New Haswell/Intel Iris 13" Retina MacBook Pro - and WoW!

[Kronyk88]

Hi all

I'm in the market for a new machine currently, will be mainly a work machine but I do plan on doing a solid amount of gaming as well on the side. I'm not looking for insane graphics, I don't particularly care to have video settings on ultra by any means. I was curious what kind of performance the new models w/ Haswell & Iris graphics are putting out relative to the previous generation 13" rMBP for world of warcraft and d3 specifically. From what i've read the Intel Iris GPU is a major jump forward and will probably be enough for my needs! Any input would be greatly appreciated

MacBook Pro with Retina display, OS X Mavericks (10.9)

[BicycleMafioso]

What do you have now and what do you do in Wow?

Iris is still integrated graphics, mind you.

[Tehterokkar]

Definitely get the version with Dedicated GPU. The Integrated Graphics are very low in graphical power and aren't so well supported(not many performance updates for games etc.)

Unless I'm blind or something, the only MacBook Pro(15'') with a dedicated GPU is GT 750M and costs 2649€.

Have you thought of using Linux? I think you can get OS X Apps to work on Linux somehow(Wine?). You could probably buy a non-ripoff laptop with much more powerful components for half as much. It's worth checking out and maybe buying the laptop off a site where you can custom choose parts as you like.

Edit: Forgot to mention with a Windows-based Laptop, you can setup a Dualboot for Linux(Work in your case) and Windows(Gaming/Personal stuff).

[Kronyk88]

I currently have a PC running windows 8 that is my primary game machine, it is more than capable for WoW on ultra

My current laptop is my work machine and also my WoW portal when im at my girlfriends house lol (she's awesome). For the work related reasons and my personal love of OSX, i'm 100% sold on staying in the Apple ecosystem for my next laptop...all price min-maxing isn't an issue for me.

I wanted to be able to run dungeons, bgs, a raid here or there perhaps. Hoping for decent frame rates, @ mid level graphics settings.

One thing that I have seen repeatedly is that the intel haswell chipset (iris gpu) is actually leagues ahead of any other previous integrated gpu. A few benchmarks I have seen show comparable performance to some models with dedicated gpu's as well! One thing holding me back is that those benchmarks are on normal displays, not retina displays. Any thoughts?

[BicycleMafioso]

Only previous Intel GPU. AMD integrated GPU are still better.

Retina displays are not harder to run on, retina doesn't exist. High-resolutions + integrated goes away though. Just lower resolution to 720p and you should be able to run it. Or at best 1600x900. I wouldn't raid on it though.

[Kronyk88]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by retina not existing? A little confused haha

[BicycleMafioso]

Retina is sales gibberish. There's nothing magical about them, there's nothing that separates them from other high-resolutions.

[Rixis]

It's apples way of saying the screen displays a higher resolution. So a 13 inch may show 1080p where you'd expect it to be smaller.

[Eled.]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by retina not existing? A little confused haha

"Retina" is indeed a word used for marketing rather than a specific kind of technology, or even a technical norm.
It's just that your 13" MBP has the same resolution as a 27-30" display, 2560x1600 (on the software side these pixels are used in a way that differs from traditional resolutions, but there's nothing special about them).
And if you want good performance on a 27" display, you need a pretty decent GPU. In that regard, the 13" MBP is way off the grid for gaming performance, it's just not powerful enough.

Anyway, I don't consider it a problem if you don't want "über-superior graphics" : just don't play in retina resolution. Play in 1280x800 or 1440x900, it'll be the same as playing on a non-retina screen and you'll have better performance.

[Kronyk88]

"Retina" is indeed a word used for marketing rather than a specific kind of technology, or even a technical norm.
It's just that your 13" MBP has the same resolution as a 27-30" display, 2560x1600 (on the software side these pixels are used in a way that differs from traditional resolutions, but there's nothing special about them).
And if you want good performance on a 27" display, you need a pretty decent GPU. In that regard, the 13" MBP is way off the grid for gaming performance, it's just not powerful enough.

Anyway, I don't consider it a problem if you don't want "über-superior graphics" : just don't play in retina resolution. Play in 1280x800 or 1440x900, it'll be the same as playing on a non-retina screen and you'll have better performance.

