The King of All Notebook Displays

For years Apple has been shipping some of the best displays in consumer notebooks, but the MacBook Pro’s Retina Display is in a league of its own. While I never liked the phrase “painted on” in reference to the iPad and iPhone Retina Displays, that’s the best way I can describe the effect the MacBook Pro’s Retina Display has on me. Text really does look painted on. The effect is really the result of two things.

The first is Apple’s removal of its cover glass. LCD panels aren’t particularly attractive, they are ugly squares composed of two pieces of glass and a number of filters/polarizers. To hide the ugly edges, display makers wrap bezels around the display. Most people aren’t fond of bezels so next came a ton of effort to minimize bezel size. An alternative is to simply place a third piece of glass over the entire LCD assembly and make it look as if the bezel and LCD panel are integrated. This outermost layer is known as a cover glass and is what Apple uses on all of its glossy displays. If you’ve ever taken apart a Cinema/Thunderbolt Display or a newer iMac you’ll know that the cover glass is literally just a piece of glass that you have to remove with some suction cups.


Non-Retina MacBook Pro, notice the gap between the outermost LCD glass and the cover glass

The MacBook Pro’s Retina Display does away with the cover glass and instead uses a fairly unique LCD assembly. There are still two pieces of glass but the outermost glass is actually a different size and shape - it integrates a bezel. By integrating the bezel into the outermost glass in the LCD stack you get the same effect as a cover glass but without the added reflections it introduces.

You also limit the possibility of dust getting trapped between the cover glass and the LCD. The danger is that you no longer have a protective piece of glass in front of your expensive new LCD. If you scratch the display you're scratching the LCD itself. While this has been true for conventional matte displays for a while, it's worth mentioning if you're used to Apple's glossy displays where you did have that added security layer.


The MacBook Pro with Retina Display, no gap, no cover glass


The 2011 MacBook Pro with High-Res Matte display option, no cover glass, top bezel


From left to right: 2010 High Res Glossy MBP, 2012 rMBP, 2011 High Res Matte MBP


Glare handling indoors - 2011 High Res, Glossy MBP (left) vs 2012 rMBP (right)


Glare handling indoors - 2012 rMBP (left) vs. 2011 High Res, Matte MBP (right)

The Retina Display is also obviously an extremely high resolution panel at 2880 x 1800. Note that this is 44.6% more pixels than Apple’s 27-inch Thunderbolt Display, and 26.6% more pixels than the 30-inch panels that we’ve loved for so long - all in a 15.4-inch notebook display.


An iPhoto shortcut, High Res 2011 MBP (left) vs. Retina Display MBP (right)

At 220 pixels per inch it’s easily the highest density consumer notebook panel shipping today. At normal viewing distances and even with my face closer than I’m comfortable putting it I simply cannot discern individual pixels.

It’s the combination of these two elements, the removal of the cover glass and the insanely high pixel density that makes everything from text to UI elements just look painted on the new Retina Display. And the effect is gorgeous. I’ve never seen a prettier panel and it’s actually ruined me for pretty much all other displays, notebook and desktop.

While I can appreciate the iPad’s Retina Display, the impact from the MacBook Pro’s display is even more significant. Perhaps it’s because I still spend so much time working on a standard, non-tablet display, but I’m far more excited about this display than anything else Apple has delivered under the Retina moniker.

It’s not just pixel density that Apple has to offer here. Similar to its Retina Displays in the iPhone and iPad, the MacBook Pro’s Retina panel ditches TN in favor of IPS technology. The result is an incredible improvement in viewing angles. On a notebook I don’t spend a lot of time viewing it from far left/right angles, although I see the benefit when I’ve got others huddled around my display. Here the panel performs admirably - you lose brightness at far left/right angles but there’s no perceivable color shift. In fact, the painted on effect is even more impressive at these far left/right viewing angles.


