Mac Book with retina display, any good?

[vjrei]

Hi guys

I saw the MBP with retina display and it seems that so many pixels sucks a lot from the video ram.

As far as I know, when using external output the same video card is used for the main lcd as well.

Does anybody had any problem with the external video output when using a retina display MBP?

Thank you.

[vade]

Originally Posted by vjrei

Hi guys

I saw the MBP with retina display and it seems that so many pixels sucks a lot from the video ram.

As far as I know, when using external output the same video card is used for the main lcd as well.

Does anybody had any problem with the external video output when using a retina display MBP?

Thank you.

You didnt do much googling, did you? :P

http://resolume.com/blog/9643/vj-rev...na-macbook-pro

[madsmeskalin]

Does anybody know if it could support three triplehead2go? I have many old projectors, could be cool to do just cause it can be done.

[madsmeskalin]

Just wanted to tell you I got my base model retina last week and it works great. Havent tried switchresx to lower resolution during performance, but it ahould work. Had stable 40fps running multiple hd layers in Resolume ;-)

[sleepytom]

lowering the resolution of the gui will not speed anything up. Computers haven't worked like that for a very very long time.

As the resolume guys show you can do 3x 1080 outputs and a retina screen from the rMBP without any issues.

[madsmeskalin]

It doesn't? Hmmm.. thanks for the advice. I was reading some forums, and it seemed that alot of people thought so. Can you explain why lowering screen resolution won´t change performance? I thought the internal screen used the laptops graphic card thus logically lowering that resolution will leave some GPU processing power for the outputs.

[seriouscyrus]

I've been looking at the retina, but I ask myself if it's really worth the extra over a maxxed out non retina?

I'm pretty disappointed with the storage for example, the highest spec is less than my old MBP, and that's almost full. And it's an extra 500 on the price!.

As I understand it, it's still possible to replace the HD and/or optical drive in the non retina model, as well as upgrading the memory yourself to 16GB, whereas it's not possible to replace anything with the retina, so I'd be stuck with the spec I bought.

Seems like a lot of extra money to pay for just the screen resolution...

[madsmeskalin]

Depends on how you look at it. If you fit an ssd in the non-retina, you come up about the same price. And you get three screen outputs, and better resale value. I went for the basemodel 2.3 ghz, because I have to use an external disc anyway, and those extra 0,3 ghz doesnt really do anything for me. As for memory, I went with 8gb because by the time I need 16 my laptop is obsolete anyway. Most of my future editing will be done on the next desktop thingie from apple anyways.

But sleepytom, Im really curious why lowering screen rresolution dorsnt add anything to gpu processing power. Found bothing when I googled. Care to elaborate?

[lotech]

I do want one if only for it's 2 Thunderbolt ports (Capture AND output) but have read reviews that has reported some stuttering on basic web page viewing.
I do wonder if theres a cost to only have 1GB of VRAM and the ability to run 2880×1800 along with up to 3 external displays. It certainly seems to be pushing the envelope of a single GPU card - let alone one on a laptop.
My feeling is to wait until V2 where the GPU will be another generation better and hopefully a much better investment.

[Tony_Blend]

On the thread of the MBP Retina, looking at ordering one tomorrow and have a question regarding the processor options. The only difference between the 2.6 and 2.7 ghz i7 models is (aside from the obvious processor clock) is an extra 2mb of L2 cache.

I'm a bit rusty these days on L1 / L2 cache etc., and ask you all if that extra ram would be of benefit to regular VJ use.

See (http://www.everymac.com/ultimate-mac...=MacBookPro064)

Cheers,

T