-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mac Hardware and Software |OT| - All things Macintosh
- Thread starter 3N16MA
- Start date
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Thank you!
Can someone help satisfy my curiosity, I just wanted to compare my current MBP versus the top of the line 15" rMBP out now, just to get a sense of how much I'd be upgrading, if I went through with it now, even though I feel like I should wait until the next refresh before I start thinking seriously.
My MBP:
- Mid-2010 15" MBP. 2.66 GHz Intel Core i7.
- 8 GB 1066 DDR3 RAM. (OWC Upgraded)
- NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M 512 MB Graphics.
- 500 GB Samsung 840 SSD
- 1680x1050 "High-Res" Display
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but the display on the rMBP would be somewhere around 3x as many pixels as my current one, right? Seems like a huge upgrade.
What about the processor speed? How much more powerful is the 2.3 GHz quad-core i7 compared to mine? Roughly 4x as powerful (i.e. converting files would be 4x as fast on the new rMBP)?
16 GB vs. 8 GB RAM is an obvious difference.
The SSD speeds should be much faster as on mine it only supports SATA-II speeds, whereas I am assuming the Apple SSD is at maximum speed? How much faster is the read/write? Mine seems to be around 100 write/200 read.
And lastly, how much better would the new graphics be?
Thank you everyone!
My MBP:
- Mid-2010 15" MBP. 2.66 GHz Intel Core i7.
- 8 GB 1066 DDR3 RAM. (OWC Upgraded)
- NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M 512 MB Graphics.
- 500 GB Samsung 840 SSD
- 1680x1050 "High-Res" Display
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but the display on the rMBP would be somewhere around 3x as many pixels as my current one, right? Seems like a huge upgrade.
What about the processor speed? How much more powerful is the 2.3 GHz quad-core i7 compared to mine? Roughly 4x as powerful (i.e. converting files would be 4x as fast on the new rMBP)?
16 GB vs. 8 GB RAM is an obvious difference.
The SSD speeds should be much faster as on mine it only supports SATA-II speeds, whereas I am assuming the Apple SSD is at maximum speed? How much faster is the read/write? Mine seems to be around 100 write/200 read.
And lastly, how much better would the new graphics be?
Thank you everyone!
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
The display on the new 13" will be higher than your 15" let alone the new 15". The resolution of the 15" is 2880x1800. I run mine at Retina 1920x1200 which is basically 4K. The pixels are so small I don't notice any kind of jaggies in most cases. (Photoshop CS3 is noticeable in the UI but not a problem for me.)
You should do some benchmarks and we can compare them. Or just look on the GeekBench website for your model and compare it to the latest ones. The speed increase is going to be really big.
The SSD seems to be comparable in your case.
Would you be getting the model with the dGPU or just the baseline? The baseline only has an Iris Pro. The high end which I have has a GeForce 750M.
You should do some benchmarks and we can compare them. Or just look on the GeekBench website for your model and compare it to the latest ones. The speed increase is going to be really big.
The SSD seems to be comparable in your case.
Would you be getting the model with the dGPU or just the baseline? The baseline only has an Iris Pro. The high end which I have has a GeForce 750M.
Just curious, but how come you don't run your display at the highest Retina resolution? Does it just not make much of a difference beyond what you run it at the justify the increased power demands?
I just downloaded the Geekbench 3 Tryout -- it came to 2195 single-core and 4327 multi-core. Here is the link to it, though not sure you can see it.
Comparing that to the 15" rMBP, which is around 3400 and 13000 respectively, does that mean in single-core performance the new MBP would be 2x as fast, and in multi-core performance it would be 3x as fast? Not exactly sure what the numbers mean.
And if I did end up pulling the trigger on the new one, I would be getting the top model at the very least, without any of the upgrade options.
sweetvar26
Member
Default, you can only run the screen at 1920x1200 on the 15"rMBP. There are apps you can install that will enable to run it at the full 2880x1800 resolution.
