PDA

View Full Version : 13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Coming in October?




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jun 14, 2012, 11:12 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/15/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-coming-in-october/)


Four days before the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro was introduced, KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo released a report (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/08/apple-to-introduce-third-macbook-line-with-retina-display-at-wwdc/) claiming that Apple would launch the machine alongside the then-current MacBook Pro line rather than as a direct replacement.

Kuo's report turned out to be nearly exactly on point, as was the case with his April report claiming that Apple would discontinue the 17-inch MacBook Pro (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/23/apple-predicted-to-discontinue-17-inch-macbook-pro/), and so it pays to revisit his Retina MacBook line claims to see what the future might hold.

In that report, Kuo claimed that the 13-inch MacBook Pro would likely arrive in the August timeframe at the earliest, with the machine's release being held back by display yield and challenges with heat dissipation in the smaller body.[W]e don't expect the new 13" MacBook to be available until after August this year, as it has limited space for thermal dissipation and uses a lower-yield retinal display than the 15" version.http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/kuo_retina_macbook_launch_windows.jpg


Figure from Kuo's June 7 report with estimated launch info for 2012 MacBook lineup
With the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro now available, Kuo has released a new report taking another look at Apple's plans for the 13-inch version, and AppleInsider reports (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/14/apple_expected_to_launch_13_retina_macbook_pro_by_early_oct.html) that he is now estimating a September production ramp for the machine with an early October launch to follow.Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo of KGI shared in a note with AppleInsider on Thursday that he expects Apple to ramp up production of a 13-inch next-generation MacBook Pro with Retina display in September. That would allow the product to hit stores in early October, in time for the holiday shopping season.In his note last week, Kuo predicted that the 15-inch Retina model would carry a thickness of 19 millimeters (0.75 inches), while the 13-inch model could come in slightly thinner at 18 millimeters (0.71 inches). But the 15-inch model Apple actually introduced already comes in at the 18 millimeter figure, so it is unclear whether Apple would be able trim any additional thickness off for the 13-inch model.

Potentially supporting the idea of a 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro being in testing is the discovery (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1386082) of a "MacBookPro10,2" listing (http://burgos.emeraldion.it/mbl/list/MacBookPro10,2) in the results database for the battery utility app MiniBatteryLogger. The 15-inch MacBook Pro carries a designation of "MacBookPro10,1", and while the MacBookPro10,2 designation could presumably have been faked, there are several indications that it may be legitimate.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/macbookpro102_battery.jpg


First, the database entry appeared on April 25, well ahead of much specific information on the Retina MacBook Pro that might have helped create a legitimate-looking fake entry. Second, the machine's battery registers a design capacity of 6580 mAh, roughly 14% greater than the 5770 mAh battery found in the non-Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro. By comparison, the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro's 8460 mAh battery has roughly 22.5% greater capacity than the 6900 mAh battery in the non-Retina model.

While the battery capacity ratios between corresponding Retina and non-Retina MacBook Pro batteries would not be exactly the same if this MacBookPro10,2 is indeed a genuine 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro, they are at least in the same range and one could imagine that a smaller display and lack of a discrete graphics card could shrink the amount of capacity boost needed to power a 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro.

Article Link: 13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Coming in October? (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/15/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-coming-in-october/)



wordoflife
Jun 14, 2012, 11:14 PM
That would be really nice. The 13" is actually a really nice size.
Also, $2000+ is a bit too much for some people to fork out on a laptop.

urbanj
Jun 14, 2012, 11:15 PM
Now this I would buy.

The 15" is way too pricy for me for what it is.

siurpeeman
Jun 14, 2012, 11:16 PM
just as long as it's higher than 1280x800 doubled.

drewisanapple
Jun 14, 2012, 11:17 PM
For personal use, I'd love this.

The 15.4 model is great for work though.

AndrewForeva
Jun 14, 2012, 11:17 PM
I would definitely buy it as long as its resolution is higher than 1280x800

Nobita
Jun 14, 2012, 11:18 PM
Wow, Macbook Air 13", Macbook Pro 13", or Retina Macbook Pro 13"?

That'd be very confusing. At least now there's only max 2 variations of each size.

MOKHAN
Jun 14, 2012, 11:18 PM
We can only hope at this point.

Skika
Jun 14, 2012, 11:21 PM
Wow, Macbook Air 13", Macbook Pro 13", or Retina Macbook Pro 13"?

That'd be very confusing. At least now there's only max 2 variations of each size.

OMG 3 choices for a 13 inch laptop, that is really confusing, poor customers :rolleyes:

aa521490
Jun 14, 2012, 11:25 PM
I want 1.

Navdakilla
Jun 14, 2012, 11:25 PM
Uh oh. Right when I was about to order a 13" air.
Looks like I will hold off a little longer to see what's cooking at apple

scarred
Jun 14, 2012, 11:25 PM
Looking forward to it!

Nickpocalypse
Jun 14, 2012, 11:26 PM
At US$1,200, I feel like this'll be the MacBook Pro to buy. I wonder if it'll have the same graphics card as the 15"?

zeromeus
Jun 14, 2012, 11:26 PM
I don't necessarily need retina, but I was really hoping for the 13" MBP to come lighter and thinner. I was so disappointed with the announcement and went ahead with the purchase of the 13" MBA. So... I'm good for another 3-5 years.... unless Apple decides to announce the release of a 13" thinner, lighter MBP on Monday.

moderngamenewb
Jun 14, 2012, 11:27 PM
My guess is the 13inch retina macbook pro price would be half way between the regular macbook pro, and the 15inch retina macbook pro. It'll probably be in the $1500 price range.$999 for 13inch MacBook Air, $1199 13inch regular MacBook Pro, $1599 13inchRetina MacBook Pro, and $2199 15inch Retina MacBook Pro. That's my guess on the prices if a 13inch Retina MacBook Pro does come out.

CarlHeanerd
Jun 14, 2012, 11:28 PM
This would be nice, but seems premature. What low-heat / energy-efficient candidate is there for a GPU that wouldn't buckle under high resolution displays? I can't imagine the Intel 4000 doing the job without strain when under higher loads, especially when rendering, using OpenCL, or gaming; hardly "pro" performance. The issue is going to be further compounded if they intend on making it just as thin as the 15" model. It just seems impractical right now.

smulji
Jun 14, 2012, 11:29 PM
I would definitely buy it as long as its resolution is higher than 1280x800

It's a retina 13" MB Pro, of course it's going to be higher than 1280x800. If this comes to fruition, my guess it'll be 2560x1600 resolution. This is definitely good news. I'd prefer a 13" Pro over a 15" Pro simply for the portability.

cult hero
Jun 14, 2012, 11:29 PM
This is the machine I was waiting for. I almost broke down and got myself a 13" Air but... I thought this might be coming.

I sense it will double the 1280x800 since doubling the 1440x900 on the MBA would give it a resolution identical to the 15" MBP. That just doesn't seem likely.

I'll be ordering one of these the second they come out.

smulji
Jun 14, 2012, 11:30 PM
This would be nice, but seems premature. What low-heat / energy efficient candidate is there for a GPU that wouldn't groan under high resolution displays? I can't imagine the Intel 4000 doing the job without strain under higher loads.... hardly "pro". The issue is going to be further compounded if they intend on making it just as thin as the 15" model.

As long as you're not into gaming, the Intel 4000 is capable of driving retina displays.

cult hero
Jun 14, 2012, 11:31 PM
At US$1,200, I feel like this'll be the MacBook Pro to buy. I wonder if it'll have the same graphics card as the 15"?

I'll eat my hat if it's released at that price. Ain't gonna happen though.

natejohnstone@g
Jun 14, 2012, 11:31 PM
I can see the 13" retina becoming very popular when it comes out (I'll probably get one for my wife when we need to upgrade her computer).

But what I want is a 17" MBP w/RD! The old 17" MBP is a big beast, but I love it because of the power and all the screen space. A 17" RD would be the perfect computer for me!!

technopimp
Jun 14, 2012, 11:31 PM
It's a retina 13" MB Pro, of course it's going to be higher than 1280x800. If this comes to fruition, my guess it'll be 2560x1600 resolution. This is definitely good news. I'd prefer a 13" Pro over a 15" Pro simply for the portability.

Yes, but the problem with the Retina display is you still only get an effective 1280x800 resolution, except for some apps that MAY take advantage of the full resolution in full screen.

1280x800 is WAY too low for a 13" laptop. My 11" Air has higher resolution. I know Retina "looks nice", but, c'mon...

TheGenerous
Jun 14, 2012, 11:32 PM
bollocks

zeromeus
Jun 14, 2012, 11:32 PM
Wow, Macbook Air 13", Macbook Pro 13", or Retina Macbook Pro 13"?

That'd be very confusing. At least now there's only max 2 variations of each size.

OMG there are THREE different 13" Macbooks... whatever shall I do...? I'm so confused now! :rolleyes: How dare Apple give us 30 different 3.5" iPhones, 16 different 9.7" iPads, and now this... ! :rolleyes:

sshhoott
Jun 14, 2012, 11:34 PM
Would this be using the Sharp's IGZO technology? I'm quite optimistic about it because of its claim to decrease power consumption by 90%! Imagine getting a full 10 hour battery instead of 7 while having a retina display.

isoMorpheus
Jun 14, 2012, 11:35 PM
Am I right to assume that MacBook Air would not get Retina, at least for now, because of battery life concerns?

afurry13
Jun 14, 2012, 11:35 PM
At US$1,200, I feel like this'll be the MacBook Pro to buy. I wonder if it'll have the same graphics card as the 15"?

I will put any amount of money on it not being $1200. $1500 is more like it.

DisMyMac
Jun 14, 2012, 11:35 PM
Wow, Macbook Air 13", Macbook Pro 13", or Retina Macbook Pro 13"? That'd be very confusing. At least now there's only max 2 variations of each size.

The only thing that makes sense is for a future 13" to be Air, Pro, and Retina combined. (Then a year or two later, the 11" and 15" as well.)

na1577
Jun 14, 2012, 11:35 PM
I was thinking about settling for a 13" Air, but if this turns out to be true I think it would be worth waiting for.

Radio
Jun 14, 2012, 11:36 PM
"a labtop that breaks the bank less!"


I'll buy it

URFloorMatt
Jun 14, 2012, 11:44 PM
It's a retina 13" MB Pro, of course it's going to be higher than 1280x800. If this comes to fruition, my guess it'll be 2560x1600 resolution. This is definitely good news. I'd prefer a 13" Pro over a 15" Pro simply for the portability.You realize he was talking about real estate, not density, right? If it's got 2560x1600 pixel density, then it's 1280x800 in effective real estate.

blahbrah
Jun 14, 2012, 11:44 PM
This would be nice, but seems premature. What low-heat / energy-efficient candidate is there for a GPU that wouldn't buckle under high resolution displays? I can't imagine the Intel 4000 doing the job without strain when under higher loads, especially when rendering, using OpenCL, or gaming; hardly "pro" performance. The issue is going to be further compounded if they intend on making it just as thin as the 15" model. It just seems impractical right now.

also considering it'd be out of character for Apple to canabalize their own line 4 months after release.

zeromeus
Jun 14, 2012, 11:45 PM
I will put any amount of money on it not being $1200. $1500 is more like it.

