we're only now getting the tech that allows for a quality and near-glare-free display almost five years after they basically made it mandatory.) They either stand their ground and wait for everyone to catch up, or they tacitly course-correct back slightly over time (witness: iOS 7's visual refinements.)

Two or three years ago when Apple started pushing integrated graphics heavily, I would have laughed if someone said they could be adequate or even better replacements for dedicated GPUs—yet we're on the cusp of that shift right now with this latest generation.

You can argue that it's a bit of a feedback loop, without Apple pushing this adoption aggressively we'd never see adoption pick up meaningfully, but it does leave certain customers out in the cold at times.

 

[Deku Tree]

This is true, but I think it's also a case of Apple "oversteering". Big changes are often rough—sure, now we look back on the genius of the products, but those initial iterations were sometimes bumpy roads. Pro Macs ditching the floppy (I believe the Bondi G3 was the first)—absolutely the right move, but until better mass storage came along you were SOL for anything cheaper than ZIP drives. iMacs moving to USB—absolutely the right move—but you were stuck with a paltry number of peripherals at first. OS X was visually kind of a mess for several iterations before it figured out what it wanted to be (I don't miss the tabs, brushed metal, and translucent header bars, but I kind of miss the larger pills and Panther-era pinstripes, meself), and performance-wise it was a year or two before the software got optimized and the hardware got fast enough to adequately run it. Ditching optical media, abandoning Firewire for Thunderbolt, switching to PCI flash drives, moving to glossy displays—all done a bit earlier than comfortable (and in the case of glossy displays we're only now getting the tech that allows for a quality and near-glare-free display almost five years after they basically made it mandatory.) They either stand their ground and wait for everyone to catch up, or they tacitly course-correct back slightly over time (witness: iOS 7's visual refinements.)

Two or three years ago when Apple started pushing integrated graphics heavily, I would have laughed if someone said they could be adequate or even better replacements for dedicated GPUs—yet we're on the cusp of that shift right now with this latest generation.

You can argue that it's a bit of a feedback loop, without Apple pushing this adoption aggressively we'd never see adoption pick up meaningfully, but it does leave certain customers out in the cold at times.

Very true. I remember transitioning right away to the original OS X, and wow was that rough in the beginning. I had to keep a copy of OS 9 around because OS X killed compatibility all the Mac with LaTeX editors. It was a long wait until things like TeXShop popped up indeed...

 

[Autumn Wind]

nVidia has released their Maxwell cards. The 880M is capable of 8 GB of GDDR5 memory. Is it a possibility the top iMac released this year will see that as a BTO?

 

[Water]

nVidia has released their Maxwell cards. The 880M is capable of 8 GB of GDDR5 memory. Is it a possibility the top iMac released this year will see that as a BTO?

Sure, but who cares? It's a rebranded 780M with a practically innoticeable amount of extra performance (10-15%), still a low-midrange GPU in desktop terms. Even the 780M's 4GB was total overkill for gaming purposes. Only compute guys could possibly use another 4GB, but why would anyone doing compute even consider using slow laptop chips on desktop?

 

[Fuchsdh]

Sure, but who cares? It's a rebranded 780M with a practically innoticeable amount of extra performance (10-15%), still a low-midrange GPU in desktop terms. Even the 780M's 4GB was total overkill for gaming purposes. Only compute guys could possibly use another 4GB, but why would anyone doing compute even consider using slow laptop chips on desktop?

Why's the extra memory overkill? Even if the limiting factor in performance is clock speed and cores, extra memory can only help the card down the line in comparison to newer options.

 

[Furyous]

I'm still looking at my options but ran into a new dilemma. Is there anyway to connect a retina macbook pro to a PS3/PS4 via a capture card and HDTV/Thunderbolt display/Cinema display?

Is the 1 pound difference between the rMBP 13 and 15 noticeable in normal use?

 

[Deku Tree]

I'm still looking at my options but ran into a new dilemma. Is there anyway to connect a retina macbook pro to a PS3/PS4 via a capture card and HDTV/Thunderbolt display/Cinema display?

Is the 1 pound difference between the rMBP 13 and 15 noticeable in normal use?

Yes if you carry it around a lot.

 

[Water]

I'm still looking at my options but ran into a new dilemma. Is there anyway to connect a retina macbook pro to a PS3/PS4 via a capture card and HDTV/Thunderbolt display/Cinema display?

Is the 1 pound difference between the rMBP 13 and 15 noticeable in normal use?

Depends a lot on how you carry and use it, but the size may be the bigger issue. I constantly have a 13" Air with me in a shoulder bag; even without considering weight, a 15" wouldn't fit in the bag I use, and a bag that is able to fit a 15" laptop would feel quite different on the body. If I had a 15" MBP, I'd probably switch to wearing a backpack. The 13" machine is also much more nimble to use on your lap in cars, trains, cramped auditoriums, etc. For me this matters a ton. If you use a backpack or large shoulder bag anyway, and mostly work at a desk, the 15" might not have much of a downside.