Ah, was totally misunderstanding what the other guy was saying. I work as a web developer & do a little ios/android dev on the side as well... I am very familiar with what a retina screen is lol, fully comprehend how screen resolutions work blah blah...threw me for a loop saying "retina doesn't exist"...haha.

Anyways, yes, absolutely, my point in asking the question was that regardless of the 13" monitor size, its going to have to power a 2560x1600 screen, versus looking at a benchmark of that same exact processor/gpu on a 1280x800 screen. So is the massive increase in resolution going to cripple gameplay on "retina" whereas it would be fine on a comparable spec machine without retina graphics?

And thanks for the advice, I probably won't have an issue playing at a reduced resolution honestly, the retina screen is primarily for screen glare/sharpness while coding

[Tehterokkar]

Integrated GPUs are total crap for anything gaming, they are there for just because it needs a GPU to run basic tasks. My laptop has a medium GPU(660M) and it's miles ahead of the Iris I-GPU, not to mention you don't get the added benefits of constant driver updates for newer titles + enhanced performance for existing ones.

[Kronyk88]

Integrated GPUs are total crap for anything gaming, they are there for just because it needs a GPU to run basic tasks. My laptop has a medium GPU(660M) and it's miles ahead of the Iris I-GPU, not to mention you don't get the added benefits of constant driver updates for newer titles + enhanced performance for existing ones.

I realize that this has generally been the case...but i'm looking for SPECIFIC advice with this specific machine.

Take a look at this write up (its the Iris 5100). Any thoughts on that?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6926/i...e-gets-a-brand

[Tehterokkar]

I realize that this has generally been the case...but i'm looking for SPECIFIC advice with this specific machine.

Take a look at this write up (its the Iris 5100). Any thoughts on that?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6926/i...e-gets-a-brand

That's comparison between the old Intel HD I-GPU and the new gen(Hashwell) different types. Kind of a "no shit" situation here when they are comparing i7-4950HQ(Strongest mobile CPU for consumer use atm, I believe) against older/worse.

[Kronyk88]

"Intel’s performance target for the highest end configuration (GT3e) is designed to go up against NVIDIA’s GeForce GT 650M, a performance target it will hit and miss depending on the benchmark. "

the GT650m is what was in the previous generation 15" rMBP I believe, correct? So if this 13" model is comparable to the Iris PRO in the new 15" model...i'm not really going to see too much of a difference...am i?

- - - Updated - - -

I currently have to play on a "NVIDIA GeForce 320M 256 MB" when i use my laptop...as long as its significantly better than that...

[BicycleMafioso]

"Intel’s performance target for the highest end configuration (GT3e) is designed to go up against NVIDIA’s GeForce GT 650M, a performance target it will hit and miss depending on the benchmark. "

the GT650m is what was in the previous generation 15" rMBP I believe, correct? So if this 13" model is comparable to the Iris PRO in the new 15" model...i'm not really going to see too much of a difference...am i?

- - - Updated - - -

I currently have to play on a "NVIDIA GeForce 320M 256 MB" when i use my laptop...as long as its significantly better than that...

13" is GT3 and not GT3e, though; HD5100.
It is also likely to be held back through firmware, and/or hold the CPU turbo back, if I understand Haswell mobile iGPUs. I probably don't, though.

It would be better than the 320M, yes. But. At the same resolutions. Would it be better at 2560x1600 than the 320M GT is at 1280x800 which the older MBP's had, 1/4 of the pixels? Doubt it.

[Kraszmyl]

13" is GT3 and not GT3e, though; HD5100.
It is also likely to be held back through firmware, and/or hold the CPU turbo back, if I understand Haswell mobile iGPUs. I probably don't, though.

It would be better than the 320M, yes. But. At the same resolutions. Would it be better at 2560x1600 than the 320M GT is at 1280x800 which the older MBP's had, 1/4 of the pixels? Doubt it.

Actually it would be considerably better. The 320m 256m is a customish gpu derived from the ancient 9400m for apple and its frankly pretty god awful at everything.

The 5100 is anywhere from 50-130% faster depending on the workload. Even if they are referring to a non apple gt320m the 5100 is still more powerful and feature rich but to lets say a 20-50% margin.

OSX from what I understand doesn't actually present games and such at the native resolution of the retina displays if I recall correctly. Or atleast I know the UI elements receive some sort of upscalling/downscaling.....that it any of that is really relevant I guess.