According to my calculation, the price of the 13" MBPr will be $1599.

Here's how it breaks down...

Just take the current 13" price and compare that to a 15" price... the 15" is $600 more.

Now take the normal 15" MBP and compare it to the 15" MBPR... the MBPR is $400 more.

So..... $2199 - $600 = $1599
and.... $1199 + $400 = $1599

Makes perfect sense!:cool::D

screensaver400
Jun 14, 2012, 11:48 PM
Yes, but the problem with the Retina display is you still only get an effective 1280x800 resolution, except for some apps that MAY take advantage of the full resolution in full screen.

1280x800 is WAY too low for a 13" laptop. My 11" Air has higher resolution. I know Retina "looks nice", but, c'mon...

Yeah, the only problem is that the next step up is 1440x900, and that's already used by the 15" Retina MacBook Pro.

So either Apple reverts to having two laptops with different screen sizes, but the same actual resolution (like the 12"/14" iBooks), or the 13" Retina MBP will be 2560x1600. Sadly, my money's on the latter.

Alternatively, Apple could upgrade the 15" Retina MBP to 3360x2100 and put the 13" model at 2880x1800. But if they were going to do that in September/October, why release the 15" model with 2880x1800 now?

OTAU
Jun 14, 2012, 11:50 PM
I'd love one of these. But damn, I hope they are under $2,000 :eek:

Then again it might be better to wait for next years model in case there are any bugs they need to iron out etc.

Konrad
Jun 14, 2012, 11:53 PM
According to my calculation, the price of the 13" MBPr will be $1599.

Here's how it breaks down...

Just take the current 13" price and compare that to a 15" price... the 15" is $600 more.

Now take the normal 15" MBP and compare it to the 15" MBPR... the MBPR is $400 more.

So..... $2199 - $600 = $1599
and.... $1199 + $400 = $1599

Makes perfect sense!:cool::D
No, it doesn't. Once they replace the current MBP line up and eliminate the leftovers all prices will come down. I.e. the current 15 retina will have a price of $1999.99.

pacalis
Jun 14, 2012, 11:54 PM
According to my calculation, the price of the 13" MBPr will be $1599.

Here's how it breaks down...

Just take the current 13" price and compare that to a 15" price... the 15" is $600 more.

Now take the normal 15" MBP and compare it to the 15" MBPR... the MBPR is $400 more.

So..... $2199 - $600 = $1599
and.... $1199 + $400 = $1599

Makes perfect sense!:cool::D

That would make it $100 more than the 13" MBA which has a 256 GB and but an i5, 4GB ram and only integrated video. So pretty unlikely.

If it's going to have an i7 (+$150) w/ 8GB (+$150) and retina (+$200) it s more likely to be in the range of $1799 - $1999.

{Edit: Just saw Konrad's post - I think the 13" and bottom 15" will be pretty close in price as there is not much to distinguish them without pushing into the high end MBA spec.).

malman89
Jun 14, 2012, 11:55 PM
Interesting release time, as it would be after the Back to School ends. It's not like Apple hasn't done this before - in fact, most of the past few years there's been a usual slight speed bump following the B2S season - but never an upgrade of this magnitude.

Now some people are probably saying college kids shouldn't even get/need the 13" retina, and I wholeheartedly agree, but 20-somethings just have to blow their cash or credit cards on shiny Apple products for any reason (coming from a recent grad that doesn't).

I guess August was their ideal date, since it would be right in the rush of B2S, but not everything can always come out at the best time.

-LikesMac-
Jun 14, 2012, 11:56 PM
The GPU. An Intel HD4000 GPU will not be good enough for the resolution of such a laptop, simply put. There needs to be a more potent GPU for this, but space constraints are going to be a big impediment to Apple's ability in putting in a better GPU. Also, knowing Apple we can say that the MBPr 13 will probably be thinner than it's non-retina counterpart, which makes space constraints even worse.

In my opinion, eGPUs need to come into play. Thunderbolt allows this to happen, but where are the devices?!:(

slimbek
Jun 14, 2012, 11:57 PM
Is this something Apple would release alongside the iPhone 5 at an October event? As an intro at the Keynote, like this years MBP announcement...

So many great products - they're running out of events to announce them all! Especially with iMac updates, iPhone 5, iPod, Apple TV software and maybe even a TV itself still to come.

It's all happening in Apple land!

carmenodie
Jun 14, 2012, 11:59 PM
Seriously, what the hell would an optical drive less macbook pro 13 inch have over the 13 inch macbook air?
Ok, maybe a few more ports and a faster cpu but a higher res screen really wouldn't have be jumping ship.
My new 13 inch air has 1440x900 resolution and that is insane. My old swivel neck g4 iMac 17 inch has the same effing resolution.
But you know it will happen and the resolution will be higher than the air to justify the jump.

Demosthenes X
Jun 15, 2012, 12:01 AM
I sincerely hope this machine has a dedicated GPU. If not, it's just a heavier/thicker MBA with a nicer display. I don't see the point of a machine like that...

zeromeus
Jun 15, 2012, 12:01 AM
I'd love one of these. But damn, I hope they are under $2,000 :eek:

Then again it might be better to wait for next years model in case there are any bugs they need to iron out etc.

It'll also be a good idea to wait until next year when the price drops just like the MBA did.

pacalis
Jun 15, 2012, 12:01 AM
One more thought. The current MBPs are cheap in part because they have standard hard drives, but the retina can't accommodate that.

So they either start the bottom 13" MBP with a 128GB hd, which is the same as the MBA, or more likely jump it to 256GB which will jump the price up.

Anyway, I don't care, I'm put my order in on the 15".
:)

coolguy$$$
Jun 15, 2012, 12:01 AM
No, it doesn't. Once they replace the current MBP line up and eliminate the leftovers all prices will come down. I.e. the current 15 retina will have a price of $1999.99.

Eventually it will happen, but not for at least 1 year

Eidorian
Jun 15, 2012, 12:07 AM
Well I had planned on waiting until October anyways...

justperry
Jun 15, 2012, 12:07 AM
All these models will eventually merge into only three models, 11" 13" and 15".
If not next year with haswell then probably in 2014 with the broadwell 14nm shrinkage.

jlnr
Jun 15, 2012, 12:08 AM
Hey person who writes that battery test utility, be sure to take & upload an iSight picture when the model name has not previously been reported! :P

zeromeus
Jun 15, 2012, 12:10 AM
Eventually it will happen, but not for at least 1 year

If you get your MBPr through the education store, you'll get it for that price TODAY!

I ordered a MBA through the education store and... amazingly, they didn't ask me for any proof of education... I mean I have a school ID and email address that aren't attached to my account yet... but they didn't ask me for an ID at all.... Maybe the $50 discount and the $100 gift card wasn't much to go through the hassle of asking for proof?

If the new 13" MBPr is priced at $1599.... $1399 after education discount, I'll SO regret my order of the MBA.

scarred
Jun 15, 2012, 12:12 AM
You realize he was talking about real estate, not density, right? If it's got 2560x1600 pixel density, then it's 1280x800 in effective real estate.

You can adjust the resolution to give more real estate with os x. Go check out the reviews on anandtech for the 15 mbps.

beebler
Jun 15, 2012, 12:13 AM
Yeah it is. My friend used to work at HQ and is waiting for the 13" in which said will come out. Doesn't know the details though.

Man9z0r
Jun 15, 2012, 12:18 AM
Just in time for Apple to get all the money from the people that have to have the newest thing out. :D

Apple is really smart with the way they release their products. I bet there are a lot of people buying the 15 just because it has that screen even though they would prefer the 13 inch size. :p

TrimmTrabb
Jun 15, 2012, 12:20 AM
The GPU. An Intel HD4000 GPU will not be good enough for the resolution of such a laptop, simply put. There needs to be a more potent GPU for this, but space constraints are going to be a big impediment to Apple's ability in putting in a better GPU. Also, knowing Apple we can say that the MBPr 13 will probably be thinner than it's non-retina counterpart, which makes space constraints even worse.

In my opinion, eGPUs need to come into play. Thunderbolt allows this to happen, but where are the devices?!:(

No one is disputing that Intel graphics suck the big one, but Apple can (and I think will) do a 13" MacBook Pro with Retina display using the HD 4000.

Consider that the HD 4000 has had its maximum resolution upgraded to 2560x1600 - coincidentally, the exact resolution of a pixel-doubled theoretical 13" MBP.

Also consider that the new 15" MBP still supports automatic graphics switching, meaning that Apple is conceivably using the Intel GPU to drive the display when the desktop is set to one of the two supported less-than-native resolution settings.

There may not be enough power there do any games justice at native resolution, but I think there's enough to drive the Mac desktop.

that1guyy
Jun 15, 2012, 12:31 AM
The 13inch is too small for my needs.

But hey, there are many who would like this so go for it I guess. Also, it is probable that it will have discrete gpu to power that display.

Or they might just drop the 13inch pro and just beef up the airs. That would be better in my opinion.

roland.g
Jun 15, 2012, 12:32 AM
Having just ordered a 13" Air for the next 3 years, that is a conundrum.

However:

1. I really like the weight of the 13" MBA and almost considered the 11" except for the shorter battery and smaller screen wouldn't work. (I have a 27" iMac so this isn't a main) But I would be really curious what they got the weight to. Less than 4 lbs??

2. As much as I really like the idea of the screen, I don't have Pro needs, and I think the MBA weight advantage over the MBPr could be a deciding factor, but the screen would probably win out.

3. But the price, I think people are right, you are looking at $1,699-$1,799. I doubt $1,899 but I think that would be more plausible than $1,599. Maybe next year when the current 13" and 15" MBPs go away you would see $1,599 or even $1,499 for the 13" and $1,899 or $1,999 for the 15". Those screens gotta be pricey now though.

malman89
Jun 15, 2012, 12:34 AM
The GPU. An Intel HD4000 GPU will not be good enough for the resolution of such a laptop, simply put. There needs to be a more potent GPU for this, but space constraints are going to be a big impediment to Apple's ability in putting in a better GPU. Also, knowing Apple we can say that the MBPr 13 will probably be thinner than it's non-retina counterpart, which makes space constraints even worse.

