Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [MacRumors] Apple to Launch 2880x1800 Resolution 'Retina Display' MacBook Pro in Q2 2012?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[MacRumors] Apple to Launch 2880x1800 Resolution 'Retina Display' MacBook Pro in Q2 2012? - Page 8

post #71 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelbom View Post

No, it wouldn't. Text would be the same size as it would on the 900p panel, only drawn with four times more detail. It's also exactly double 900p so we'd not see any graphical issues -- additionally, since Mac OS X and Windows aren't restricted to a specific resolution, the same could be done with a slightly higher resolution. For example, the 15 inch MacBook Pro has by default a 1440x900 resolution, and can be upgraded to a 1680x1050 resolution, if both became retina they would be 2880x1800 and 3360x2100 respectively. That'd offer the same amount of real estate as the two lower resolution panels since everything would be the same physical size, it's just there's more detail being drawn so it looks crisper.
There's no need to adjust the resolution since all that's happening is an increase in detail. The only exception is gaming, which you may need to lower to (e.g) 1440x900 which should look exactly the same as on a native 1440x900 panel. It's just 2880x1800 will look much more detailed and amazing thumb.gif

Thanks! I think I am slowly starting to understand.

Wait.. is it like this:

running 1366x768 on a 1920x1080 panel? Except in higher pixels and density (1080p on 2160p)?

Or were you saying that we should not run in the native resolution? Just set 1440x900 in the software to be show in a 2880x1800 display?

If so, then there's barely any practicality as it wouldn't increase work space?

Or would this eliminate those jaggies when occasionally zooming in and out of images?

I wouldn't mind if it won't jack up the price too much.

Really sorry as I am slow at understanding things.
Edited by tubers - 12/15/11 at 12:05am
Intel System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K 4.3Ghz @~1.344 V ASUS P8Z68 V PRO Sapphire HD5870 2GB Eyefinity 6 G.Skill Sniper 1866 Mhz 9-10-9-28@1T 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung F3 1TB, Maxtor 500GB, SG 1.5 TB LG Lightscribe Windows 7 64bit Samsung 2333HD (TN Panel) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
generic wireless keyboard from Logitech Antec TruePower New 650 watts NZXT Gamma dell optical 
Mouse Pad
simple 
  hide details  
Reply
Intel System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K 4.3Ghz @~1.344 V ASUS P8Z68 V PRO Sapphire HD5870 2GB Eyefinity 6 G.Skill Sniper 1866 Mhz 9-10-9-28@1T 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung F3 1TB, Maxtor 500GB, SG 1.5 TB LG Lightscribe Windows 7 64bit Samsung 2333HD (TN Panel) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
generic wireless keyboard from Logitech Antec TruePower New 650 watts NZXT Gamma dell optical 
Mouse Pad
simple 
  hide details  
Reply
post #72 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelbom View Post


HD graphics won't do well at 2880x1800 at all, but they'll do fine at 1440x900 which should look the same as it does now on a native 1440x900 panel.

Proof?

Intel's HD 3000 does not have the capabilities of 1024x768 at a reasonable framerate on anything but low settings. Best performance, on starcraft, would be 800x600, all settings low, running around 80 fps. No, 1440x900 with 3D is not going to happen on anything above graphics from 2001 (if intel even provides support for previous game engines).

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html

Given "Intel HD" rather then "Intel HD 2/3000", in laptops, I notice frame rate problems running the windows 7 GUI. Like, Intel is really crummy at anything unless properly tweaked by the user (which OSX is not as easy to tweak as windows).

Frame-rate problems running Windows 7s GUI? Seriously? I never noticed that on the last-generation 1156 CPUs running off an IGP, ever. And keep in mind that Intel is going to improve the IGP a lot for IB which is what these will probably ship with.

Also, my HD4200 (When overclocked) could run Fallout New Vegas at 1080p perfectly fine on low...I think it would work fine at 1440x900.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mootsfox View Post

I really don't see this happening within the next six months, year or even two. These resolutions are large and require a lot of horsepower to run. 4k at 60hz requires 2 dual link DVI or 2 displayports.

This. It seems like these rumour mills forget the most basic concepts of bandwidth limitations to make this happen.