 

[Water]

Why's the extra memory overkill? Even if the limiting factor in performance is clock speed and cores, extra memory can only help the card down the line in comparison to newer options.

It doesn't do anything and won't do anything in the future.

The absolute fastest consumer GPU on the market, the 780 Ti, has 3GB VRAM. No game currently needs more or benefits from having more. A few percent of gamers at most have more than 2GB VRAM. There's no point in developing games to take substantial advantage from having more VRAM, much less developing games that require it.

Even if some games a couple years down the line offer an option for massive textures requiring - say - 6GB VRAM, the 780M or the 880M won't have the power to run the game in the first place. Like I said, they already struggle with some of the most demanding current games.

 

[Melhisedek]

My wife have an early 2011 Macbook Pro 13 that came with 4GB RAM and non SSD. Nowadays as I started using it a bit more and coming from my desktop I can notice how slow it is. So I've looked it up and now I have to decide between upgrading RAM to 8GB or installing a SSD. Only have money for one atm. So which one would give me best bang for the buck?

 

[The Real Abed]

My wife have an early 2011 Macbook Pro 13 that came with 4GB RAM and non SSD. Nowadays as I started using it a bit more and coming from my desktop I can notice how slow it is. So I've looked it up and now I have to decide between upgrading RAM to 8GB or installing a SSD. Only have money for one atm. So which one would give me best bang for the buck?

SSD first. Then RAM. The SSD will really speed things up. The RAM will be useful next. Even if you only get a small SSD and a case for the old HDD.

 

[Deku Tree]

My wife have an early 2011 Macbook Pro 13 that came with 4GB RAM and non SSD. Nowadays as I started using it a bit more and coming from my desktop I can notice how slow it is. So I've looked it up and now I have to decide between upgrading RAM to 8GB or installing a SSD. Only have money for one atm. So which one would give me best bang for the buck?

SSD will make it boot faster. Any situation where you are loading a large number of smallish files will be much faster with SSD. More RAM will allow your computer to rely less on your HDD. You will be able to keep more info in your memory so your computer will move faster with loaded programs with more RAM. Does your computer allow you to easily replace the HDD?

 

[Melhisedek]

As I saw on youtube yeah it is pretty easy... Well I have some old Crucial M4 in my desktop and I'm more than happy. But compared to todays beasts it is pretty bad. Should I go for some el cheapo 120 GB ssd or go for something better and if so what would you recommend?

 

[Deku Tree]

As I saw on youtube yeah it is pretty easy... Well I have some old Crucial M4 in my desktop and I'm more than happy. But compared to todays beasts it is pretty bad. Should I go for some el cheapo 120 GB ssd or go for something better and if so what would you recommend?

120 GB fills up very fast. Go for a 256GB unless you are sure you will only have a small size of files. Not sure about brand names though.

 

[Autumn Wind]

Sure, but who cares? It's a rebranded 780M with a practically innoticeable amount of extra performance (10-15%), still a low-midrange GPU in desktop terms. Even the 780M's 4GB was total overkill for gaming purposes. Only compute guys could possibly use another 4GB, but why would anyone doing compute even consider using slow laptop chips on desktop?

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NVPerfClaim-640x528.jpg <--- Someone just made me aware of this so the next line of MacBook Pros should be much better.

 

[Water]

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NVPerfClaim-640x528.jpg <--- Someone just made me aware of this so the next line of MacBook Pros should be much better.

The top model 15" Macbook Pro should get a nice boost, but if Apple doesn't do a 180 with their priorities, nothing else in their laptop lineup will see any benefit.

 

[The Real Abed]

Unless Apple decides to do something really silly like remove the discrete GPU from its laptop line completely, the model I replace this 15" with in 3 years will be amazing.

 

[Deku Tree]

I'm planning to keep my maxed out 2012 15" rMBP for as long as possible. Maybe even 5-6 years. We will see how it looks after a few more years. But right now it does everything I want at lightening fast speeds. I am having a hard time imagining this computer as "slow" in the future.

 

[The Real Abed]

I'm planning to keep my maxed out 2012 15" rMBP for as long as possible. Maybe even 5-6 years. We will see how it looks after a few more years. But right now it does everything I want at lightening fast speeds. I am having a hard time imagining this computer as "slow" in the future.

My top of the line 2013 15" rPro is gonna be here for at the very least 3 years. That'll give it enough time for its AppleCare warranty to end and me to have enough to put towards the next one. I look forward to seeing how much better the next one is. I plan on doing benchmarks to compare.