In my opinion, eGPUs need to come into play. Thunderbolt allows this to happen, but where are the devices?!:(

I was actually browsing some laptops and Sony seems to have a few thin laptops with an "NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M LE" specifically designed for thin laptops, in 1GB and 2GB models, but with a slightly slower core clock than the regular 640M. It can push monitors up to 3840x2160 and should be able to play games like Diablo 3 at medium/high if the comparisons to the 635 or 555 are true.

Might be the best bet for such a laptop. Unless something else is planned to come out between now and then that would be a better option.

Edit: TB external GPUs are too gimpy or too expensive (or both), so just a gimmick at best to date.

roland.g
Jun 15, 2012, 12:42 AM
What is really amazing is that my unibody 2008 13" MacBook is 4.5 lbs. The current 13" MBPs are 4.5 lbs. The current 15" MBPs are 5.6 lbs. And they shaved off 1.14 lbs to get the 15" MBPr down to 4.46, less than a 13" MBP. Not sure they can get that much off a 13" MBPr, we're talking 3.36 lbs. But probably in the 3.75 to 3.95 range.

colour
Jun 15, 2012, 12:43 AM
Won't be cheap ! And I'm not sure if I will opt for this if there is still no dedicated graphics ... in saying that I have a feeling that apple my finally include a dedicated graphics card in this model. May be wishful thinking but they need to do something to discriminate it from the 13' air.

tdream
Jun 15, 2012, 12:52 AM
This is the one to get. Nice, compact and retina, here's hoping!

sammyman
Jun 15, 2012, 01:03 AM
I wonder how much this thing would weigh.

class77
Jun 15, 2012, 01:06 AM
I will put any amount of money on it not being $1200. $1500 is more like it.
The mid range i5 13" MBA costs $1499. I'm not even sure that a retina 13" would cost $1500, probably $1700

atlanticza
Jun 15, 2012, 01:16 AM
Er, I guess I'll stick with my fixable upgradeable one... Wired Magazine's report (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/opinion-apple-retina-displa/)from iFixit

Abazigal
Jun 15, 2012, 01:20 AM
I call bullcrap.

What is the point of announcing a new line of (slightly) updated MBPs, expecting people to buy them, only to release an updated retina MBP 13" model towards the end of the year, when the people who need or want a 13" apple computer will have already gotten a pro or air?:confused:

macbook123
Jun 15, 2012, 01:28 AM
Give me a 13" Air. I don't care if the battery life is cut a bit. I just want my perfect laptop: an Air with an IPS panel (even an increase in resolution should be secondary to that).

komodrone
Jun 15, 2012, 01:30 AM
That would be really nice. The 13" is actually a really nice size.


that's what she said.

Rend It
Jun 15, 2012, 01:31 AM
I call bullcrap.

What is the point of announcing a new line of (slightly) updated MBPs, expecting people to buy them, only to release an updated retina MBP 13" model towards the end of the year, when the people who need or want a 13" apple computer will have already gotten a pro or air?:confused:

The reason is that some people will still buy the legacy style MBP because they either want those legacy items (DVD, FW port), or they want a machine that can be upgraded in the future. As evidenced by the iFixit tear down, these retina MBPs are not meant to be upgraded post-purchase.

The other differential is price. The supposed 13" retina MBP will probably clock in higher than the $1499 legacy MBP, but slightly less than if that machine was fully loaded.

ohbrilliance
Jun 15, 2012, 01:46 AM
Yes, but the problem with the Retina display is you still only get an effective 1280x800 resolution, except for some apps that MAY take advantage of the full resolution in full screen.

1280x800 is WAY too low for a 13" laptop. My 11" Air has higher resolution. I know Retina "looks nice", but, c'mon...

This article really should be required reading: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

The new Macbook can be set *above* 1440x900, to either 1680x1050 or 1920x1200. I've seen this first hand, and the screen looks great and usable at those resolutions. I expect the 13" screen would also be scalable in a similar manner (perhaps to 1440x900 and 1680x1050).

mscice
Jun 15, 2012, 01:54 AM
I knew it! i hope this is true, 13" retina , thin, ssd, 8gb of ram WIFI 5G (AC) ? YES please

All now it needs is a dedicated video card :)))

I see no point in buying 15" as i plug it into a 24" LED...

2 months away yes!

-AG-
Jun 15, 2012, 01:58 AM
I still don't see why Apple couldn't wait for the initial rush of the new Macbook Pro R to die down. Then once that initial rush has ended streamline their line up like they have done in the past.

The 11 & 13" Air become just the Macbook (dropping the Air)
The 13" & 15" "Legacy" Macbook Pro are dropped from the line up completely.

Then spec bump the 13" "Air" line with retina display and graphics card, rebranding that the new 13" Macbook Pro.

The word retina is dropped from the 15" name so its just the good old Macbook Pro again.

Worst case scenario they build a 13" shell similar to the new 15" but now they have done all that design with the Air design i can't see the point. Just make it more efficient.

Yes it does mean that we only have technically 4 models of Macbook/Pro out there with variable spec bumps but it may work.

Rizzn
Jun 15, 2012, 02:12 AM
I would think Apple would want to release it before September since the 13" is the most popular size for students and they're going to be shopping.

Gregintosh
Jun 15, 2012, 02:14 AM
Just in time for Apple to get all the money from the people that have to have the newest thing out. :D

Apple is really smart with the way they release their products. I bet there are a lot of people buying the 15 just because it has that screen even though they would prefer the 13 inch size. :p

I almost fell into that trap when I saw how gorgeous it looked in person. But I will definitely not be carrying around a giant machine like that, so my sensible side took over and decided to wait.

To the people who talk about the graphics card, I think the 13" MBAr will HAVE to have dedicated graphics. Not because the intel stuff won't power the display (they will do just fine) but because that will become one of the few differentiators between that and the MBA.

Think about it. Two 13 inch laptops, neither has an external drive, both have similar ports, both are even within the same thickness and not too far away on weight.

The only thing that would make them different is the display and processor. Not good enough! Throw in the distinction of having dedicated graphics (that are game-worthy) and now you got 3 reasons to upgrade to the 13" MBAr over a souped up 13" MBA.

Otherwise, Apple might as well forget going through the hassle of a new model and just add a retina display to the MBA and profit.

olowott
Jun 15, 2012, 02:32 AM
Price look right:D

all is left now is to Dream the Macbook Pro 13" retina

and let these rumours feed off it :o

iMikeT
Jun 15, 2012, 02:33 AM
I hope this is true as this would be the perfect portable for me. Either way, I'm sure Apple will release a 13" Retina MacBook Pro at some point in the future, I just hope it's sooner than later.

thisrocks
Jun 15, 2012, 02:37 AM
I sincerely hope this machine has a dedicated GPU. If not, it's just a heavier/thicker MBA with a nicer display. I don't see the point of a machine like that...

QFT.

Thanks to the Pro moniker on components that already have nice margins, removing the GPU, reducing the screen size and selling people an unnecessary quad core we will have all these people in the thread banging on for one.

The Air is what you really want. I can't think of a modern use case where the size of the RMBP is justified over that of the modern Air just because of the quad core, REALLY? Heck, on my the 2011, Air I was converting H264 video at comparable speeds to my my desktop's Core 2 Quad Extreme 3.0Ghz in Handbrake. Someone that's planning on buying one help me out here. What do you need the speed over form factor for??? (That wouldn't push you up to a 15")

I was personally kinda hoping for Retina Airs, but mostly for 8gb 512mb 15" Airs...and I got it by the way of the new RMBP so I'm happy, but I will be way more happy when it arrives!!

reden
Jun 15, 2012, 02:41 AM
OMG 3 choices for a 13 inch laptop, that is really confusing, poor customers :rolleyes:

In the coming future, it will be very simple for people who get confused like yourself during the purchase/selection process. Apple will most likely condense the lines into 1. During the customization process they will most likely allow the customer to chose the type of display, and done. Kinda like they used to do with the Matte option. Eventually, you won't have any other choice, but Retina.

adildacoolset
Jun 15, 2012, 02:47 AM
Wow, Macbook Air 13", Macbook Pro 13", or Retina Macbook Pro 13"?

That'd be very confusing. At least now there's only max 2 variations of each size.

Even if you– the only one I presume– would be confused, this is not only a rumor site and has some very helpful forums.

Jhowland
Jun 15, 2012, 02:52 AM
If you think about it this is probably more likely to happen next year when apple refresh their entire laptop line. What I see happening is the line being merged into one with an 11 inch MacBook air equivalent, a 13 inch MacBook air equivelent, a 13 inch retina MacBook pro equivalent and a 15 inch retina MacBook pro equivalent. Not saying that this will happen but it makes more sense than them squeezing a 13 inch RMBP into their current 13 inch MacBook line.

Kilamite
Jun 15, 2012, 02:56 AM
I imagine the retina display will be capable of the following equivalent resolutions:

- 1680x1050
- 1440x900
- 1280x800

I can't see it doing 1920x1200 equivalent, things would just be too small.

sw1tcher
Jun 15, 2012, 02:59 AM
As nice as a 13" RetMBP would be, I'd like a see a 13" MBP with a Quad i5 or i7 instead.

colour
Jun 15, 2012, 03:08 AM
FINALLY the 13 inch Macbook Pro gets a new screen !

SockRolid
Jun 15, 2012, 03:10 AM
... uses a lower-yield retinal display than the 15” version.


The lower yield, and higher cost resulting from lower yield, are why Apple is only offering the Retina display on the new high-end 15" MacBook Pro at first. There will be less demand for the top-of-the-line model because of its high price. Thus there won't be as critical a shortage as there would be if Apple tried shipping Retina displays on, say, the 11" MacBook Air.

Also, the new MBP's high price covers the higher component cost of the Retina displays. Same as it ever was. Early adopters finance the development of improved manufacturing processes and economy of scale for the next wave, the mass market buyers.

vikpt
Jun 15, 2012, 03:14 AM
Yes! Yes! Yes!!! I really hope this is true! Been wanting a 13 in. thinner, retina Macbook Pro :D I can't wait! :D

davie18
Jun 15, 2012, 03:19 AM
Wow, Macbook Air 13", Macbook Pro 13", or Retina Macbook Pro 13"?

That'd be very confusing. At least now there's only max 2 variations of each size.
Are you serious?

And anyway, weren't they selling the 13" Macbook, macbook pro, and macbook air all at the same time before the discontinued the macbook?

PM Harold Saxon
Jun 15, 2012, 03:24 AM
Well I had planned on waiting until October anyways...

I have no choice but to wait until then. Having a lack of money sucks ;-)

thisrocks
Jun 15, 2012, 03:26 AM
I wish the demand was lower (3-4 weeks :eek:)

McNitefly
Jun 15, 2012, 03:38 AM
Yeah, 13'' would be it! :-)

I hope they are keeping the SD card slot - although I doubt it. Somewhere they have to get the space from ... ans like with the current 13 inch MacBook pro, they'll probably leave the SD slot ... .

thisrocks
Jun 15, 2012, 03:49 AM
Yeah, 13'' would be it! :-)

I hope they are keeping the SD card slot - although I doubt it. Somewhere they have to get the space from ... ans like with the current 13 inch MacBook pro, they'll probably leave the SD slot ... .

