Achieving Retina

To make the MacBook Pro’s Retina Display a reality Apple had to work with panel vendors to build the panels it wanted at a reasonable cost, as well as deliver the software necessary to support insanely high resolutions. There was another problem Apple faced in making the rMBP a reality: the display pipeline of the GPUs Apple wanted to use didn't officially support scaling to the resolution Apple demanded of them. Let me explain.

All modern GPUs have fixed function scaling hardware that is used to efficiently scale between resolutions. A scaler either in your GPU or in your display panel is what lets you run non-native resolutions at full screen on your LCD (e.g. running 1680 x 1050 on a 1920 x 1080 panel). None of the GPUs used in the Retina Display MacBook Pro officially support fixed-function scaling of 3840 x 2400 or 3360 x 2100 to 2880 x 1800 however. Modern day GPUs are tested against 2560 x 1440 and 2560 x 1600, but not this particular 5MP resolution. Even 4K resolution support isn’t widespread among what’s available today. Rather than wait for updated hardware and/or validation, Apple took matters into its own hands and built its own GPU accelerated scaling routines for these higher resolutions. Fixed function hardware is almost always more efficient from a performance and power standpoint, which is why there’s some additional performance loss in these scaled resolution modes. 

What’s even crazier is Apple wasn’t pleased with the difference in baseline filtering quality between the Intel HD 4000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M GPUs. As the Retina Display MacBook Pro would have to regularly switch between GPUs, Apple wanted to ensure a consistently good experience regardless of which GPU was active. There are a lot of filtering operations at work when doing all of this resolution scaling, so rather than compromise user experience Apple simply wrote its own default filtering routines. Since you want your upscale and downscale quality to be identical, Apple had to roll its own implementation on both. Apple’s obsessive attention to detail really made it possible to pull all of this off. It’s just insane to think about.

The Software Side of Retina: Making it All Work Driving the Retina Display: A Performance Discussion
Comments Locked

471 Comments

View All Comments

  • Kill16by9TN - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link

    What I don't understand, how does it make any sense, to use scaling factors resulting in 16:9 (TV/movie) resolutions (2560x1440, 2048x1152, 1600x900) on a 16:10 computer panel with native 2880 x 1800, or scaled down, 1440 x 900 pixels.
  • ImSpartacus - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link

    They aren't. In OSX, you can have 1440x900, 1680x1050 or 1920x1200. Those are all 16:10.
  • Kill16by9TN - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link

    Sorry, looks like my bad. I was so baffled by those 16:9 resolutions in the settings window screen shot, that I completely missed that window's "Thunderbolt Display" title and the monitor icon on the left.
    So apparently Anand was using a an external 16:9 monitor for this test and everything is fine again ;-).
  • yottabit - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link

    I just want to take a moment to say thanks for always sticking to the philosophy of not releasing a review until it's ready. Even though other reviews of the Retina display MBP have been up for a while I honestly didn't even read them because I love waiting for what Anand is going to come up with. I still count on Anandtech as my "one-stop-shop" for reviews and I've got to say it does not disappoint.

    I know people are complaining about the lack of upgrade potential on the retina Mac Book Pro, but I think it's Apple's right. Think about it- they now have a product that is truly unrivaled in any category. Until some other competitors can put pressure on them, I don't think we'll see upgradeability come back into play.

    Apple has done something really tremendous here with their retina display panel, I think this is the longest head start they will have ever had on anyone since the iPod. With all the proprietary graphics drivers/GPU scaling, and the development of this custom display at this pricepoint, I really think it will be years before we see a PC with a similar overall package. So long as Apple can maintain exclusivity with it's suppliers (and that's never been a problem in the past)

    This display isn't something somebody can just knock off, it's an engineering marvel IMO. And it's going to be hard for any other OEM to justify the volume to market a display like this.

    Reading about Apple's influencing Intel to speed up iGFX development sent chills down my spine. I can't believe how much Apple has grown.

    I've got to say I think Steve Jobs would be really proud of the launch of this device. I don't think many people realize how big this is going to be!
  • shushamen - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link

    Anybody knows how the Xcode iOS simulator handle the retina display , I meant what happened when you selected iPad retina, does it scale it or use a pixel to pixel.

