The next-gen MacBook Pro with Retina Display Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 23, 2012 4:14 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
- Apple
- MacBook Pro
- Laptops
- Notebooks
GPU Performance
We’ve already established that NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture is fast, but the GeForce GT 650M used in the rMBP is hardly the best NVIDIA has to offer. The result however is a significant improvement in performance over the Radeon HD 6750M used in the previous generation model.
| 15-inch MacBook Pro Model | Mid 2010 | Upgraded Early 2011 | Upgraded Late 2011 | Retina |
| GPU | GeForce GT 330M | Radeon HD 6750M | Radeon HD 6770M | GeForce GT 650M |
| Cores | 48 | 480 | 480 | 384 |
| Core Clock | 500MHz | 600MHz | 675MHz | 900MHz |
| Memory Bus | 128-bit GDDR3 | 128-bit GDDR5 | 128-bit GDDR5 | 128-bit GDDR5 |
| Memory Data Rate | 1580MHz | 3200MHz | 3200MHz | 5016MHz |
| Memory Size | 512MB | 1GB | 1GB | 1GB |
The GT 650M offers fewer “cores” compared to the 6750M and 6770M used in previous MacBook Pros, but likely better utilization of the available hardware. NVIDIA also clocks the cores much higher in the 650M, the result is a ~20% increase in theoretical raw compute power.
The memory bandwidth story is also better on Kepler. While both the GT 650M and the 67xxM feature a 128-bit GDDR5 interface, Apple clocked AMD’s memory interface at 800MHz compared to 1254MHz on Kepler. The resulting difference is 80.3GB/s of memory bandwidth vs. 51.2GB/s.
The real world impact is most noticeable at higher resolutions, thanks to the tremendous amount of memory bandwidth now available. The other benefit from the new GPU is obviously things run a lot cooler, which as I’ve already shown to considerably reduce thermal throttling under load.
At 1440 x 900 we actually see a regression compared to the 2011 models, but differences in the AMD and NVIDIA GPU drivers alone can account for the difference at this hardly GPU bound setting. Look at what happens once we crank up the resolution:
At 1680 x 1050 with 4X AA enabled we see a modest 11% increase in performance over last year's MacBook Pro. As I established earlier however, the rMBP will be able to more consistently deliver this performance over an extended period of time.
What's even more impressive is the 42.4 fps the GT 650M is able to deliver at the rMBP's native 2880 x 1800 resolution. Even though I ran the test with AA enabled I'm pretty sure AA was automatically disabled. At 2880 x 1800 the rMBP is able to outperform the two year old MacBook Pro running at 1680 x 1050. How's that for progress?
While the gains we've shown thus far have been modest at best, Starcraft 2 is a completely different story. Here for whatever reason the IVB + Kepler combination can be up to 2x the speed of last year’s models. I reran the tests both on the older and rMBP hardware to confirm, but the results were repeatable. The best explanation I have is Starcraft 2 is very stressful on both the CPU and GPU, so we could be seeing some thermal throttling on the older SNB + Turks hardware here.
Once again we see playable, although not entirely smooth frame rates at 2880 x 1800. I've also included a screenshot of SC2 at 2880 x 1800 below:
Starcraft 2 at 2880 x 1800, it's playable
Although gaming options continue to be limited under OS X, Diablo 3 is available and finally performs well on the platform thanks to the latest patches. Diablo 3 performance is appreciably better on the GT 650M compared to last year’s 6750M. There’s no FRAPS equivalent under OS X (free advertising to the first eager dev to correct that) so I have to rely on general discussion of performance here. The GT 650M is fast enough to drive the rMBP’s 2880 x 1800 panel at native resolution at playable frame rates, around 18 fps on average. Connected to an external 2560 x 1440 display however the GT 650M is fast enough to deliver around 30 fps in Diablo 3. For what it’s worth, performance under Diablo 3 is far more consistent with the rMBP than with last year’s MacBook Pro. I suspect once again we’re seeing the effects of thermal throttling under heavy CPU/GPU load that has been well mitigated by the move to more power efficient silicon.
Diablo 3 at 2880 x 1800
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
471 Comments
View All Comments
Fx1 - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link
It makes a big difference to the glare when you take away that glass. Why don't you go have a look at a rmbp and see how thin the lid is and you too will be impressed. A LOT of work must going into designing these notebooks. Why don't you spend you time bitching at the windows notebook makers and see how CRAP their designs are. Because they deserve it. Full Stop.Spunjji - Tuesday, June 26, 2012 - link
Why don't you go and eat a dick, child.gstrickler - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link
It's not a matte screen. Matte screens are etched to diffuse the light in many directions. This makes them slightly less "sharp", and lowers their effective brightness slightly. The Retina display in the new MBP has a low reflectance flat surface, not a matte surface. It's an important difference as an etched surface would compromise the sharpness of such a high DPI display.Spunjji - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link
I give up. Too many fanboys on both sides.jjbwbc - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link
I bought one of these guys and I really love the display but I cannot for my life see if this is glass or plastic or what makes the outer layer of this display.How fragile is it? I mean, it seems like a combination of durable and extremely fragile too. Makes me nervous... can anyone weigh in on how fragile the screen on this guy is compared to regular LCDs?
Constructor - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link
It's definitely glass, and likely of the 'Gorilla' variety. It will still scratch or break if you try hard enough. But with no access to Apple's internal QA information we'll have to wait until someone actually manages to break theirs to really know...! ;-)SimaYi - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link
I'm disappointed in this review, as I was very much hoping to get some advice about whether this laptop can run recent games at 2880x1800.The only frame rates mentioned for this resolution were Half Life 2 (42 fps) and Diablo 3 (18 fps).
@Anand, is there any chance you will update this article with some detailed feedback about gaming at 2880x1800, and framerates for running recent Windows games in bootcamp at this res?
seapeople - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link
No, it can't run recent games at 2880x1800. This is not something that needs to be benchmarked; it is obvious from the combination of a middle-of-the-road laptop graphics card and the highest resolution notebook screen ever made.wfolta - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link
And you got this idea, despite the article mentioning Diablo III (about as recent of a game as you can get)? It runs Diablo III (Normal Act III) at 20+ FPS, with most settings cranked to max. It runs other recent games fine. Perhaps you should give details of what games you mean when you say "recent"?And the fact is you can run games at lower resolutions (which still look better at that resolution than if you only had that many pixels) and drop a few settings and double your frame rate.
SimaYi - Tuesday, June 26, 2012 - link
Thanks very much for the feedback!Are you saying from personal experience that it runs D3 on High at 20fps? How about if you reduce the settings, say with no AA and lower setttings, can it run D3 above 30fps?
For most games, 25-30 fps is quite playable. Above 30fps is great.
As for "recent" games, I would be extremely interested to know the performance at 2880x1800 (on low or med settings), for games like Skyrim, DXHR, RAGE, Arkham City, BF3, Sniper Elite V2, ME3, Risen 2, MW3, Witcher 2, Civ 5.
Never purchased a mac laptop before and this is the first time I'm seriously considering it, primarily because of the display. However, if I can't run any games at 2880x1800, it seems like a waste.
Trying to decide between either buying an MBP or a Windows laptop with 1080p display and decent GPU, along the lines of a DV6t (Nvidia 650m) or Envy 15 (AMD 7750m).
I wouldn't call the 650m necessarily "middle of the road," as it's one of the fastest mobile cards currently available for laptops that are not bulky desktop replacements. Do Mac laptops run games slower on bootcamp compared to Windows laptops with the same card?