Is this all because you can't wait for the eventual Haswell 13" Air Retina? Or because you don't want to wait for it? There's no question - The 13" Pro Retina shouldn't exist if it's not going to offer Quad and or Discrete Graphics, that is, after the Air comes out. Until then, Apple have a money maker.

Ironduke
Jun 15, 2012, 04:12 AM
that's what she said.

good to see an old british joke doing the rounds in america

Augure
Jun 15, 2012, 04:30 AM
If it's the new "unrepairable" form factor, then a 13" Retina Macbook could be nice IF the price is not excessive like for the 15".

But if it's not thinner and lighter, or if it still doesn't have real GPU, then there is absolutely no point in a 13" Macbook Pro when you can have the Macbook Air that does the same thing but thinner and lighter.

By the numbers, killing the 17" probably makes sense, but in term of long term strategy and product line strategy this is pretty stupid because some people actually need the 17" sized screen, when in contrast the 13" MBP could've been killed because it really is useless (and I had both a 13" Pro and Air).

JS3
Jun 15, 2012, 04:49 AM
I think I would sell my current 15" early 2010 for a 13" retina. The current 15" is a little to high for my blood and I really like the portable size.

Why wasn't this 15" macbook pro with retina just considered a Air? Its thinner has no drive isn't that a air?

pandamonia
Jun 15, 2012, 04:50 AM
Put a 650M inside it and this would be the bomb!

macnerd93
Jun 15, 2012, 04:54 AM
I imagine in the foreseeable future the pro line will get the retinal displays and ever faster CPU's, flash, graphics etc.

I reckon the Air will keep its current resolution for the next few years at least to keep its cost relatively low and maybe slightly slower CPU's etc.

Just to give a bit of variation between models

MacDarcy
Jun 15, 2012, 04:58 AM
So, is that how they're gonna differentiate the Macbook pros from the Airs going forward? That the Pros will be retina display?

I could see them eventually getting rid of the "Air" name when the Airs get the retina display and the 13" Air will become the 13" Macbook pro

Too many different models to choose from now. IMHO

NathanA
Jun 15, 2012, 04:58 AM
I sense it will double the 1280x800 since doubling the 1440x900 on the MBA would give it a resolution identical to the 15" MBP. That just doesn't seem likely.
Not only that, but if you do the math (easy to do thanks to this handy-dandy website (http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html)), 2560x1600 in 13.3" results in a DPI of 226, which is extremely close to the 15" Retina display's DPI and so is known to be doable, whereas trying to fit 2880x1800 in 13.3" would be result in 255PPI. That's iPad 3 territory there, so we know that they can make 9.7" 4:3 screens in good numbers at that DPI, but perhaps it would be asking too much to expect a 16:9 ~260PPI display @ 13.3" to yield in healthy Apple-esque quantities at this point in time.

-- Nathan

Four oF NINE
Jun 15, 2012, 04:58 AM
Just when I was ready to go for the 13 inch MacBook Air, they had to do this.. Now I'm in a quandary again.. I have a 13 inch Black Mac now running Lion with 4 GB RAM.. It runs fine for my uses, but it's not upgradable to ML, and it's getting a bit long in the tooth anyway. So much to consider here, why didn't they go retina with the 13" Air?.. That would have simplified the decision!~

prowlmedia
Jun 15, 2012, 04:58 AM
Still think a 17" will make a comeback

The problem is they want the new retina as a flagship and the 17" would confuse that.

So when they sort out a 17" retina display (3200x2000 ish? ) then it will return. Probably... :)

macduke
Jun 15, 2012, 05:02 AM
Wouldn't a discrete GPU be almost necessary in a machine with a retina display like that? Maybe one day Intel will have parity (or close enough) to nVidia and ATI.

My new R-Type is pretty much my dream machine but my real dream machine / display combo would be:


13" Quad-core
1440x900 doubled in a 13"
32GB ram
Discrete GPU in a 13"
12 hour battery
3lbs 1/2in.
1TB SSD 1GB/s read and write
Paired with a retina 27" Thunderbolt Display 2 (upgraded with USB 3.0)
Faster Thunderbolt carrying everything—even power!


Maybe by the next time I upgrade from my current R-Type such a machine will exist? Ultra portable pro machine that I can dock into a magic display. A Thunderbolt spec running 50Gbps+ that can carry every port and power over one line to the display. Everything plugged into the display with only one cord running to the Macbook Pro. That's the world I want to live in!

SlickShoes
Jun 15, 2012, 05:04 AM
I would buy this instantly if it was the first 13" to have a dedicated GPU, I love the 13" macbooks and have done for years but moved to a 15" just for the graphics. If they keep the macbook pro 13" the same size as it is now and not make it thinnner could they fit in a dedicated GPU like the 650m?

macduke
Jun 15, 2012, 05:05 AM
Even if you– the only one I presume– would be confused, this is not only a rumor site and has some very helpful forums.

Interesting that you would say that even though your signature says "I hate macrumors"

potatis
Jun 15, 2012, 05:05 AM
Dropping the "MacBook Pro" logo on the screen is probably the first step of merging the lineup, and by not having it say "MacBook" instead they avoid confusion for now.

jbkalla
Jun 15, 2012, 05:13 AM
Yeah. Don't care. Need a 17". I'm too old to be squinting at a 15" or 13" laptop. Heck, I'd even be happy with a 19" laptop. A laptop for me is a desktop replacement. I'm not trecking through the outback with it; I'm going from house to motel to house within 12hrs. I can deal with the extra weight.

Am I the only person that feels this way? If the previous 17" was too expensive for most people, how will they justify the retina MB Pros?

tejagamer
Jun 15, 2012, 05:24 AM
2560x1600!! Thats all I am hoping for on a 13"
If i Get it, I am ready to sell my 15" XPS 15, my PSP, my iPad just to buy it! :)

NewbieCanada
Jun 15, 2012, 05:26 AM
Nicest thing about this thread - there's no one insisting it will have Ethernet, Firewire or an optical drive.

MattUK
Jun 15, 2012, 05:34 AM
Here is how to calculate a price for a new 13" retina macbook pro !

Think about a price You consider reasonable, then give an example of a cost that You think is high, add both and divide by two...

Take that number and add 400$ to it to get a final price :eek:

marcg11
Jun 15, 2012, 05:35 AM
waw! Finally a macbook pro with retina support, awesome.

samac92
Jun 15, 2012, 05:46 AM
Yes, but the problem with the Retina display is you still only get an effective 1280x800 resolution, except for some apps that MAY take advantage of the full resolution in full screen.

1280x800 is WAY too low for a 13" laptop. My 11" Air has higher resolution. I know Retina "looks nice", but, c'mon...

But you can choose the effective resolution in the settings, the 15 inch goes up to 1920 x 1200, I expect the 13 inch to go up to 1680 x 1050.


For those worried about the iGPU not being powerful enough, it is. The 15 inch is running on the HD4000 most of the time. The HD3000 in the old 13 inch pro could power two thunderbolt displays for a total of ~7 Million pixels. A 13 inch retina display would have ~4 Million pixels. Obviously you wouldnt be gaming at native resolution, you'd drop it down, but the 13 inch has always been bad for gaming, you don't buy a 13 inch pro to game on.

Also people need to stop getting hung up about the word "pro." It doesn't mean anything apart from what Apple wants it to mean.

clibinarius
Jun 15, 2012, 05:46 AM
This would be nice, but seems premature. What low-heat / energy-efficient candidate is there for a GPU that wouldn't buckle under high resolution displays? I can't imagine the Intel 4000 doing the job without strain when under higher loads, especially when rendering, using OpenCL, or gaming; hardly "pro" performance. The issue is going to be further compounded if they intend on making it just as thin as the 15" model. It just seems impractical right now.

This is why I'm surprised there is even a Retina Macbook this year. And why I think its limited to one model.

nick_elt
Jun 15, 2012, 05:57 AM
OMG 3 choices for a 13 inch laptop, that is really confusing, poor customers :rolleyes:

Once pricing of ssds and displays come down the macbook pro as we know it will be killed off

----------

Nicest thing about this thread - there's no one insisting it will have Ethernet, Firewire or an optical drive.

Prob because its 2012. Cd's??? Havent used one in years! Ethernet? Everyone has wifi now. Firewire? Never caught on.

M-O
Jun 15, 2012, 06:12 AM
At US$1,200, I feel like this'll be the MacBook Pro to buy. I wonder if it'll have the same graphics card as the 15"?

it won't be $1200, it will be $1599. and it won't have discrete graphics.

dcorban
Jun 15, 2012, 06:16 AM
I ordered a new 13" MacBook Air, scheduled to arrive today. Regardless of when this hypothetical 13" Retina will be released, I am buying it day zero. I want the discrete GPU. I want the larger drive space. I want the awesome display (iPad3 has spoiled me). But I want it all in the size and weight of the 13".

Chupa Chupa
Jun 15, 2012, 06:20 AM
Yeah. Don't care. Need a 17". I'm too old to be squinting at a 15" or 13" laptop.

That makes no sense. The 17" has a higher resolution and therefore smaller text. If there is any MBP that makes even a healthy 15 y.o. squint it's the 17". The lower res 13" OTOH has bigger text than either the 15 or 17".

Also have you actually laid eyes on the RMBP? I'm a 40-something and I didn't even need my glasses to read every bit of text at arms length on the RMBP @ the Apple Store. Text was sharper than a Samurai sword. Don't knock it till you try it.

hipnetic
Jun 15, 2012, 06:28 AM
Yeah, the only problem is that the next step up is 1440x900, and that's already used by the 15" Retina MacBook Pro.Well, the 11" Air has a 1366x768 screen, so I guess they could double that resolution, but my money would be on a doubled 1280x800. Plus, someone else in this thread said that the Intel 4000 graphics max out at 2560x1600, so 1366x768 doubled might not be an option if they're looking to stick with that chipset. I definitely agree that I don't see them going all out on a 13" 1440x900 doubled screen, for several reasons.

FWIW, I really like my 13" Air (last year's model), and since I probably won't be due for an upgrade this year anyway, I'll be interested to see if they can squeeze a 13" Retina display into the even lighter/thinner Air casing by next year.

Thunderhawks
Jun 15, 2012, 06:32 AM
Nicest thing about this thread - there's no one insisting it will have Ethernet, Firewire or an optical drive.

That s only because it hasn't t been released yet.