Wait, that makes no sense -- why would they advertise the full retina resolution but only allow 1920x1200 without apps? I am confused.
sweetvar26
Member
Ahh, now that makes perfect sense. Thank you!
I suppose I was thinking of the difference between something like the iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4. They had the same screen sizes and all the icons/text/etc were the same sizes despite their resolution differences, and yet everything was much more clear and sharp on the iPhone 4.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Have you ever seen a Retina display running at 1:1 pixel scale at full resolution? Every single thing on the screen is too small to see. Retina displays aren't meant to run at full resolution. They're meant to make the pixels so small that you can run any resolution you want and everything looks crystal clear.
The maximum HiDPI resolution I would recommend on a 15" is 1920x1200. It is the best balance. You get plenty of space to work with and thing are still big enough to see. Plus if you need to, you can quickly switch down to 1680x1050 if you need or even up to 2880x1800 if you use a tool like QuickRes.
These are the available resolutions QuickRes will offer on a 15" rPro:
Any 4:3 or 16:9 resolutions will be letterboxed or pillarboxed. And it even lets you output a resolution higher than the full resolution (3840x2400 for example, which is the full resolution of what HiDPI 1920x1200 is outputting if you're curious.) So there's plenty of choices. The nice thing about QuickRes is it helps fake resolutions on other displays too. Like my 20" ACD from 2005 which has a resolution of 1680x1050. QR is able to output 1920x1200 so my two displays are equal in pixel amounts. Of course this is OS X doing the work, QR is just allowing access. Also it's not magically making pixels appear, it just outputs at the higher resolution and scales it down to the native, which is what displays do anyway. Of course the pixels on a 20" ACD are extremely noticeable after using a Retina display. Like huuuuge pixels. Plus making the resolution higher destroys some of the readability of onscreen text of course.
When I first got my rPro, I used the 1680x1050 version for a few weeks until I realized how much better 1920x1200 was. But there's plenty of resolution options to please anyone. And the Retina resolution makes even smaller resolutions look amazing. (Good for old fogeys with aging eyes)
The maximum HiDPI resolution I would recommend on a 15" is 1920x1200. It is the best balance. You get plenty of space to work with and thing are still big enough to see. Plus if you need to, you can quickly switch down to 1680x1050 if you need or even up to 2880x1800 if you use a tool like QuickRes.
These are the available resolutions QuickRes will offer on a 15" rPro:
(Note: Each HiDPI resolution is displayed next to its full sized equivalent)
Any 4:3 or 16:9 resolutions will be letterboxed or pillarboxed. And it even lets you output a resolution higher than the full resolution (3840x2400 for example, which is the full resolution of what HiDPI 1920x1200 is outputting if you're curious.) So there's plenty of choices. The nice thing about QuickRes is it helps fake resolutions on other displays too. Like my 20" ACD from 2005 which has a resolution of 1680x1050. QR is able to output 1920x1200 so my two displays are equal in pixel amounts. Of course this is OS X doing the work, QR is just allowing access. Also it's not magically making pixels appear, it just outputs at the higher resolution and scales it down to the native, which is what displays do anyway. Of course the pixels on a 20" ACD are extremely noticeable after using a Retina display. Like huuuuge pixels. Plus making the resolution higher destroys some of the readability of onscreen text of course.
When I first got my rPro, I used the 1680x1050 version for a few weeks until I realized how much better 1920x1200 was. But there's plenty of resolution options to please anyone. And the Retina resolution makes even smaller resolutions look amazing. (Good for old fogeys with aging eyes)
I understand now, thank you! I was thinking that 1680x1050 on a retina display would be the exact same as 1680x1050 on mine right now. I got confused. Like switching from 720p to 1080p on the TV -- everything stays the same size but becomes more clear.
When I get more serious about this, bringing my MBP into an Apple Store to compare should be interesting.
