I am confused... where did ya get 3k by 4.5k? Isnt it a 2560 by 1600 resolution? Also yeah, it isnt for gaming, but if you use a Mac for professional purposes, making a video or image at that resolution will be tough without 2GB of VRAM
This is partly due to the fact I steer well clear of Apple's product and Apple's hype.
To the best of my knowledge Apple is calling their "Retina Display", in the iPhone, a "retina display" because it has the same resolution as the human eye, which ostensibly, (at least according to Apple), is 300dpi.
If they've decided that that is no longer the case, or if they've chosen to call lower pixel per inch "retina display" as well, I'm not aware of it. Or if they're not calling the Mac Book Pro a "retina display" I'm not aware of that either. Any calculations I put down, were based on the iPhone BS.
From my point of view 2GB of Vram isn't necessary (?
), at the anticipated refresh / framing rates, which in the case of this notebook, should be nearly the same. (60 FPS).
I understand that that high end gaming cards have huge amounts of Vram, but their game framing rates can be in excess of 200FPS. In the case of the stated resolution of the Mac Book Pro, the video is only going to scale standard 1080P to the 2500ppi, not run a game at that actual resolution. When playing a 1080P source, does the Mac Book have black bars on the screen?
As far as the "retina display" concept goes, I continue to think it's nonsense. The smaller you make a pixel, the smaller it's angle of emission becomes. As that happens, the worse its off angle viewing becomes. I suspect the quickest way to resolve that, it to engineer light leakage between the cells. And doing so, kind of defeats the purpose. (IMO, of course).