Interesting. Thanks. Procs are faster in PS thanks to Ivy turbo biasing. MacBook's are memory bound. Pro wins for Pro job's.
I'd like to know how long it's capable of maintaining such speeds. If it can go on indefinitely, that's not so bad. His medium test if I recall correctly is really quite large in most terms. It has changed over the years. Medium is a 20k wide image. He doesn't mention height. That is the size of a very large comp. Even movie posters aren't typically worked on that large during final assembly, much less single photos assuming we're avoiding panoramas here. We're also talking about a series of filters and adjustments. Such things might be spaced out a lot more in a typical workflow meaning that the difference wouldn't feel as great as you wouldn't be sitting waiting for completion. It's important to note that photoshop scales horribly with core counts. If anything scales well I'd like to see him try some of the ray tracing functions in both photoshop and after effects given that regardless of details, ray tracing is going to carry some serious cpu overhead unless they're just using something stupid like a ball on a plane test.
In PS and most non super core optimized yes, it appears to be faster. I would think it would be based on specs. After Effects is the test I'd like to see. But I am one who is NOT buying the rMBP. I will need to upgrade my MBP but it will be one that I can upgrade. I don't want or need Apple to build solutions even more locked out than we already are getting. Because of my work I would need to carry around 3+ dongles to make rMBP useful. I have tons of Firewire drives, a Metric Halo ULN-2 for road recording, I need to make .dmg's with the superdrive weekly and then I need a gigE port to upload said .dmg's. Not for me. Would love the display but I am concerned with initial benefits until SW catches up. I pretty much can't stand ANY hardware or software based scaling. Looks like crap. Always. (I could be wrong on the rMBP screen though I have yet to see one)
PS is terribly optimized, and it seems like they've shoved the improvements into the Mercury Engine. If you want them, you need enough vram. Obviously it doesn't apply to everything. I don't blame you for not buying the rMBP. I was waiting to see what they'd do. Seeing the rMBP and rehashed rather than refreshed mac pros, I've lost interest. My 2011 mbp will tie me over while I get started building a custom box that I can update as hardware becomes available. I can deal with Windows.
After Effects should have around a 30% advantage on this one in cpu functions. If we're talking about 200 degree laptops, ram limitations, IO limits, and gpu acceleration, this could become a much wider gap in certain areas of the program, but it still depends on file size and functions to a degree. These tests aren't always indicative of the overall performance and functionality. If you're working at a desk, this display will in no way replace a solid desktop display in ergonomics, real estate (considering you don't really want tiny ui elements) and overall color stability. I see this as
marketing. I mean yes it's thin and light, but I thought the prior 15" was thin and light too. An improvement to me would be a machine that can keep fans to medium and never throttle.
I really don't mind certain things. If Apple was just waiting for stable hardware, that is one thing. I just don't like the direction of their machines. They haven't been reliable enough in the past for me to take the chance on something that is essentially unrepairable, especially with inherently expendable parts. Really who hasn't needed to change a battery or hard drive? Each cycle it becomes more of an issue and while most people don't really do this, they're likely to be annoyed if they ever find out how much it costs now when one dies on them.