When I get more serious about this, bringing my MBP into an Apple Store to compare should be interesting.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
The Retina display will make things look so much clearer and smooth. It's amazing. So smooth that I find even 1680x1050 too low. 1920x1200 for life now! That's basically 1080p+extra. It's constantly pushing the equivalent of 4K+ resolution no matter which GPU it's currently using. A HiDPI 1680x1050 will be 3360x2100 and everything will be twice the size, twice the pixel resolution, 4 times the actual content, and will look much nicer. At 1920x1200 even non-Retina apps will be harder to notice the low resolution graphics.
Right now I only have a few non-Retina apps left that I use on a daily basis:
- PhotoShop CS3
Eventually I might just switch to Pixelmator which is built from the ground up to support all OS X's amazing advancements. Obviously CS3 isn't going to be updated. It's like a million years old in technology time. - CrashPlan menu bar
That house icon looks jaggy on lower resolutions but at my resolution I don't even notice it. Don't know when the heck they're going to overhaul the app especially since they rebranded themselves a few months ago. - PTH Pasteboard
The only multiple pasteboard app I can use and I even paid for it but come on, at least update the menubar icons for HiDPI! It's literally the only user-facing UI element the app has and it's not even Retina. - Steam
The app is so terribly not designed for OS X. Ugly, clunky, low resolution, but it works. So who can complain. It's only half-LoDPI. Since it uses OS X's GUI systems, everything inside the app is kind of Retina, but some UI elements are still low resolution. It's a mishmash of UI resolutions, the WebKit subsystem is still not Retina which is weird since it's a huge part of the app. Like the Library is fine. It's all Retina. But then store pages or your profile or other things that use a HTML based interface are all low resolution and text at low resolution on a Retina display, even at 1920x1200. is still very noticeable. Get yer shit together, Valve. Fix yer app for the 21st century.
Steam is essentially a webapp, correct? It certainly feels that way with its damn slow interface and browser.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
It is, which is what makes it worse. It doesn't even use an updated version of WebKit. If it even uses WebKit at all. Maybe it uses Gecko or something. Either way, whatever it uses is so old and outdated. If it weren't cross-platform it'd probably have a better made-for-OS X application that didn't suck and look like something made for Windows.
I wish they'd also give the OS X version a background process that can be loaded at startup like Windows and integrate the Friends list into OS X better with Notification Center support or something.
Thankfully it's not completely web-based or else it'd be completely ugly. Only the store and profile pages are web. A lot of the UI is native so it uses OS X's UI draw call API's thankfully. But the store is still horribly ugly to look at on a Retina. The text is just so jaggy it gets to your eyes after a while. Thankfully a high resolution like 1920x1200 makes it a little better.
But hell, Steam on a Retina display still looks a fuckton better than Steam on Windows with 200% UI scaling on. Which is to say, there is none. Steam does not scale. At all. Windows' UI scaling is completely fucked. It doesn't work half the time and Microsoft never pushed anyone to use it. Apple came up with the best solution that would benefit everyone and actually pushed for people to utilize it, and it worked! Microsoft seemingly decided to just give up. Have you ever enabled UI scaling on Windows?
It's a nightmare. Look at Steam in the corner there at 1:1 pixel ratio not scaled at all while all the windows around it are confused about what they should be. Even Microsoft's own apps aren't built correctly. This is 200% scaling, which is what Retina is considered. I'll tell you one thing, Retina never ever looks as bad as that. Ever. The sad thing is IE and Explorer look the best of the four. Look at Chrome! Look closely. Notice the UI is blurred to all hell. Even the WebKit view. The whole thing. It's like they render it smaller and then scale it up with antialiasing. Who can use that? No one! I'll tell you, 150% doesn't look much better either. (The above shot is an accurate representation of Windows 7 on a 16:10 4K display)
This has become a rant. Thank goodness Parallels lets me just scale Windows to 1920x1200 so I can make things out. It may not look amazing, but I only use it for games. If I had to run Windows in BootCamp, I'd have to run at a low resolution to even make things out anyway. How do Windows users with 4K monitors stand it? Does Windows 8 fix any of this stuff? (And I don't mean the built-for-UI-scaling Metro stuff. I mean the classic apps Desktop frontend.) I've put too much time into this rant.