Dangerous Theory
Jun 15, 2012, 06:34 AM
Perhaps this is why they've held off on upgrading the 13" display to 1440*900 like the air. Would make the retina upgrade seem less significant. There's a great chance a retina MBP 13" will end up their biggest selling computer if it has a more accessible price. I think £1400 is likely.

Mundty
Jun 15, 2012, 06:40 AM
Looking forward to this if it's true. I actually prefer the 13" size to the 15" and 17". To me it's the perfect size for the daily commute, and doesn't require a large bag to carry. I'd rather have the desktop be my professional work station, and only use my MacBook Pro for audio/photo/video editing in a pinch... instead of having it being my all in one professional/recreational machine.

KylePowers
Jun 15, 2012, 06:43 AM
I've probably posted this 12 times already, but I am one of those definitely waiting out for a 13in rMBP!

BUT, I'm cautious. The only reason I never got an MBP before was because 1) its screen resolution was 1280x800 and 2) it didn't have a dedicated GPU.

And this rumor indicates 2560x1600, which is nice, but that's still only a 1280x800 workspace. Now granted, you can apparently adjust the resolution, which would be sweet for those of us looking for a larger workspace, but so far I've read about lag and such in doing so (perhaps the kinks will be worked out though).

Secondly, if it still comes with HD4000 graphics (which, don't get me wrong, are certainly excellent for what they are), it won't be much better than an MBA, especially having to push 2560x1600 pixels.

So in essence, give me a 13in rMBP with dedicated GPU or I'll just be holding out for next year's refreshes (and really, I'm in no rush, so it's okay!).

PeterJP
Jun 15, 2012, 06:43 AM
Hi,

I'm guessing €1.7K and 1.7kg weight for an 8GB/256GB config. Same dimensions as the MBA/MBP, but 18mm thick all over.

I would consider this machine over the 11" MBA I'm considering ordering once a few paychecks come in. There are a few reasons:


The screen is IPS. Better colours, better viewing angles, better everything. Retina is nice, but an overall much improved screen is worth the money even more. 2560x1600 will do nicely, thank you. I'm not usually moving about tens of windows on a small screen like this.
Higher spec. I would get the 256GB base model but upgrade to 16GB. With that config and the higher spec'ed processor, I'd expect to get 5 years instead of 3 years out of the machine, at least. Which is worth a few €100 more.
Better expandability with (hopefully) an SD card slot (practical to have it built-in) and 2 TB ports.


The downside is, of course, lots and lots of extra weight. Probably 70% over the 11". Also, the size would be the equivalent of 2 13" MBAs side-to-side (one's taper pointing up, the other down). I already dislike the size of the 13" MBA, so this could be an issue. It comes down to what I want to use it for: the 11" is great for fun and occasional work, the 13" MBPR would be great for work and occasional fun.


Peter.

nfl46
Jun 15, 2012, 06:48 AM
I'm guessing it'll be around 1500ish starting price.

Isn't the 13" MBP the best selling MacBook? I believe it is.

macnerd93
Jun 15, 2012, 06:50 AM
Firewire? Never caught on.

FireWire did take off, you was just never in an industry whatever used it. I did Media for several years at college all the video cameras and tape decks where Firewire 400/800. Unlike USB Firewire can support physical control of the camera and or other devices in terms of playing, fast forwarding, rewinding etc. It was also faster than the more widely use USB 2.0, and all of my hard drives are FW 800 as opposed to USB because its just too freakin slow to use as an external when you have like 6,000 images in your Aperture Libary LOL

G5isAlive
Jun 15, 2012, 06:52 AM
At US$1,200, I feel like this'll be the MacBook Pro to buy. I wonder if it'll have the same graphics card as the 15"?

where did this number come from? Doesn't seem realistic... given the existing 13" pro starts at $1200. My guess is closer to $1600.

Yinmay
Jun 15, 2012, 06:56 AM
Makes no sense. What's the point of a 13" Pro with no optical drive? It would have 0 benefit over the Air.

Just give the 13" Air a hi-res/retina BTO option.

The 15" Retina is amazing because it retains the quad core and discrete GPU while being the smallest/thinnest laptop you can get at that screen size. Unless they can fit a quad core processor and a discrete GPU in the 13" Pro, the Air with Retina display makes more sense.

Artey
Jun 15, 2012, 06:58 AM
maybe I can afford that one instead :)

G5isAlive
Jun 15, 2012, 07:01 AM
Yeah. Don't care. Need a 17". I'm too old to be squinting at a 15" or 13" laptop. Heck, I'd even be happy with a 19" laptop. A laptop for me is a desktop replacement. I'm not trecking through the outback with it; I'm going from house to motel to house within 12hrs. I can deal with the extra weight.

Am I the only person that feels this way? If the previous 17" was too expensive for most people, how will they justify the retina MB Pros?

You aren't the only one. Though I have to admit I love my macbook air these days, I miss the screen size (NOT RESOLUTION) of the 17". But try to explain that around here. It seems to be a generation gap.

----------

Makes no sense. What's the point of a 13" Pro with no optical drive? It would have 0 benefit over the Air.

Just give the 13" Air a hi-res/retina BTO option.

The 15" Retina is amazing because it retains the quad core and discrete GPU while being the smallest/thinnest laptop you can get at that screen size. Unless they can fit a quad core processor and a discrete GPU in the 13" Pro, the Air with Retina display makes more sense.

You answered your own question. A 13 inch RMP would have a more powerful processor than the Air, and need larger batteries than an Air, all to drive that retina display you like. It comes with an engineering cost (not to mention a dollar cost)

ggibson913
Jun 15, 2012, 07:08 AM
Why would they not just add the retina display to the MB Air?

grrrz
Jun 15, 2012, 07:11 AM
What is really amazing is that my unibody 2008 13" MacBook is 4.5 lbs. The current 13" MBPs are 4.5 lbs. The current 15" MBPs are 5.6 lbs. And they shaved off 1.14 lbs to get the 15" MBPr down to 4.46, less than a 13" MBP. Not sure they can get that much off a 13" MBPr, we're talking 3.36 lbs. But probably in the 3.75 to 3.95 range.

arghh why haven't you american people switched to the metric system already?
it's the 21th century folks ;)

ikir
Jun 15, 2012, 07:15 AM
OMG 3 choices for a 13 inch laptop, that is really confusing, poor customers :rolleyes:

Always less than pc world. Remember this is probably only for this year.

classic MacBook pro will die, you will have Air, Pro (retina) maybe also in 13".

The ones you see today with super drive are just for the transition.

kazmac
Jun 15, 2012, 07:17 AM
And it will.

Northwind877
Jun 15, 2012, 07:17 AM
Same for me - dedicated GPU and I will buy it! Intel 4000 is great now, but also to low for my purpose. That's the reason I never have bought a 13" mac book...

Kilamite
Jun 15, 2012, 07:19 AM
I really hope they offer an antiglare screen, preferably with the silver bezel.

That's the only thing that's stopping me being the 15" retina right now, though a 13" would be nicer. If they give both 13" and 15" antiglare screens, I'll be in the market to get one right away.

CausticPuppy
Jun 15, 2012, 07:22 AM
I really want an Air with a retina screen, but I have a feeling it's just going to be the Pro models at first. Maybe the 2013 Air will get it.

Dangerous Theory
Jun 15, 2012, 07:28 AM
arghh why haven't you american people switched to the metric system already?
it's the 21th century folks ;)

Tbf we still use stone, miles, and yards

Bubba Satori
Jun 15, 2012, 07:40 AM
Wow, Macbook Air 13", Macbook Pro 13", or Retina Macbook Pro 13"?

That'd be very confusing. At least now there's only max 2 variations of each size.
OMG 3 choices for a 13 inch laptop, that is really confusing, poor customers :rolleyes:

:ROFL

See, Apple was right all along.
Choice is confusing. :D

----------

I will put any amount of money on it not being $1200. $1500 is more like it.

Yep. And probably $2K with the needful upgrades.
But then again, If they can charge that, why not?
I know people that will buy ciggieboos when they hit $20 a pack. :eek:

----------

One more thought. The current MBPs are cheap...

:eek:

Never thought I'd live to see that. :D

jclardy
Jun 15, 2012, 07:42 AM
In the keynote they introduced the Retina MacBook Pro as the Next Generation MacBook Pro.

I think it is safe to assume the old unibody design with DVD slot is on its way out.

So my guess is there will be this lineup:
MBA 11" $999
MBA 13" $1199
MBP 13" Retina $1399
MBP 15" Retina $2199

The 13" Air will become their standard 13", and for a little bit more you can bump up to the 13" Pro Retina. Of course, if the 13" Retina Pro came out in October I don't see Apple dropping the old models. Although, it is possible as it would be right after their Summer school sales, so those expecting to get a laptop with a normal HDD and lots of storage can still get it, then they drop the line in October with the new line ready for next Summer.

All that I am hoping for though is that the 13" Retina Pro has a discrete graphics card. It can be less powerful than the 15" to help keep the price and heat down, and they will probably drop one thunderbolt port and chop off some battery space.

Thunderhawks
Jun 15, 2012, 07:46 AM
arghh why haven't you american people switched to the metric system already?
it's the 21th century folks ;)

It all starts with education and unless a law is passed forcing it, this will never happen.

Country is too big and wherever it's necessary the industries take care of it.

We do already have 2 LITER Coke bottles.

Now there is a start:-)

MatDave
Jun 15, 2012, 07:49 AM
What about retina macbook air??

Loge
Jun 15, 2012, 07:52 AM
So is it a 13 inch MBP or a 33.02 cm MBP?

cmChimera
Jun 15, 2012, 07:53 AM
That would be really nice. The 13" is actually a really nice size.
Also, $2000+ is a bit too much for some people to fork out on a laptop.

My mid-2010 Macbook Pro costed over $2,000.

I'm wouldn't be surprised at all that this came to the 13 inch. This "next-generation" line is just that, the eventual replacement of the current Macbook Pros.

donlab
Jun 15, 2012, 08:09 AM
In the keynote they introduced the Retina MacBook Pro as the Next Generation MacBook Pro.

I think it is safe to assume the old unibody design with DVD slot is on its way out.

So my guess is there will be this lineup:
MBA 11" $999
MBA 13" $1199
MBP 13" Retina $1399
MBP 15" Retina $2199

The 13" Air will become their standard 13", and for a little bit more you can bump up to the 13" Pro Retina. Of course, if the 13" Retina Pro came out in October I don't see Apple dropping the old models. Although, it is possible as it would be right after their Summer school sales, so those expecting to get a laptop with a normal HDD and lots of storage can still get it, then they drop the line in October with the new line ready for next Summer.