It's a laptop, I'm fairly sure they could piggyback a dual DisplayPort interface or something similar and make it work.
My system
(22 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3770k @ 4.7Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB Pioneer DVR-220LBKS 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Bloatfree Edition BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Silverstone Strider Plus 600w Lian Li Lancool PC-K60 SteelSeries Sensei Professional Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large 
AudioOther
ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
My system
(22 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3770k @ 4.7Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB Pioneer DVR-220LBKS 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Bloatfree Edition BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Silverstone Strider Plus 600w Lian Li Lancool PC-K60 SteelSeries Sensei Professional Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large 
AudioOther
ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
post #73 of 108
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post

Proof?
Intel's HD 3000 does not have the capabilities of 1024x768 at a reasonable framerate on anything but low settings. Best performance, on starcraft, would be 800x600, all settings low, running around 80 fps. No, 1440x900 with 3D is not going to happen on anything above graphics from 2001 (if intel even provides support for previous game engines).
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html
Given "Intel HD" rather then "Intel HD 2/3000", in laptops, I notice frame rate problems running the windows 7 GUI. Like, Intel is really crummy at anything unless properly tweaked by the user (which OSX is not as easy to tweak as windows).
I wasn't suggesting you'd be able to play on high settings at that resolution, I was thinking of low-med when I was writing it. (Also, was specifically talking about HD 4000 graphics not Intel's HD graphics in general.) Look at this link from Notebookcheck: link

From the link:
Quote:
BFBC2 1366x768, medium, HBAO off, 1xAA, 1xAF, 25.4 fps
BFBC2 1366x768, high, HBAO on, 1xAA, 4xAF, 15.5 fps
Quote:
SC2 1360x768, high, 13.1 fps
SC2 1360x768, medium, 20.4 fps
SC2 1024x768, low, 94.4 fps

You should be able to play most games at 1440x900 on low and in some instances medium too, with the HD 4000 graphics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubers View Post

Thanks! I think I am slowly starting to understand.
Wait.. is it like this:
running 1366x768 on a 1920x1080 panel? Except in higher pixels and density (1080p on 2160p)?
Or were you saying that we should not run in the native resolution? Just set 1440x900 in the software to be show in a 2880x1800 display?
If so, then there's barely any practicality as it wouldn't increase work space?
Or would this eliminate those jaggies when occasionally zooming in and out of images?
I wouldn't mind if it won't jack up the price too much.
Really sorry as I am slow at understanding things.
No no, what I'm saying is that there isn't any difference between 1440x900 and 2880x1800 except that the latter allows better looking content. You'll have the same amount of work space as on the lower resolution panel. It would help to eliminate jaggies everywhere. It's the same as iOS. The iPhone 3GS had a 480x320 resolution on a 3.5 inch screen, and the iPhone 4 had a 960x640 resolution on a 3.5 inch screen, yet the physical size of the on-screen content is exactly the same on both devices with the only difference being the iPhone 4 has much crisper content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

It's a laptop, I'm fairly sure they could piggyback a dual DisplayPort interface or something similar and make it work.
Keep in mind though we're not talking about 4kx4k resolutions though, just 2880x1800 so it wouldn't be necessary would it?
Edited by steelbom - 12/15/11 at 12:26am
Kasuf
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 6600K ASRock Z170 Pro4 ASUS Radeon RX 480 ROG Strix Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB 3000MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingMonitorPower
Samsung 850 EVO Noctua NH-D15 LG 34" Ultrawide (LG34UC98) Corsair HX750i 
Case
Silverstone FT05B-W 
  hide details  
Reply
Kasuf
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 6600K ASRock Z170 Pro4 ASUS Radeon RX 480 ROG Strix Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB 3000MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingMonitorPower
Samsung 850 EVO Noctua NH-D15 LG 34" Ultrawide (LG34UC98) Corsair HX750i 
Case
Silverstone FT05B-W 
  hide details  
Reply
post #74 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelbom View Post

Keep in mind though we're not talking about 4kx4k resolutions though, just 2880x1800 so it wouldn't be necessary would it?