I imagine it's going to be years and after Windows 9 that we get decent support. I know 8.1 improves the situation a bit but it's still touch and go. Hell on the Dell W7 PCs we've got the only choice for menu/system text is tiny or HUGE on a 1920x1200 display. Makes no sense.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
It would be in Microsoft's best interest to just outright copy the way OS X does it. They won't, because it's not their style, but it would make the most sense and would make legacy apps that don't support 2x mode still usable at 1x. They won't. So whatever. I only use Windows for games. Eventually I'll have a gaming PC and play all my games in Steam Big Picture mode so I won't even need to look at Windows.
Thank you so much for all the explanations! I am going to check out a Retina MBP today hopefully after work and see how it looks. The Apple Store in Grand Central Terminal is beyond convenient.
I checked the MacRumors buying guide and it seems it is a so-so time to buy with the last refresh in October. I could certainly wait though as I don't *need* a new computer. Hopefully the next refresh is in the fall and not 2015.
Also, I don't know about this graphics switching. Why is it helpful to know when the GPU's switch?
Can't believe I wasted that time reading your rant only for it to reveal you're using old ass software. You bought a $3,000 computer and yet you refuse to pay for the latest version of the programs that supports its features?! WTF? That's as embarrassing as those people carrying a $600 iPhone yet complaining about $2 app updates.
Well to look at it another way Adobe only added retina options to their current version. Meaning if you spent thousands on their software before May 2012 you're in the same boat as Abed. Would said user receive your scorn as well?
What a silly complaint. Buying a $3000 computer doesn't mean you can or want to throw away $240 every single year for a Photoshop subscription. Especially if you don't do the bulk of your work in Photoshop, and could get by with something like the $30 (perpetual license!) PixelImator. It's also hardly evidence of being miserly if you don't always rush to upgrade to the latest OS version, waste a lot of your time redoing your setup and possibly break your existing programs / workflow before you know what you can actually gain from the new version. As you can see, he's asking if Win8 would fix the problem, and presumably he'd upgrade if it did.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Show me proof that Windows 8 fixes HiDPI in Windows. In Desktop apps.
And I never said anything bad about Photoshop CS3. It works for me. It works great. I have no problems with it being low resolution at all. I was merely listing it as one of the few programs I have personally that aren't Retina. If I'm going to replace it it's going to be with Pixelmator. I don't use PhotoShop for more than simple image editing when I need it. I could easily switch to Pixelmator but still use PhotoShop because it feels right to me. If Apple ever dropped Carbon I'd gladly relearn my keys and combos for Pixelmator and delete PhotoShop off my machine. But I don't yet because I don't need to. I'm not an artist. I don't make a living on PhotoShop. I just use an old version I've had for a while because it still works. And have no problem dumping when the time comes.
Geeze. Jump to conclusions much? Why you have a problem with me? This isn't the first time you've gone off on me.
No just no. Photoshop CS3 was released in freaking 2007, Windows 7 was released in 2009. That's years before Apple even announced a Macbook with retina display. There has been a retina display compatible version for Photoshop since Dec 2012. He's 'asking' if Windows 8 is better? WTF, Win 8 has been out since 2012. It would have taken less time to search a bit than it did to write that rant.
Arstechnica:
Even Apple still has problems supporting HiDPI displays. Anandtech: Improving the State of 4K Display Support Under OS X
So you are in fact expecting him to pay $240 a year for upgrades to a program he's only a light user of, despite the old version having plenty of functionality for his needs. Are you perhaps trolling?
Apple offers lower pricing for students. There's a education subsection on their online store or go to a retail location and show student ID.
