|
Bad news for Logic users?...... (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| topoftheworld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seandroid
No... it isn't. The 15" Retina Display Macbook Pro has an NVIDIA GeForce GT 650m with 1GB of discreet graphics AND the Intel GMA 4000.
It has both. It uses the 650m when you're doing anything graphically intensive and it uses the Intel GMA 4000 when battery life is more valuable. The operating system dynamically switches between the two graphics processors depending on what you're doing.
See:
http://www.apple.com/ca/macbook-pro/specs-retina/
It's only the 13" that just has the integrated Intel GMA 4000. The 15" has its own discreet GPU. I own one and it's a beast. |
are you running logic on it by any chance? if so how does it perform? |
|
|
| Seandroid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
it has the same processor i have and i got mine a year and a bit ago. Retina display is beyond stupid. It isn't a beast. The only mac product you could tie that quantifier to would be the mac pro but you would need a time machine. |
No.... It doesn't. It has an Intel Ivy Bridge i7 which is the most current generation of CPUs. Clock speed doesn't mean anything anymore.
"Powering the Retina Display MacBook Pro is Intel’s latest and greatest quad-core Core i7. A part of the new 22nm Ivy Bridge family the Intel silicon in the system is well done as always. The default configuration ships with a 2.3GHz quad-core offering, while the upgraded option is clocked at 2.6GHz. Apple offers one more upgrade at 2.7GHz while upping the L3 cache to 8MB. Since these are i7s all of them have Hyper Threading enabled, making the major difference between parts frequency and cache size in the case of the most upgraded part."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/2
| quote: | Originally posted by topoftheworld
are you running logic on it by any chance? if so how does it perform? |
Great. |
|
|
| topoftheworld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seandroid
No.... It doesn't. It has an Intel Ivy Bridge i7 which is the most current generation of CPUs. Clock speed doesn't mean anything anymore.
"Powering the Retina Display MacBook Pro is Intel’s latest and greatest quad-core Core i7. A part of the new 22nm Ivy Bridge family the Intel silicon in the system is well done as always. The default configuration ships with a 2.3GHz quad-core offering, while the upgraded option is clocked at 2.6GHz. Apple offers one more upgrade at 2.7GHz while upping the L3 cache to 8MB. Since these are i7s all of them have Hyper Threading enabled, making the major difference between parts frequency and cache size in the case of the most upgraded part."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/...isplay-review/2
Great. |
interesting, complete opposite of what the previous person said, i wonder what the factors are to cause it to chug on the exact same system and run smooth on another. i'll have to dig more into this. |
|
|
| jayxthekoolest |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seandroid
Clock speed doesn't mean anything anymore.
|
Lol. Clockspeed is by far the most important factor. However, the i7 does have additional power beyond clockspeed compared to a duo. Namely the turbo boosts and multicore support. But clockspeed is still the #1 thing that currently separates desktops from latops. You can run sooo many more plugins on a desktop than a laptop due entirely to clockspeed. n00b |
|
|
| Seandroid |
| quote: | Originally posted by jayxthekoolest
Lol. Clockspeed is by far the most important factor. However, the i7 does have additional power beyond clockspeed compared to a duo. Namely the turbo boosts and multicore support. But clockspeed is still the #1 thing that currently separates desktops from latops. You can run sooo many more plugins on a desktop than a laptop due entirely to clockspeed. n00b |
That is simply not true. The clock speed of a CPU is very rarely the bottleneck anymore, at least on higher end PCs. If you genuinely think an i3 and an i7 running at the same speed will perform just as well as each other you're nuts. (And simply wrong.)
I was obviously exaggerating about it meaning nothing, it definitely means something but it's not always the most important thing to look for. I'd rather a 2.3GHz i7 with a larger L3 cache than an i3 running at 2.6. |
|
|
| jayxthekoolest |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seandroid
That is simply not true. The clock speed of a CPU is very rarely the bottleneck anymore, at least on higher end PCs. If you genuinely think an i3 and an i7 running at the same speed will perform just as well as each other you're nuts. (And simply wrong.)
I was obviously exaggerating about it meaning nothing, it definitely means something but it's not always the most important thing to look for. I'd rather a 2.3GHz i7 with a larger L3 cache than an i3 running at 2.6. |
i'm sayin an overclocked desktop 4.5ghz i7 is faster than a 2.7 ghz i7 on a laptop. lrn 2 read n00b |
|
|
| Seandroid |
| quote: | Originally posted by jayxthekoolest
i'm sayin an overclocked desktop 4.5ghz i7 is faster than a 2.7 ghz i7 on a laptop. lrn 2 read n00b |
Well no . I was referring to Looney's statement that the older CPUs in the pros were the same as the current ones because the clock speeds were the same or similar. They are not. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
the mid 2011 have the i7 6 Mb cache sandy. The ivy is a bit better but in terms of performance that would relate to production, negligible, and considering your running a production computer with retina display, i'm pretty sure my 2011 laptop can handle more and doesn't have any issues what so ever. I also didn't have to pay an arm and a leg for my 16g of ram and 2 ssds.
And they sell the non retina version. Why bother. It is such a stupid concept. |
|
|
| Seandroid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
the mid 2011 have the i7 6 Mb cache sandy. The ivy is a bit better but in terms of performance that would relate to production, negligible, and considering your running a production computer with retina display, i'm pretty sure my 2011 laptop can handle more and doesn't have any issues what so ever. I also didn't have to pay an arm and a leg for my 16g of ram and 2 ssds.
And they sell the non retina version. Why bother. It is such a stupid concept. |
The retina display is ing amazing. It's hard to go back once you've used it. Why object to the advancement of technology? Logic isn't exactly taxing on the GPU... |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| you don't get extra real estate. Giving a small screen more resolution doesn't really do much. You get less aliasing which i could give a about. Get a bigger screen or use a monitor. |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
you don't get extra real estate. Giving a small screen more resolution doesn't really do much. You get less aliasing which i could give a about. Get a bigger screen or use a monitor. |
really? you haven't found aliasing to be a massive hinderance on your creative process?
looks like the non retina macbook pros are cheaper than ever... thats where i would head.... but i think a hackintosh might be in my future... im a tinkerer but im not gonna be able to afford a mac pro in the next 2 years and one of the older but newer than xp windows seems pretty stable 7 was it?
just no internet ever, porn on the mbp laptop forevermore |
|
|
| Seandroid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
you don't get extra real estate. Giving a small screen more resolution doesn't really do much. You get less aliasing which i could give a about. Get a bigger screen or use a monitor. |
There is an option in the display settings to run everything at its native resolution and get the screen realestate of a 27" iMac. You can use it to get the screen real estate...
It's retina by default but you can set it to not pixel-double. |
|
|
|
|