Anyway the 5100 should play wow on medium settings just fine in the Mac world , maybe a bit more if you mess with the settings and apple didn't gimp the thermals to much.

You can also have the game render at half the retinas resolution full screen and it should look fine without the blur youd get from lets say going from 1920x1080 to 1440x900 or 1200x720. So theres another performance boost you can nab. Also if youre willing to dualboot there are the dx11 optimizations that would help too.

[Kronyk88]

Actually it would be considerably better. The 320m 256m is a customish gpu derived from the ancient 9400m for apple and its frankly pretty god awful at everything.

The 5100 is anywhere from 50-130% faster depending on the workload. Even if they are referring to a non apple gt320m the 5100 is still more powerful and feature rich but to lets say a 20-50% margin.

OSX from what I understand doesn't actually present games and such at the native resolution of the retina displays if I recall correctly. Or atleast I know the UI elements receive some sort of upscalling/downscaling.....that it any of that is really relevant I guess.

Anyway the 5100 should play wow on medium settings just fine in the Mac world , maybe a bit more if you mess with the settings and apple didn't gimp the thermals to much.

You can also have the game render at half the retinas resolution full screen and it should look fine without the blur youd get from lets say going from 1920x1080 to 1440x900 or 1200x720. So theres another performance boost you can nab. Also if youre willing to dualboot there are the dx11 optimizations that would help too.

THANK YOU

this is exactly what I was looking for, spot on.

+1 internets

[Faithh]

Retina just means how "enjoyable" it is to read text. A sweet spot between ideal PPI (pixels per inch) and the distance between the display and your eyes. There's no technology behind it obviously

[Kraszmyl]

Retina just means how "enjoyable" it is to read text. A sweet spot between ideal PPI (pixels per inch) and the distance between the display and your eyes. There's no technology behind it obviously

The retina moniker denotes a high resolution display for the panel. The retina branded display in the 15 pro is 2880x1800 and the one in the 13 pro is 2560x1600 which sub divide into more normal resolutions for gaming without any of the normal associated stretch you would see if you were attempting to play something at 1366x786 on lets say a 1440x900 display. When the retina branded displays run their full resolution then yes you get shaper images and text and more area to work with for documents and pictures. All of which is variable based on your scaling which OSX does rather well and youll only get comparable scaling out of Windows 8 and 7 depending on what youre looking for.

So yes there is plenty of technology behind it and it does affect his gaming.

The little hd5100 would cry and attempt to kill itself trying to push the 4096000 pixels at the native resolution where as running wow full screen at 1440x900 instead while keeping a good ratio and pushing a more manageable 1296000 pixels will make the 5100 a playable and in theory enjoyable experience.

Edit x2 - to OP

Side note if you can afford it, get the i7 because the hd5100 will have a higher turbo clock rate.

Also if you can afford the 16 gigs of ram that will help in theory with the ssd longevity, it does in Linux and Windows systems so I would assume it does in OSX but I couldn't tell you for sure because I haven't seen anyone test it and I don't personally have a OSX machine with an ssd currently.

But the i7 is a more important upgrade for that little bit of extra boost if you're able to splurge for it or would have to pick between ram/i7.

Edit x2

Just noticed the 128g version comes with a 4g base which will force a lot of writes/reads to virtual memory on the ssd. The 256g Version with the 8 gigs of ram and the i7 are your best deal on cost to performance ratio. for 1799.

If you were going to consider the 512g one within your price range I would heavily suggest going to the base line 15inch retina instead since it has the iris pro , 8 gigs of ram, and a quad i7 for the same price and if you can tolerate the extra couple of inches a hell of a better machine.

[Faithh]

So yes there is plenty of technology behind it and it does affect his gaming.

From wiki: "according to Apple, have a high enough pixel density that the human eye is unable to notice pixelation at a typical viewing distance."

So basically a cheap 85$ 22" 1080p is retina too? Yea why not? There's no technology behind it especially if they upgraded their Ipad from a 720p to a 1440p display and made the text just bigger or otherwise its too small to read.

Filling an inch with more pixels is not something they do but rather Samsung orsomething since Apple doesnt even make their own displays except giving it some aluminium or glass and a big nice Apple logo.