Oh yeah which would be better, military or student discount? Cause I doubt they would stack lol
No they don't stack. You just gotta price out both options.
killertofu
Member
Is there any rumors to what an update to the next gen Retina MacBook Pros could entail?
StopMakingSense
Member
If your school has their own computer store, check the prices there. I remember the UCLA computer store had prices even better than Apple's student discount when I went there.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
No
vember
Mr. Wonderful
Member
Better audio processor, notably better integrated GPU, which will be important for driving the retina display, chance that the L4 cache will be on more CPU models. Maybe quad-cores in the 13" (otherwise, Skylake). Maybe DDR4. Much lower power consumption while the CPU is in use.
Once all of those things happen, the 13" will be workstation-class, worthy of the Pro name.
sankt-Antonio
:^)--?-<
I hope you guys can help me.
I want to switch the HDD in my Imac for an SSD. Can i put the HDD that was in my imac into a portable-HDD case or use some cable adapter and hook it up on my now SSD equipped imac and use all the personal Data that was on my HDD? password encrypted images etc.?
This sounds to easy to be true.
I want to switch the HDD in my Imac for an SSD. Can i put the HDD that was in my imac into a portable-HDD case or use some cable adapter and hook it up on my now SSD equipped imac and use all the personal Data that was on my HDD? password encrypted images etc.?
This sounds to easy to be true.
Yes you can do that. You just have to buy the right case.
kame-sennin
Member
I'm trying to decide between the two higher end 13 rMBPs:
2.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Turbo Boost up to 2.9GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
256GB PCIe-based flash storage1
Intel Iris Graphics
Built-in battery (9 hours)
2.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
512GB PCIe-based flash storage1
Intel Iris Graphics
Built-in battery (9 hours)
Most of my work is done with Photoshop with an attached cintiq, and I tend to have a ton of layers open at the same time. I assume they're both powerful enough to handle that and still run super smooth? If so, my main hang up is storage. I have enough video footage that I'll use up whatever hard drive space I have (plus external hdd), but it really irks me to pay an extra $300 for 500 gb (never mind the infuriating $500 charge to upgrade to 1tb). Thoughts?
2.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Turbo Boost up to 2.9GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
256GB PCIe-based flash storage1
Intel Iris Graphics
Built-in battery (9 hours)
2.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
512GB PCIe-based flash storage1
Intel Iris Graphics
Built-in battery (9 hours)
Most of my work is done with Photoshop with an attached cintiq, and I tend to have a ton of layers open at the same time. I assume they're both powerful enough to handle that and still run super smooth? If so, my main hang up is storage. I have enough video footage that I'll use up whatever hard drive space I have (plus external hdd), but it really irks me to pay an extra $300 for 500 gb (never mind the infuriating $500 charge to upgrade to 1tb). Thoughts?
opticalmace
Member
Is the video footage just an archive or do you need to actively handle many GBs of video routintely? I would lean towards the first one personally, and just use a 2TB external drive for the video stuff.
kame-sennin
Member
Just an archive. But I'm constantly shuffling through it, so I get annoyed having to move things back and fourth.
Both of these are up on the Apple refurb site for $1,269 and $1,529. Might make your decision easier. I'm trying not to by the 2.4ghz since I don't need but the price is pretty nice.
opticalmace
Member
Up to you. If it's just archival stuff, I would be perfectly fine with a 256GB drive. YMMV though.
Fall 2013 rMBP
13-inch: 2.6GHz
with Retina display
Specifications
2.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz
16 GB 1600MHz memory
1 TB GB PCIe-based flash storage
Intel Iris Graphics
$2,329
vs.