The rMBP straight on


The rMBP viewed from the left

For a single user however the more impressive characteristic is just how good the display looks at vertically off-center angles. I wrote much of the initial parts of this review while on an airplane in coach, which with a 15-inch notebook on my lap means I’m going to be looking at the display at a weird angle to begin with. The thinner rMBP doesn’t do enough to make the airplane usage model any better if the person in front of you decides to recline, but the IPS panel does make the display perfectly usable at the off-center angle you’ll inevitably have to deal with.


2010 High Res, Glossy MBP (left) vs. 2012 rMBP (right)


Hello colorshift! 2010 High Res, Glossy MBP (left) vs. 2012 rMBP (right)

Ports & Expansion The Retina Display in Numbers
Comments Locked

471 Comments

View All Comments

  • orthorim - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    First of all, PC manufacturers are followers.

    Second even if they wanted to do it, how are they going to get Microsoft to fully support retina mode? It's evident from the review that Apple's had to do a lot of work on the software side to make it work, and it's still not perfect.

    That's Apple's huge advantage: They make hardware and software.

    The obstacle for a PC manufacturer would be:
    - Get retina displays in quantity (same issue Apple faces - it's doable but by no means easy)
    - Get Windows to support retina mode - even if MS were willing, no one knows what amount of effort would be involved. I guess it would be extremely hard to do.
    - Get gfx card manufacturers to optimize their drivers to it's fast

    All of this takes time and effort...
  • PubFiction - Friday, August 3, 2012 - link

    None of you get it.

    Super resolution is a by product of OLED. Not of apple, not of anyone else. LG says they can make a panel and apple pays the highest price to have exclusive access fo a while. Are you guys really so stupid that you think apple actually makes these panels?

    IF LG does not push IPS displays down in price and up in resolution OLED is quickly going to supplant LCDs as the premium product.

    Let me make it clear to the sheeple, PC companies do not give a shit about you or giving you bette stuff until it becomes neccessary to maintain their business, apple happily sold everyone TN panels with low resolution for years while PC makers were offering IPS, wide gamut in work stations laptops.
  • gorash - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link

    Come on, 1080p screens have existed for some time, and obviously it would move to 4k at some point when it's ready. From the performance standpoint, "Retina" doesn't seem to be all that ready. Maybe in the next year or so, it will be.
  • OCedHrt - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link

    Although the reviewers at Anandtech didn't really like the Z, it is the best laptop I have used to date.
  • solipsism - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link

    Even if Apple can these 27" IPS panels made at a reasonable price and quantity you still have to deal with rending all the pixels in a way that adds more pros than cons.

    Remember 4k is 4x the pixels of 1080p. Taking the 27" from 2560x1440 to 5120x2880 is going from 3,686,400 px to 14,745,600 px.
  • DeciusStrabo - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link

    4k isn't 4x the pixels of 1080p. 4k is QFHD, which is 3840x2160 (6.1 million pixels vs. 2 million in 1080p).
    However, since we already have a spec for 8K (7680x4320 ~ 33 million pixels) things to indeed get interesting soon.
  • lukarak - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link

    3840x2160 = 8,294,400
    /
    1920x1080 = 2,073,600
    --------------------------------
    2 x 2 = 4
  • DanNeely - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link

    4k is a lot more than just quadHD. I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up being the dominant mass market version; but most current 4k cameras record video at 4096x2304/2160.
  • Ohhmaagawd - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link

    "emember 4k is 4x the pixels of 1080p. Taking the 27" from 2560x1440 to 5120x2880 is going from 3,686,400 px to 14,745,600 px."

    I really doubt it needs to double to be "retina".

    Not sure what the sweet spot is, but my gut is somewhere around 3500-4000 pixels wide.
  • Acanthus - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link

    Apple and their forward looking business sense = buying every factory in the world that can produce high dpi displays. (Yes, they really did that)

    Anticompetitive =/= "forward thinking"

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now