All that I am hoping for though is that the 13" Retina Pro has a discrete graphics card. It can be less powerful than the 15" to help keep the price and heat down, and they will probably drop one thunderbolt port and chop off some battery space.

spot on! +1

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2012, 08:12 AM
The GPU. An Intel HD4000 GPU will not be good enough for the resolution of such a laptop, simply put. There needs to be a more potent GPU for this

Uh ? My first unibody Mac with mDP had a 9400m and could power a 30" 2560x1600 monitor at the same time as the internal 1280x800 display. How do you figure an Intel HD 4000 GPU that can do the same using TB wouldn't be ... wait... that doesn't even make sense.

The Intel HD 4000 GPU is already powerful enough to power 2560x1600. It does so over mDP. MacBooks from 2008 had GPUs powerful enough to do it. GPU power is not an issue.

----------


I can't see it doing 1920x1200 equivalent, things would just be too small.

The Sony Vaio Z with 1920x1080 display says otherwise. Things are just perfect at 160 PPI.

Diaz72
Jun 15, 2012, 08:14 AM
As much as I want this rumor to be true, I would love to know what people think the rationale would be for this. This is exactly like all those rumors about the 7 inch iPad being released in the fall right after we just released an iPad. Apple is only in competition with itself and doesn't need to rush these products out. They have established a year cycle with most of their products (admittedly with some exceptions) and usually sticks to it pretty close. That being said, the only reason I don't already have this new computer is because it is a 15 inch computer. It may be nit picky, but its hard to part with the ultra portability of the 13 inch MacBook Air. Plus it's already hard enough to see a DJ in a wheelchair behind a set of turn tables and a 13 inch Air. People would think that it was controlling itself if I was behind a 15 inch!

Codyak
Jun 15, 2012, 08:18 AM
Uh ? My first unibody Mac with mDP had a 9400m and could power a 30" 2560x1600 monitor at the same time as the internal 1280x800 display. How do you figure an Intel HD 4000 GPU that can do the same using TB wouldn't be ... wait... that doesn't even make sense.

The Intel HD 4000 GPU is already powerful enough to power 2560x1600. It does so over mDP. MacBooks from 2008 had GPUs powerful enough to do it. GPU power is not an issue.

He probably means for anything GPU intensive, of course integrated can take care of just simple desktop use, but the second you want to do, say a game or any program that takes advantage of the GPU, forget it.

lord patton
Jun 15, 2012, 08:32 AM
Makes no sense. What's the point of a 13" Pro with no optical drive? It would have 0 benefit over the Air.

Just give the 13" Air a hi-res/retina BTO option.

The 15" Retina is amazing because it retains the quad core and discrete GPU while being the smallest/thinnest laptop you can get at that screen size. Unless they can fit a quad core processor and a discrete GPU in the 13" Pro, the Air with Retina display makes more sense.

Everything you say is true… which is why the 13" rMBP will have a quad-core processor and discrete GPU.

malman89
Jun 15, 2012, 08:37 AM
Uh ? My first unibody Mac with mDP had a 9400m and could power a 30" 2560x1600 monitor at the same time as the internal 1280x800 display. How do you figure an Intel HD 4000 GPU that can do the same using TB wouldn't be ... wait... that doesn't even make sense.

The Intel HD 4000 GPU is already powerful enough to power 2560x1600. It does so over mDP. MacBooks from 2008 had GPUs powerful enough to do it. GPU power is not an issue.[COLOR="#808080"]

While it's certainly powerful enough to power a monitor of that resolution, it's probably not powerful to do it well enough while handling a variety of intensive tasks. That's why I think something along like the NVIDIA 640M LE would be the best bet.

It's an under-clocked GPU based off the regular 640M made for thin laptops with 1GB or 2GB models, capable of running up to 3840x2160 and should be able to play games like Diablo 3 at medium/high if the comparisons to the 635 or 555 are true. Just not sure on its power consumption and if something else might come out that's better.

betoranaldi
Jun 15, 2012, 08:37 AM
I call bullcrap.

What is the point of announcing a new line of (slightly) updated MBPs, expecting people to buy them, only to release an updated retina MBP 13" model towards the end of the year, when the people who need or want a 13" apple computer will have already gotten a pro or air?:confused:

They released the 15" Aluminium Powerbook in October and 3 months later they released the 12" and 17" so it is very possible they would introduce the MBPr now and in October release the 13" before the holiday season.

brianus
Jun 15, 2012, 08:41 AM
Everything you say is true… which is why the 13" rMBP will have a quad-core processor and discrete GPU.

You think? I'd like to think so but the consensus among the rumormongers has long been that the 13" will be dual core and integrated. I'd gladly hang on to any bare thread of a hope that isn't so, so... you got one?

Is there any chance (technically speaking) of 13" quad with discrete graphics? If they couldn't do it for the old model 13"s this time around, what hope is there for an even slimmer model?

----------

They released the 15" Aluminium Powerbook in October and 3 months later they released the 12" and 17" so it is very possible they would introduce the MBPr now and in October release the 13" before the holiday season.

Seconded, this is a common practice for Apple, and it's wise to expect the same this time. They also debuted the MacBook Pro line in January 2006 with the 15" model, only coming out with the 17" version and the 13" MacBooks later in the spring. 15" always seems to be their 'prototype' with the rest of the line fleshing out in the following months.

afurry13
Jun 15, 2012, 08:44 AM
The mid range i5 13" MBA costs $1499. I'm not even sure that a retina 13" would cost $1500, probably $1700

I would agree that it will probably more than $1500, I was just throwing out a number. Just trying to get the point across that it will be significantly more than the entry level 13" MBP currently.

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2012, 08:44 AM
He probably means for anything GPU intensive, of course integrated can take care of just simple desktop use, but the second you want to do, say a game or any program that takes advantage of the GPU, forget it.

Run your game at 1280x800. It'll use 4 pixels to display 1, thus it won't look like total crap (it won't be blurry because you're not using the native resolution). Tell you me you had thought of that, please. ;)

----------

While it's certainly powerful enough to power a monitor of that resolution, it's probably not powerful to do it well enough while handling a variety of intensive tasks. That's why I think something along like the NVIDIA 640M LE would be the best bet.

Worked fined with the 9400m, why wouldn't a 4 year younger GPU have problems ?

I'm all for ditching Intel graphics. They're usually years behind nVidia and ATI and suck in general. But to say they aren't powerful enough is just misleading.

cherishzm
Jun 15, 2012, 08:45 AM
In the keynote they introduced the Retina MacBook Pro as the Next Generation MacBook Pro.

I think it is safe to assume the old unibody design with DVD slot is on its way out.

So my guess is there will be this lineup:
MBA 11" $999
MBA 13" $1199
MBP 13" Retina $1399
MBP 15" Retina $2199

The 13" Air will become their standard 13", and for a little bit more you can bump up to the 13" Pro Retina. Of course, if the 13" Retina Pro came out in October I don't see Apple dropping the old models. Although, it is possible as it would be right after their Summer school sales, so those expecting to get a laptop with a normal HDD and lots of storage can still get it, then they drop the line in October with the new line ready for next Summer.

All that I am hoping for though is that the 13" Retina Pro has a discrete graphics card. It can be less powerful than the 15" to help keep the price and heat down, and they will probably drop one thunderbolt port and chop off some battery space.

The price for Retina MBP 13 will be higher than that at around $1600-1700 range. MBA will never have Retina just because there is no room to put a dedicated graphics card and large battery cells to support running Retina display in the current Air platform. Think of how much space battery cells take inside of Retina MBP 15.

Chupa Chupa
Jun 15, 2012, 08:46 AM
Makes no sense. What's the point of a 13" Pro with no optical drive? It would have 0 benefit over the Air.



Well with that logic there is also no point to a 13" MacBook and a 13" MacBook Pro, yet Apple sold tons of each for years. There were similar, yet different.

Probably differences b/w a 13" MBA and 13" MBP

1) Faster bus and proc in MBP
2) Additional ports on MBP
3) Larger standard SSD in MBP
4) Lower price & weight for MBA.

debodad
Jun 15, 2012, 08:48 AM
What you guys think they would price this at? would 1499 be too low? maybe 1599?

brianus
Jun 15, 2012, 08:48 AM
Well with that logic there is also no point to a 13" MacBook and a 13" MacBook Pro, yet Apple sold tons of each for years. There were similar, yet different.

Probably differences b/w a 13" MBA and 13" MBP

1) Faster bus and proc in MBP
2) Additional ports on MBP
3) Larger standard SSD in MBP
4) Lower price & weight for MBA.

5) MBP has more attractive bezel that just "goes" with your iDevices ;)

deconstruct60
Jun 15, 2012, 08:51 AM
Always less than pc world. Remember this is probably only for this year.

classic MacBook pro will die, you will have Air, Pro (retina) maybe also in 13".


Not necessarily. If the classic MBP 13" outsells the MBA 13" 2:1 and the MBA 13" sells about 1:1 to the hiDPI MBP 13" then it is the MBA that will likely die.

It would irrational for Apple to kill off the product that more customers wanted. Especially now that they (MBP 13" and MBA 13") are at the exact same price. This is a test as to what users prefer. If there are significant people who want the extra sockets and the DVD drive then it will live on.

A hiDPI MBP 13" is likely to be quite close to the MBA 13" on weight and size. (perhaps if they strip off 1.1lbs (-25%) , 3.4lbs versus the MBA's 2.9lbs ). It probably won't be tapered like the MBA 13" because it will need the extra battery capacity inside. But that's the catch 22. The MBA 13" can't compete with either the additional graphics and/or batteries that a slightly slimmed down MBP 13" would have that the hiDPI graphics demand.

The two with the fewest differences between them are the two slimmed down models. The could end up with the exact same side sockets and the major difference is that the hiDPI model has the much better screen and much better processor. The only marginally significant physical thing the MBA 13" would have is 0.5lbs lower weight advantage (-15%). That's about it. The major outstanding difference would be the price.

But the MBP 13" shares that same price advantage and is substantively more different and sells into to a larger user base.

In that context, I'm not sure why Apple would keep those two with "maximized thinness" models.

If it turns out the MBA 13" outsells the MBP 13" 2:1 (and both significantly outselling the hiDPI model ) then I could see the justification. Even more so if Apple can't strip off 25% of the weight. If they get more weight than that then it gets fuzzy again. However, even at 1:1 ratio with the MBA, the MBP 13" has advantages.


The ones you see today with super drive are just for the transition.

Apple thinks they are the transition. But if the customers vote with their pocketbooks that DVD and edge sockets are more valuable to them Apple will probably move along a longer transition. The MBA would go away first and then when Apple can make flash storage sizes bigger at more affordable prices, Thunderbolt docks/dongles get cheaper, 802.11ac takes wider spread hold, Intel delivers a one-Chip solution for CPU/GPU/I-Ohub (so maybe allows for discrete GPU), and the hiDPI gets cheaper .... then wipe the MBP 13".