Fall 2013 rMBP
15-inch: 2.3GHz
with Retina display
Specifications
2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz
16GB 1600MHz memory
512GB PCIe-based flash storage 1
Intel Iris Pro Graphics
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M
with 2GB GDDR5 memory
$2,399
I'm almost at decision time with my laptop replacement. I have to decide between these two computers. I need a desktop replacement that works abroad and is portable. It comes down to whether the discrete GPU in the 15 inch rMBP is worth forgoing reported 11 hour (google the everymac benchmarks) in the 13 inch rMBP. I'd love an a full terabyte hard drive and want to play popular steam games that aren't on consoles at 30 FPS. I planned on asking if there was a noticeable difference in watching movies between the 13 and 15 but I'm not sure I should ask that question. Finally, how's the gaming and graphics performance on the max spec retina macbook pro 13? I can't find any benchmarks for it that's why I'm asking.
Which device should I choose?
13-inch: 2.6GHz
with Retina display
Specifications
2.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz
16 GB 1600MHz memory
1 TB GB PCIe-based flash storage
Intel Iris Graphics
$2,329
vs.
Fall 2013 rMBP
15-inch: 2.3GHz
with Retina display
Specifications
2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz
16GB 1600MHz memory
512GB PCIe-based flash storage 1
Intel Iris Pro Graphics
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M
with 2GB GDDR5 memory
$2,399
I'm almost at decision time with my laptop replacement. I have to decide between these two computers. I need a desktop replacement that works abroad and is portable. It comes down to whether the discrete GPU in the 15 inch rMBP is worth forgoing reported 11 hour (google the everymac benchmarks) in the 13 inch rMBP. I'd love an a full terabyte hard drive and want to play popular steam games that aren't on consoles at 30 FPS. I planned on asking if there was a noticeable difference in watching movies between the 13 and 15 but I'm not sure I should ask that question. Finally, how's the gaming and graphics performance on the max spec retina macbook pro 13? I can't find any benchmarks for it that's why I'm asking.
Which device should I choose?
Easy choice. The Iris 5100 on the 13" MBP is just run-of-the-mill integrated graphics with a higher thermal profile. You can't expect it to run an average new game comfortably. The Iris 5200 on the low-end 15" is the minimum you should consider, but since your budget allows the Geforce 750M, go for that.
http://www.macrumors.com/2014/04/03/micron-apple-ddr4-ram/
Next iOS devices to have 2GB of low power DDR4 RAM? Just me guessing...
Next iOS devices to have 2GB of low power DDR4 RAM? Just me guessing...
Don't the current ones have 1GB? Maybe they'll just jump to 1526MB...
1536MB? 1.5GB?
GAF would never stop talking about it: Cheap Apple... Gotta preserve those profit margins... OMG tabs reloading makes me cry... That Lady Gaga thread keeps crashing on me...
Ugh yes, 1536. Damn small keyboards.
I'm sure GAF would cry about it, but GAF cries about everything.
It doesn't really bother me either way because Apple hardware has been doing a lot more with a less compared to their Android counterparts. My 4S doesn't feel like it's hurting with its 512MB; admittedly I'm not running a bunch of apps beyond Skype, Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, my mobile banking and the Apple-bundled apps. For games and other purposes I'm sure it's more acutely felt. But of all my concerns RAM is low on the listgoing to DDR4 and keeping the total amount of RAM lower than the 2 or 3GB that gets thrown in phones now means better battery life, which I'd prioritize.
Ugh yes, 1536. Damn small keyboards.
I'm sure GAF would cry about it, but GAF cries about everything.
It doesn't really bother me either way because Apple hardware has been doing a lot more with a less compared to their Android counterparts. My 4S doesn't feel like it's hurting with its 512MB; admittedly I'm not running a bunch of apps beyond Skype, Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, my mobile banking and the Apple-bundled apps. For games and other purposes I'm sure it's more acutely felt. But of all my concerns RAM is low on the listgoing to DDR4 and keeping the total amount of RAM lower than the 2 or 3GB that gets thrown in phones now means better battery life, which I'd prioritize.
Agreed. Battery life on Mobile devices is a much bigger priority for me than a little bit of extra RAM. The 4S is a beast.