    Currently I am using an imac 27 for iPad dev and even at 2560 x 1440 I have to scroll inside the iOS simulator when target iPad retina ( I know I can use the sim scale option ), I am hoping that with this new MBRD I can solve the issue.
  • Baked - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link

    How many times do you the cleaning lady come over to dust your mansion? Or do you have live in crew? I'm guessing the latter.

    Must be nice being so filthy rich.
  • dtolios - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link

    People talk about "creative laptops" vs. consumer laptops, innovation etc...
    Apple has been pushing things around for a long time - and failed BIG in the process. And no, not because it was innovative, but because of proprietary stubbornness: be different at all costs. It's not about "creative users"...it's about "wannabees", and that's what 95% or more (guesstimation) of all the MBPs out there are and will be used for. Showing off while browsing FB and tweeting (instead of being creative) in schools and cafes.

    The rMBP is a good start for something great, no doubt, and I am happy that all these vanity addicts will fund more and more of the good stuff to grow and mature (cause obviously the screen scaling application has to work a long way to reach enough potential to be used in creative stuff).

    Till then, I hope the rMBPs with all the proprietary hardware connections/integration won't make a lot of proud buyers to cry with increased reliability issues and zero user-end customization/repair/replace support ( you know, MBPs have been far from the best in this field already, and it looks it will get lost)...I will be waiting for a year or so to hear what Apple service will ask for a blown MoBo.
  • robco - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link

    Huh?

    Apple's sales have outpaced the industry for some time now. Their sales of notebooks has gone up considerably. The MacBook Air is becoming quite popular. If that's failing big, most companies would love to fail that much.

    The standard 2.5" form factor wouldn't fit inside an Air or the new rMBP. So Apple had to do their own thing. That's not Apple's fault. The same is true with SO-DIMMs. As for reliability and service, Apple tends to get top marks there too. I have taken my current 2009 MBP in twice. Once to fix a sticky trackpad that wouldn't click, and once to replace the battery. Both times the machine was fixed, under warranty, quickly. I made an appointment, dropped by the Apple Store and they took care of it. Easy.

    Apple is not stupid. They've been making the new Air for some time now. If they were constantly replacing blown mobos and components were failing all the time, they wouldn't still be making them. I know quite a few MacBook users and they all have found them to be durable, reliable machines. Most people will likely move to the new Air because they don't need the CPU and GPU power of the new rMBP.
  • spronkey - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link

    Listen to what you're saying.

    #1 They designed a machine ignoring existing standards. It's not like they *couldn't* have made a very, very similar machine that used standardised parts. They just chose not to.

    #2. SODIMMs? What about pitching a new standard, then? Or how about adding 1mm. Noone would have noticed, and then in two generations they can thin it out even more.

    #3. Warranty. Perhaps in the US Apple are good with service. Over here in New Zealand they don't exist - we get Authorised Apple Service Providers, who try their absolute hardest to weasel out of fixing anything, and whose first mandate is to never admit design faults like those that exist with the original MagSafe connectors!

    #4. What happens when the machine drops out of warranty? Let's not forget that Apple's 1 year standard warranty isn't exactly generous. Oh wait - Apple want to gouge you some more by offering AppleCare. But it's not just an extended warranty, it comes with all this other crap you don't want, like phone support. And it's four times the price of a retail store's extended warranty.

    How about they put their money where their mouth is and start backing up their "superior" devices with superior warranties. Oh, and while they're at it, they can stop price gouging other countries by picking ridiculously low exchange rates to use...
  • robco - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link

    They do make a similar machine using standardized parts, they still sell the non-retina MBP. It has a standard 2.5" drive bay and SO-DIMMs. It also is larger and heavier. They wanted to slim down the machine and cut down on weight, these were the design trade-offs they had to make.

    As for warranty, AppleCare costs $50USD more than Dell's three-year warranty upgrade for an XPS 15, expensive but not out of line. For major defects that happen out of warranty, it depends. Apple has made repairs and replacements in the past with battery issues and faulty GPUs.

    As for international support, outside major European and Asian countries, it is pretty crappy. It's going to take some effort on Apple's part to improve that. Also bear in mind that we don't have a 15% GST in the US. Our sales taxes vary from state-to-state (some don't have one), so it's not included in the retail price. Here in CA, the price jumps from $2199USD to $2393.92 with $186.92 in sales tax. Not as expensive as the 15% GST in NZ.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now