As long as the hiDPI screen remain substantially more expensive it is really a battle between the MBA 13" and MBP 13" as to which one customers want more. I suspect it is going to be the MBP 13". Largely because the MBP 13" hiDPI model it going to snare more of the folks chasing Apple's 'future' than the reduced in price MBA 13" will.

I think the MBA has always had "too many" compromises. Apple is incrementally giving back on those. Two USB sockets , because one was not enough. Next will the the gratuitous taper to kill battery space just to snag some 0.11" edge number on one side. When it becomes battery space to support revolutionary new screen versus some "world's thinnest" title they lost years ago .... I think the taper will loose.

Rocketman
Jun 15, 2012, 08:54 AM
I get there is a power envelope and a "target" battery life of one work day. But couldn't a 13" MB-R have discreeet graphics installed but only enabled when actually needed as a GPU or to drive larger than stock displays? Or for specific apps where HD4000 graphics are inadequate? It might very well be in such situations it is okay to have it plugged in or to knowingly allow battery life to suffer.

On a similar theme, why couldn't the device have a LTE transceiver installed for similar occasional use?

Plenty of folks would also be quite willing to accept a thicker, heavier form factor for double the battery capacity if all these features are the offset.

802.11ac too.

Apple has the technical capacity right now to offer all those features designed to encourage folks to wean off Ethernet, Firewire, hard drives, optical drives and others.

I accept they are letting the streams cross by releasing Air like Pros concurrent with traditional Pro updates so if someone needs/wants an optical drive all you have to do is compromise and settle for lower speed I/O, no SSD option, lower resolution display. Oh wait, this is the ole crippleware to force updating customers to the new direction. But it is so overt now.

It is not actually necessary to compromise so much except to absolutely minimize entry price. So How about a MB-R "best" that has all these valuable features in a road warrior form factor? And don't split/cripple TB. Have 2 TB controllers so both are 20 gb/s.

Rocketman

needfx
Jun 15, 2012, 09:03 AM
Warning : Off Topic Post

ipad 2 --> the new ipad
mac book pro --> mackbook pro with retina display

seems like apple has taken a turn with its product naming, giving them a phrase-y feel.

dnedved
Jun 15, 2012, 09:04 AM
I've had almost every size Mac notebook (literally every size except 15"). The only one that was unusable at its screen resolution was the 11" MBA I had last year -- the screen was beautiful and easy to see but too many applications just don't render correctly on that small of a vertical screen resolution. It's really frustrating to see most of your window with the buttons just barely visible at the bottom of the screen. My eyes are almost 40 years old, and I had no problem reading text or using the 11" screen all day long… apart from the resolution issues.

11" was also the handiest form factor -- the difference in weight and size was just enough to make it incredibly handier to pick up with one hand to use on the sofa or to just grab and toss in a bag than the 13" MBA. Unless you've owned both sizes you really can't appreciate how much lighter and handier the 11" is than the already light and handy 13". I'm now on my second 13" MBA due to the little bit better vertical resolution making the screen actually usable. An 11" screen with retina would be 100% perfect for me and a very large percentage of the users… really hope that one is released soon! Unfortunately for Apple, once they have an 11" MBA with a backlit screen and a half terra of SSD they won't be getting me to update every 10-14 months! Holding out for awhile longer, I've only got 6 months on this one.

MrRoyksopp
Jun 15, 2012, 09:05 AM
It would be amazing!
If it happens, I'm ready to buy one!

adildacoolset
Jun 15, 2012, 09:15 AM
Interesting that you would say that even though your signature says "I hate macrumors"

I knew someone would bring that up. I think this site is good, as I did my signature because I was once moderated unfairly once which had something to do with my sig. So, it's just like saying "don't moderate me unfairly for this"

Codyak
Jun 15, 2012, 09:16 AM
Run your game at 1280x800. It'll use 4 pixels to display 1, thus it won't look like total crap (it won't be blurry because you're not using the native resolution). Tell you me you had thought of that, please. ;)

Obviously you have not been reading up on the HD 4000! It will barely run new games at 720P (and usually less) at 30 FPS. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000-Benchmarked.73567.0.html

To top it off, these games are Windows with Direct X, take a few minutes to read through, say the Diablo 3 forums, the Open GL version on Mac runs much worse. To take it one step further, the older 9 series cards you are referencing for comparison have dedicated VRAM, integrated graphics must share RAM from the system (which is significantly slower). Usually the dedicated GPU's have ~512mb (again of their own VRAM), I know with the Sandy Bridge HD 3000, it was allowed a measly 384MB.

I am not saying it can't handle three high resolution main displays for general desktop use, but saying it will function for anything GPU intensive at even 720P, let alone the Retna resolution, is sort of a joke.

duffmanth
Jun 15, 2012, 09:20 AM
I think they'll probably transition there entire notebook line over to Retina displays eventually.

cypress822
Jun 15, 2012, 09:28 AM
Oh how i wish we could hear just one thing about the iMac, as opposed to the macbook

Colpeas
Jun 15, 2012, 09:29 AM
Such a shame I can't afford to wait for a new laptop till October. If it was released alongside with the 15" next-gen, I'd have been sold already, but now I'll probably have to go for the 13" Air, as the crappy resolution is the only thing that keeps me from buying a 13" Pro.

$*~AAPL~*$
Jun 15, 2012, 09:42 AM
I still believe it was an outright mistake to not have a 17" MBP... Hopefully one will come along later. If not I'm simply not buying anythingless and will getalong fine with a 17" other quality brand. I am hoping for a MBPthough... I do like the interconnectivity of :apple: stuff.

Stetrain
Jun 15, 2012, 09:50 AM
Wow, Macbook Air 13", Macbook Pro 13", or Retina Macbook Pro 13"?

That'd be very confusing. At least now there's only max 2 variations of each size.

It will eventually just be 11" Air, 13" Air, 13" Pro, 15" Pro. The Macbook Pro will just be the Retina Display models.

I don't think we'll see Retina displays come to the Air line for a couple of years. They're Apple's new entry level consumer notebooks so they want to keep prices down (in fact they dropped prices by $100 for some models with the last update).

Also the non-tapered form factor gives the MBP room for more battery than the Air.

mkoesel
Jun 15, 2012, 09:52 AM
So going forward, the Pro will offer vs. the Air:

- Retina display
- Quad core processor
- Discrete graphics
- Twice as much RAM capacity
- HDMI
- SDXC card slot
- Audio line out
- Dual microphones

This assumes of course, that the forthcoming 13" Retina Pro has all of these same features that the 15" one does (I think it is a pretty safe bet, though I could also see the HDMI port being omitted from the 13").

Formerly the Pro offered vs. the Air:

- Faster processor
- Discrete graphics
- Twice as much RAM capacity
- SDXC card slot
- Optical drive
- Firewire port
- Ethernet port
- Audio line out
- Kennsington lock slot

I may have missed some minor items on those lists.

I expect the legacy Pro models will soon disappear, perhaps with the introduction of the new Retina 13" Pro, or perhaps after the possible introduction of a future 15" Air.

I also think that, eventually, the Airs will get Retina displays as well. I wonder what resolution a 11" retina display would have? Perhaps 2048x1280.

$*~AAPL~*$
Jun 15, 2012, 09:53 AM
I still believe it was an outright mistake to not have a 17" MBP... Hopefully one will come along later. If not I'm simply not buying anythingless and will getalong fine with a 17" other quality brand. I am hoping for a MBPthough... I do like the interconnectivity of :apple: stuff.

And I also believe the WWDC was a serious failure... Only a slightly soupedup MBAir is what this is to me and possibly to alot of other people given the stock continually dumping since the WWDC. If they had a "one more thing"... The world would have lost it's mind with happiness. Such a HUGE opportunity just simply wasted. I am getting a little woried about Apple. iPad kills the iPhone, MBAir kills MBP, this is going to get pretty bad if not already starting, and I soo wish it were not the case. And why BTW is there hardly ever nothing here about Apple Stock? It's a FAR bigger story than most of the pointless conjecture.

Anthony0224
Jun 15, 2012, 09:53 AM
I CAN NOT F#$%ING WAIT TO GET A 13" RETINA MACBOOK PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

:D
:apple::apple::apple:

MrCrowbar
Jun 15, 2012, 09:59 AM
Nicest thing about this thread - there's no one insisting it will have Ethernet, Firewire or an optical drive.

I personally really need Firewire, but with the thunderbolt ports and affordable adapters, it's a non-issue. Connect all the Firewire devices to thunderbolt 1 (you can daisy-chain them) and external display to thunderbolt 2. When you're doing something really network intensive where WIFI just doesn't cut it, unplug the firewire stuff and insert the ethernet adapter. If you max out a gigabit Ethernet connection, the i/o is pretty busy anyway.

Optical drives are really legacy at this point. USB drives from LG are fairly cheap and plug and play, also muuuuuuch faster than anything built into a Mac (except maybe the Mac Pro).

My 13" MBP is 3 years old now, getting a bit slow for iPhoto, Lion is unbearably slow on it (I'm back on Snow Leopard), Final Cut 4 was fine, Final Cut X is barely usable, fans are annoyingly loud for any audio work. A 13" Macbook Air might just be what I want but I wanna see how the retina 13" MBP turns out.

dwarnecke11
Jun 15, 2012, 10:05 AM
I guess my concern regards only the Intel integrated graphics supporting that beautiful Retina Display...

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2012, 10:07 AM
Obviously you have not been reading up on the HD 4000! It will barely run new games at 720P (and usually less) at 30 FPS. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000-Benchmarked.73567.0.html

What games ? 3D intensive games ? I bet the older MBP 13" had the same problem with its Intel HD 3000 then, so what was lost ? And if that is the case, the 320M MacBook Pro couldn't run those games either...

That won't stop Apple from putting in a retina display, that's not even starting to be an excuse. The GPU can power a desktop just fine. Apple doesn't care about gaming.

$*~AAPL~*$
Jun 15, 2012, 10:11 AM
And I also believe the WWDC was a serious failure... Only a slightly soupedup MBAir is what this is to me and possibly to alot of other people given the stock continually dumping since the WWDC. If they had a "one more thing"... The world would have lost it's mind with happiness. Such a HUGE opportunity just simply wasted. I am getting a little woried about Apple. iPad kills the iPhone, MBAir kills MBP, this is going to get pretty bad if not already starting, and I soo wish it were not the case. And why BTW is there hardly ever nothing here about Apple Stock? It's a FAR bigger story than most of the pointless conjecture.

And now I see there is no ethernet port... Just downright STUPID imo... I'm NOT buying a MBP for a long time now assuredly, no 17" AND no ethernet?? Forget it!! But what is worse this will most certainly screw MBP sales... Does Apple really believe WiFi is THAT ubiquitous? What the F are they on??? This makes me so angry as a shareholder with over a $Million in flipping AAPL. No frigging wonder it's been selling off so hard since WWDC... EPIC FAIL. DAMN!!!