I also can't imagine this thing being considered "slow". It's the most expensive laptop Apple has. It better be better than bottom of the line for at least 2 years. (And seeing as I'm used to getting a bottom-mid line model once a year, it's refreshing to have the best you can get and not have to worry about upgrading again for a while.)

And as long as Apple doesn't put some kind of super awesome must have gimmick in next Fall's model, I won't have to fight the urge to upgrade so soon. I have 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD with 1000GB/s read/write and a quad-core i7 and dual GPU's and ThunderBolt 2 which I don't use. I should be set for a while.

 

[Deku Tree]

Well I have several Mac's (too many I think). An Office iMac from Late 2009. My home 15" rMBP. My travel 11" Air 2013. My wifes 13" Air 2011 (was my old Air). And a positively ancient 2008 15" MBP. The only one that really feels "slow" at this point for my usage is the 2008 MBP. (EDIT that, my Late 2009 iMac also feels slow to boot up, but it has 12GB RAM and it runs fine once booted up.) It can be an expensive business to upgrade so many computers. I am hoping that it is not necessary too frequently...

 

[Fuchsdh]

Well I have several Mac's (too many I think). An Office iMac from Late 2009. My home 15" rMBP. My travel 11" Air 2013. My wifes 13" Air 2011 (was my old Air). And a positively ancient 2008 15" MBP. The only one that really feels "slow" at this point for my usage is the 2008 MBP. (EDIT that, my Late 2009 iMac also feels slow to boot up, but it has 12GB RAM and it runs fine once booted up.) It can be an expensive business to upgrade so many computers. I am hoping that it is not necessary too frequently...

Well, one might ask why you need that many, but then again I plan on keeping around as much hardware and software as I need so that my kids can play the same games I did (and I guess laugh and wonder how I blew so much free time playing Oregon Trail II, SimFarm, and Asterax.)

Speaking of which, I opened up an old mac shareware game Gold Digger and found that their web site is still up. For a lark I sent in a form to pay the $15 shareware fee. We'll see if they're still around.

Also, Transcend just announced 128GB kits for the nMP (prices unknown, 32GB modules use slower 1300MHz rather than 1833MHz). The AppleInsider forums about how we're all going to be watching 8K video on Archival Blu-Ray discs are pretty great though: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/16...or-apples-mac-pro-doubles-max-memory-to-128gb

(Also I still don't see how we can be having 'who needs that much RAM' discussions in 2014. Personally I don't think I'll be getting any more than 64GB on my new Pro up from 24GB on my current, but there's no doubt there are people who can certainly use whatever RAM they can get.)

 

[Deku Tree]

Well, one might ask why you need that many, but then again I plan on keeping around as much hardware and software as I need so that my kids can play the same games I did (and I guess laugh and wonder how I blew so much free time playing Oregon Trail II, SimFarm, and Asterax.)

Speaking of which, I opened up an old mac shareware game Gold Digger and found that their web site is still up. For a lark I sent in a form to pay the $15 shareware fee. We'll see if they're still around.

Also, Transcend just announced 128GB kits for the nMP (prices unknown, 32GB modules use slower 1300MHz rather than 1833MHz). The AppleInsider forums about how we're all going to be watching 8K video on Archival Blu-Ray discs are pretty great though: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/16...or-apples-mac-pro-doubles-max-memory-to-128gb

(Also I still don't see how we can be having 'who needs that much RAM' discussions in 2014. Personally I don't think I'll be getting any more than 64GB on my new Pro up from 24GB on my current, but there's no doubt there are people who can certainly use whatever RAM they can get.)

I don't need that many. But I hate carrying things around. And I don't throw things away (like the old 2008 MBP which still is my only access to a disk drive).

EDIT: I also overestimated my desire to carry the 15" rMBP around when I travel. The 11" Air really makes a huge difference in your backpack.

BTW, I imagine your kids might look at your old games and say OMG those graphics hurt my eyes!

 

[Furyous]

Can anyone with a rMP 13 2013 take a screenshot of their device using a max resolution?

I've searched online and couldn't find one. My decision will come down to future proof viability of the notebook. I'll have to max out either laptop as far as specs go.

 

[opticalmace]

Can anyone with a rMP 13 2013 take a screenshot of their device using a max resolution?

I've searched online and couldn't find one. My decision will come down to future proof viability of the notebook. I'll have to max out either laptop as far as specs go.

Max as in native for the panel (2560x1600) or max as in the maximum retina setting available by default (1680x1050)?

 

[Furyous]

Max as in native for the panel (2560x1600) or max as in the maximum retina setting available by default (1680x1050)?

I mean max as in native for the panel. I hate to ask for more but can the screen shot be at full brightness?