Don't think so, but my point was that it's a laptop. Apple could easily make them function in the long run.
My system
(22 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3770k @ 4.7Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB Pioneer DVR-220LBKS 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Bloatfree Edition BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Silverstone Strider Plus 600w Lian Li Lancool PC-K60 SteelSeries Sensei Professional Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large 
AudioOther
ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
My system
(22 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3770k @ 4.7Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB Pioneer DVR-220LBKS 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Bloatfree Edition BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Silverstone Strider Plus 600w Lian Li Lancool PC-K60 SteelSeries Sensei Professional Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large 
AudioOther
ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
post #75 of 108
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

Don't think so, but my point was that it's a laptop. Apple could easily make them function in the long run.
Ah right, yeah that's true.
Kasuf
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 6600K ASRock Z170 Pro4 ASUS Radeon RX 480 ROG Strix Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB 3000MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingMonitorPower
Samsung 850 EVO Noctua NH-D15 LG 34" Ultrawide (LG34UC98) Corsair HX750i 
Case
Silverstone FT05B-W 
  hide details  
Reply
Kasuf
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 6600K ASRock Z170 Pro4 ASUS Radeon RX 480 ROG Strix Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB 3000MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingMonitorPower
Samsung 850 EVO Noctua NH-D15 LG 34" Ultrawide (LG34UC98) Corsair HX750i 
Case
Silverstone FT05B-W 
  hide details  
Reply
post #76 of 108
Sounds good TBH at least apple are back to innovating rather than trolling.
I'm curious though as most macs are used for "work" Adobe CS work ect how useable will this be at that res in these apps as Cs5 uses GPU's quite a lot. 3d manipulation on this screen is going to be impossible without dropping the res due to the completly useless gpu's apple uses, lol and 3ds max would just be silly. yeah i hear you about switching the res down but then Whats the point!!!? if you can't game at this res and can't do serious work at that res.

What i get from this is a huge res screen that has to be turned down to game and probably turned down to "work". so a gizillion pounds to have a high res desktop wallpaer and high res word docs hmmmm way to go apple.
Skylake build
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 6700K MAXIMUS VIII RANGER EVGA GTX 1080 Classified Corsair Dominator Platinum 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Corsair Dominator Platinum Samsung 960 evo M.2 NVME Western digital Black Corsair H100i V2 
OSKeyboardPowerCase
Windows 10 Pro X64 Corsair K70 Lux EVGA 750 G2L Corsair 750D 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair Sabre  Corsair MM300 Senheiser GSP350 
  hide details  
Reply
Skylake build
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 6700K MAXIMUS VIII RANGER EVGA GTX 1080 Classified Corsair Dominator Platinum 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Corsair Dominator Platinum Samsung 960 evo M.2 NVME Western digital Black Corsair H100i V2 
OSKeyboardPowerCase
Windows 10 Pro X64 Corsair K70 Lux EVGA 750 G2L Corsair 750D 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair Sabre  Corsair MM300 Senheiser GSP350 
  hide details  
Reply
post #77 of 108
I agree, we have been stuck at 1080 for too long. what nearly ten years now?
New i7 950 build
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-950 @ 4.2ghz MSI Big Bang x58  Crossfire Sapphire 7970 OC  6gb HyperX 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
C300 64gb , Agility2 90gb, 2x WD greens Raid 0 Samsung 830 series 64gb H100 Windows 7 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
Crossover 1440p OCZ ZX850W Lian li Pc-x2000f 
  hide details  
Reply
New i7 950 build
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-950 @ 4.2ghz MSI Big Bang x58  Crossfire Sapphire 7970 OC  6gb HyperX 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
C300 64gb , Agility2 90gb, 2x WD greens Raid 0 Samsung 830 series 64gb H100 Windows 7 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
Crossover 1440p OCZ ZX850W Lian li Pc-x2000f 
  hide details  
Reply
post #78 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild View Post

Intel HD3000 is an overall poor choice for gaming (although it is a big step from the last gen integrated chips). However, it can handle Hl2 and L4D2 at 1440x900 and medium settings. It also fares okay at Civ5 (native res again) at around 20fps at low - which is playable for a turned-base strategy game. So you're definitely underestimating its power. It can't play everything new, but games before 2007 are completely playable at native resolution/medium settings.

