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
Driving the Retina Display: A Performance Discussion
As I mentioned earlier, there are quality implications of choosing the higher-than-best resolution options in OS X. At 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200 the screen is drawn with 4x the number of pixels, elements are scaled appropriately, and the result is downscaled to 2880 x 1800. The quality impact is negligible however, especially if you actually need the added real estate. As you’d expect, there is also a performance penalty.
At the default setting, either Intel’s HD 4000 or NVIDIA’s GeForce GT 650M already have to render and display far more pixels than either GPU was ever intended to. At the 1680 and 1920 settings however the GPUs are doing more work than even their high-end desktop counterparts are used to. In writing this article it finally dawned on me exactly what has been happening at Intel over the past few years.
Steve Jobs set a path to bringing high resolution displays to all of Apple’s products, likely beginning several years ago. There was a period of time when Apple kept hiring ex-ATI/AMD Graphics CTOs, first Bob Drebin and then Raja Koduri (although less public, Apple also hired chief CPU architects from AMD and ARM among other companies - but that’s another story for another time). You typically hire smart GPU guys if you’re building a GPU, the alternative is to hire them if you need to be able to work with existing GPU vendors to deliver the performance necessary to fulfill your dreams of GPU dominance.
In 2007 Intel promised to deliver a 10x improvement in integrated graphics performance by 2010:
In 2009 Apple hired Drebin and Koduri.
In 2010 Intel announced that the curve had shifted. Instead of 10x by 2010 the number was now 25x. Intel’s ramp was accelerated, and it stopped providing updates on just how aggressive it would be in the future. Paul Otellini’s keynote from IDF 2010 gave us all a hint of what’s to come (emphasis mine):
But there has been a fundamental shift since 2007. Great graphics performance is required, but it isn't sufficient anymore. If you look at what users are demanding, they are demanding an increasingly good experience, robust experience, across the spectrum of visual computing. Users care about everything they see on the screen, not just 3D graphics. And so delivering a great visual experience requires media performance of all types: in games, in video playback, in video transcoding, in media editing, in 3D graphics, and in display. And Intel is committed to delivering leadership platforms in visual computing, not just in PCs, but across the continuum.
Otellini’s keynote would set the tone for the next few years of Intel’s evolution as a company. Even after this keynote Intel made a lot of adjustments to its roadmap, heavily influenced by Apple. Mobile SoCs got more aggressive on the graphics front as did their desktop/notebook counterparts.
At each IDF I kept hearing about how Apple was the biggest motivator behind Intel’s move into the GPU space, but I never really understood the connection until now. The driving factor wasn’t just the demands of current applications, but rather a dramatic increase in display resolution across the lineup. It’s why Apple has been at the forefront of GPU adoption in its iDevices, and it’s why Apple has been pushing Intel so very hard on the integrated graphics revolution. If there’s any one OEM we can thank for having a significant impact on Intel’s roadmap, it’s Apple. And it’s just getting started.
Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge were both good steps for Intel, but Haswell and Broadwell are the designs that Apple truly wanted. As fond as Apple has been of using discrete GPUs in notebooks, it would rather get rid of them if at all possible. For many SKUs Apple has already done so. Haswell and Broadwell will allow Apple to bring integration to even some of the Pro-level notebooks.
To be quite honest, the hardware in the rMBP isn’t enough to deliver a consistently smooth experience across all applications. At 2880 x 1800 most interactions are smooth but things like zooming windows or scrolling on certain web pages is clearly sub-30fps. At the higher scaled resolutions, since the GPU has to render as much as 9.2MP, even UI performance can be sluggish. There’s simply nothing that can be done at this point - Apple is pushing the limits of the hardware we have available today, far beyond what any other OEM has done. Future iterations of the Retina Display MacBook Pro will have faster hardware with embedded DRAM that will help mitigate this problem. But there are other limitations: many elements of screen drawing are still done on the CPU, and as largely serial architectures their ability to scale performance with dramatically higher resolutions is limited.
Some elements of drawing in Safari for example aren’t handled by the GPU. Quickly scrolling up and down on the AnandTech home page will peg one of the four IVB cores in the rMBP at 100%:
The GPU has an easy time with its part of the process but the CPU’s workload is borderline too much for a single core to handle. Throw a more complex website at it and things get bad quickly. Facebook combines a lot of compressed images with text - every single image is decompressed on the CPU before being handed off to the GPU. Combine that with other elements that are processed on the CPU and you get a recipe for choppy scrolling.
To quantify exactly what I was seeing I measured frame rate while scrolling as quickly as possible through my Facebook news feed in Safari on the rMBP as well as my 2011 15-inch High Res MacBook Pro. While last year’s MBP delivered anywhere from 46 - 60 fps during this test, the rMBP hovered around 20 fps (18 - 24 fps was the typical range).
Scrolling in Safari on a 2011, High Res MBP - 51 fps
Scrolling in Safari on the rMBP - 21 fps
Remember at 2880 x 1800 there are simply more pixels to push and more work to be done by both the CPU and the GPU. It’s even worse in those applications that have higher quality assets: the CPU now has to decode images at 4x the resolution of what it’s used to. Future CPUs will take this added workload into account, but it’ll take time to get there.
The good news is Mountain Lion provides some relief. At WWDC Apple mentioned the next version of Safari is ridiculously fast, but it wasn’t specific about why. It turns out that Safari leverages Core Animation in Mountain Lion and more GPU accelerated as a result. Facebook is still a challenge because of the mixture of CPU decoded images and a standard web page, but the experience is a bit better. Repeating the same test as above I measured anywhere from 20 - 30 fps while scrolling through Facebook on ML’s Safari.
Whereas I would consider the rMBP experience under Lion to be borderline unacceptable, everything is significantly better under Mountain Lion. Don’t expect buttery smoothness across the board, you’re still asking a lot of the CPU and GPU, but it’s a lot better.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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.