Ivy Bridge integrated chips will have 30% more performance, and so they would allow for a decent entry gaming experience. Plus, the gaming doesn't have to be done at the hypothetical native res, I think 900p should be fine for most games.
[/quote]

We aren't talking about desktop components.
post #79 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelbom View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post

Proof?
Intel's HD 3000 does not have the capabilities of 1024x768 at a reasonable framerate on anything but low settings. Best performance, on starcraft, would be 800x600, all settings low, running around 80 fps. No, 1440x900 with 3D is not going to happen on anything above graphics from 2001 (if intel even provides support for previous game engines).
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html
Given "Intel HD" rather then "Intel HD 2/3000", in laptops, I notice frame rate problems running the windows 7 GUI. Like, Intel is really crummy at anything unless properly tweaked by the user (which OSX is not as easy to tweak as windows).
I wasn't suggesting you'd be able to play on high settings at that resolution, I was thinking of low-med when I was writing it. (Also, was specifically talking about HD 4000 graphics not Intel's HD graphics in general.) Look at this link from Notebookcheck: link

From the link:
Quote:
BFBC2 1366x768, medium, HBAO off, 1xAA, 1xAF, 25.4 fps
BFBC2 1366x768, high, HBAO on, 1xAA, 4xAF, 15.5 fps
Quote:
SC2 1360x768, high, 13.1 fps
SC2 1360x768, medium, 20.4 fps
SC2 1024x768, low, 94.4 fps

You should be able to play most games at 1440x900 on low and in some instances medium too, with the HD 4000 graphics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubers View Post

Thanks! I think I am slowly starting to understand.
Wait.. is it like this:
running 1366x768 on a 1920x1080 panel? Except in higher pixels and density (1080p on 2160p)?
Or were you saying that we should not run in the native resolution? Just set 1440x900 in the software to be show in a 2880x1800 display?
If so, then there's barely any practicality as it wouldn't increase work space?
Or would this eliminate those jaggies when occasionally zooming in and out of images?
I wouldn't mind if it won't jack up the price too much.
Really sorry as I am slow at understanding things.
No no, what I'm saying is that there isn't any difference between 1440x900 and 2880x1800 except that the latter allows better looking content. You'll have the same amount of work space as on the lower resolution panel. It would help to eliminate jaggies everywhere. It's the same as iOS. The iPhone 3GS had a 480x320 resolution on a 3.5 inch screen, and the iPhone 4 had a 960x640 resolution on a 3.5 inch screen, yet the physical size of the on-screen content is exactly the same on both devices with the only difference being the iPhone 4 has much crisper content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

It's a laptop, I'm fairly sure they could piggyback a dual DisplayPort interface or something similar and make it work.
Keep in mind though we're not talking about 4kx4k resolutions though, just 2880x1800 so it wouldn't be necessary would it?

20 fps is not playable.
post #80 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelbom View Post


HD graphics won't do well at 2880x1800 at all, but they'll do fine at 1440x900 which should look the same as it does now on a native 1440x900 panel.

Proof?

Intel's HD 3000 does not have the capabilities of 1024x768 at a reasonable framerate on anything but low settings. Best performance, on starcraft, would be 800x600, all settings low, running around 80 fps. No, 1440x900 with 3D is not going to happen on anything above graphics from 2001 (if intel even provides support for previous game engines).

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html

Given "Intel HD" rather then "Intel HD 2/3000", in laptops, I notice frame rate problems running the windows 7 GUI. Like, Intel is really crummy at anything unless properly tweaked by the user (which OSX is not as easy to tweak as windows).

Frame-rate problems running Windows 7s GUI? Seriously? I never noticed that on the last-generation 1156 CPUs running off an IGP, ever. And keep in mind that Intel is going to improve the IGP a lot for IB which is what these will probably ship with.

Also, my HD4200 (When overclocked) could run Fallout New Vegas at 1080p perfectly fine on low...I think it would work fine at 1440x900.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mootsfox View Post

I really don't see this happening within the next six months, year or even two. These resolutions are large and require a lot of horsepower to run. 4k at 60hz requires 2 dual link DVI or 2 displayports.

This. It seems like these rumour mills forget the most basic concepts of bandwidth limitations to make this happen.

It's a laptop, I'm fairly sure they could piggyback a dual DisplayPort interface or something similar and make it work.

We are talking about laptops remember? And Intel HD, not Intel HD XXXX graphics. That's what steelbom said.

Furthermore, mobile HD3000 does not perform as the desktop variant.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [MacRumors] Apple to Launch 2880x1800 Resolution 'Retina Display' MacBook Pro in Q2 2012?