Ryth
Jun 15, 2012, 10:19 AM
For personal use, I'd love this.

The 15.4 model is great for work though.

Personally I'd rather have a 13" for work hooked up to a Apple monitor.

If they had the same specs, I'd go for the 13"

----------

And I also believe the WWDC was a serious failure... Only a slightly soupedup MBAir is what this is to me and possibly to alot of other people given the stock continually dumping since the WWDC. If they had a "one more thing"... The world would have lost it's mind with happiness. Such a HUGE opportunity just simply wasted. I am getting a little woried about Apple. iPad kills the iPhone, MBAir kills MBP, this is going to get pretty bad if not already starting, and I soo wish it were not the case. And why BTW is there hardly ever nothing here about Apple Stock? It's a FAR bigger story than most of the pointless conjecture.

WWDC has nothing to do with the stock...get real.

It's called the Euro Crisis that is making the stock market go down right now.

Apple will be rising shortly because of the iPhone 5 coming in the next few months.

iPad kills the iPhone..wtf are you smoking?

----------

I guess my concern regards only the Intel integrated graphics supporting that beautiful Retina Display...

They can support it. Also, the 13" MBPro would have a Nvidia 650Chip.

imola.zhp
Jun 15, 2012, 10:21 AM
Sweet...

Thats about the time I'll be ready to put my mid 2010 13" MBP up for sale...

gnasher729
Jun 15, 2012, 10:29 AM
It's a retina 13" MB Pro, of course it's going to be higher than 1280x800. If this comes to fruition, my guess it'll be 2560x1600 resolution. This is definitely good news. I'd prefer a 13" Pro over a 15" Pro simply for the portability.

And if they use the same method as on the MBPR, you could switch the resolution up to 1680 x 1050.


It will eventually just be 11" Air, 13" Air, 13" Pro, 15" Pro. The Macbook Pro will just be the Retina Display models.

What's interesting is that if you compare the 15" MBP and 15" MBPR prices, and choose the same amount of RAM and the same hard drive, the MBPR is actually a lot cheaper. You just can't buy it with a cheap spinning hard drive like the 15" MBP (which is a shame really). Now personally I would want an affordable MacBook with a 1 TB drive, and that's just impossible with SSD. Not sure what Apple will do.

And I also believe the WWDC was a serious failure...

WWDC is a week long event full of sessions for 5000 MacOS X and iOS developers to learn about the latest technologies. As far as I know it is a complete success. What you are referring to is the rather unimportant side show where Apple has introduced a few new products; others will be introduced at different times. And that unimportant side show wasn't a failure either; I think you are quite alone with your opinion.

deconstruct60
Jun 15, 2012, 10:30 AM
Is there any chance (technically speaking) of 13" quad with discrete graphics? If they couldn't do it for the old model 13"s this time around, what hope is there for an even slimmer model?[COLOR="#808080"]


Very little chance if Apple keeps the same goals exhibited in the 15" model. There are a couple of competing factors even though the HDD and ODD are gone.

1. They will shrink the volume of the case. So some of that HDD, ODD space savings disappears into nothingness. It gets thrown overboard. It is traded off for weight savings.

[ Back in the day the PowerBook 12" was a bit thicker than the rest of the Powerbooks. I doubt the current Apple is going to pass up the weight savings though and stick with the 0.9" 13" size. Besides it gives them an excuse to dump ports like Ethernet because they are "too thick". LOL. ]

2. The hiDPI screen and increased backlights require a substantial watt storage increase. So bigger batteries. Again this will eat into the HDD, ODD space savings.


3. Apple is likely to allocate the same amount of memory to the 13 hiDPI model as they do the 15" model. So horizontal surface space for 8GB of memory (and doubled up density chips for 16GB at the top end). If going to solder the memory to the motherboard it should have more than the minimalistic amount the MBA's have. However, this takes up almost twice the amount of space the current so-DIMM slots do.

Not a volume killer per se but it certainly is a motherboard surface area killer. Again, area savings from dropping the HDD and ODD eaten up.


4. The SSD cards in the new MBP 15 hiDPI are larger to allow for higher upper bounds on storage. Since have tossed the HDD, the box gets better traction if taking a smaller hit on storage space losses. They need a SSD with capacities closer to a "normal" 2.5 SSD.

A much smaller hit on space increase but a bit more.

5. A discrete GPU needs VRAM. so not only need space for the GPU by also space for what are likely 4 VRAM chips. On the high end 15 hiDPI model there is RAM on both sides of the motherboard (to get to 8/16) and the VRAM is squeezed onto the bottom approximately beneath the GPU.

6. Finally even if want to claw out space for the GPU and VRAM it would likely need a second fan unit to expel the additional heat. That is a another volume space problem and have already eaten up alot of case volume and motherboard area.

The question at this point though is if the RAM, Battery , and case shrinkage haven't killed this off. If look at the MBA 13" motherboard pictures or MBP 13" motherboard pictures there no huge empty gaps.
Theory behind modifying the MBP 13" to put in a GPU usually involved dumping the ODD to increase the motherboard size (to fit the GPU+VRAM) and using a portion of the remaining ODD space to the new components. There would be a bit more left over to increase the battery to power the new components.


If Apple kept the case the same size 0.9" (or maybe 0.8" ) , was willing to cap RAM at 8GB (like the MBA instead of the MBP hiDPI), and shrink the battery life under 7 hours ( maybe 5-6 ) then it could be possible to squeeze a GPU+VRAM+Fan in. However, do you really want to tag a laptop that tops out at 8GB and back-slides a couple hours in battery life as a "MacBookPro"?

doobybiggs
Jun 15, 2012, 10:30 AM
It's a retina 13" MB Pro, of course it's going to be higher than 1280x800. If this comes to fruition, my guess it'll be 2560x1600 resolution. This is definitely good news. I'd prefer a 13" Pro over a 15" Pro simply for the portability.

this would be my guess on resolution.

JohnDoe98
Jun 15, 2012, 10:35 AM
Formerly the Pro offered vs. the Air:

- Faster processor
- Discrete graphics
- Twice as much RAM capacity
- SDXC card slot
- Optical drive
- Firewire port
- Ethernet port
- Audio line out
- Kennsington lock slot



The 13" pro never gave discrete graphics and there never was a 15" Air, so I don't know what your doing here.

jowie
Jun 15, 2012, 10:35 AM
1280x800 is WAY too low for a 13" laptop. My 11" Air has higher resolution. I know Retina "looks nice", but, c'mon...
It's not native resolution, but there is always the "More Space" option on the Retina MBPs...

propaintballa
Jun 15, 2012, 10:35 AM
I don't get what people are saying about the price of the 15" Retina MBP... At first, it is a hell of a lot of money, and more so over here in the UK by a good amount...

But try specing another laptop to have the same CPU, GPU, highest res screen and a 512GB SSD and see what you get ;)

jowie
Jun 15, 2012, 10:39 AM
We are entering an era of laptops that have no upgrade path... Which leaves me with the dilemma that any new laptop I buy in future will have to be max or near-max spec (in terms of memory and capacity).

deconstruct60
Jun 15, 2012, 10:40 AM
What games ? 3D intensive games ? I bet the older MBP 13" had the same problem with its Intel HD 3000 then, so what was lost ?

If the MBP 13" had problems with the games then the hiDPI screen would be twice as worse. The problem would get bigger so the loss is bigger.

It isn't just 3D games though. Increasing number of regular apps use OpenGL to accelerate even what has traditionally been 2D oriented apps. IF open alot of windows that are accelerated and they all use the framebuffer to do lots of work then will get a slowdown. The HD 3000 and still the HD4000 were not meant to run very large pixel areas with no slowdowns. It will "run" at the max resolution. The issue is whether enough folks who have paid $1,500 will be happy with the performance.

Sure if users are running 10-15 xterm windows it will run just fine. I don't that's the mainstream audience for the model though.

Abazigal
Jun 15, 2012, 10:40 AM
And I also believe the WWDC was a serious failure... Only a slightly soupedup MBAir is what this is to me and possibly to alot of other people given the stock continually dumping since the WWDC. If they had a "one more thing"... The world would have lost it's mind with happiness. Such a HUGE opportunity just simply wasted. I am getting a little woried about Apple. iPad kills the iPhone, MBAir kills MBP, this is going to get pretty bad if not already starting, and I soo wish it were not the case. And why BTW is there hardly ever nothing here about Apple Stock? It's a FAR bigger story than most of the pointless conjecture.

WWDC only seems boring because you are not the target audience. It was always about the designers, and this was very apparent right from the get go. What with that video clip about how their apps are helping mankind, the introduction of retina MBP (because devs need time and incentive to design apps for the retina display). Tim Cook was really going out of his way to make the designers feel special and appreciated, so they would continue to create apps for Apple (and drive the sales of apple devices). :)

ebolamonkey3
Jun 15, 2012, 10:45 AM
Can't wait to see what the final resolution will be!

JS3
Jun 15, 2012, 10:46 AM
I still believe it was an outright mistake to not have a 17" MBP... Hopefully one will come along later. If not I'm simply not buying anythingless and will getalong fine with a 17" other quality brand. I am hoping for a MBPthough... I do like the interconnectivity of :apple: stuff.

Everything is getting smaller and thinner. I can't see the 17" coming back. Best bet is to buy a 27" monitor for home then have the 15" for the road.

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2012, 10:52 AM
And now I see there is no ethernet port... Just downright STUPID imo... I'm NOT buying a MBP for a long time now assuredly, no 17" AND no ethernet?? Forget it!! But what is worse this will most certainly screw MBP sales... Does Apple really believe WiFi is THAT ubiquitous? What the F are they on??? This makes me so angry as a shareholder with over a $Million in flipping AAPL. No frigging wonder it's been selling off so hard since WWDC... EPIC FAIL. DAMN!!!

Ethernet works fine even though the port is not built-in.

----------


They can support it. Also, the 13" MBPro would have a Nvidia 650Chip.

What makes you think that ?

----------

If the MBP 13" had problems with the games then the hiDPI screen would be twice as worse. The problem would get bigger so the loss is bigger.

You don't have to run in HiDPI mode, switch your game to 1280x800. Am I repeating myself here ? Geez.

Nothing would be lost (since a retina 13" MBP doesn't exist).

----------



It isn't just 3D games though. Increasing number of regular apps use OpenGL to accelerate even what has traditionally been 2D oriented apps. IF open alot of windows that are accelerated and they all use the framebuffer to do lots of work then will get a slowdown. The HD 3000 and still the HD4000 were not meant to run very large pixel areas with no slowdowns. It will "run" at the max resolution. The issue is whether enough folks who have paid $1,500 will be happy with the performance.

The beauty of it is you can try it right now, on any MB with integrated graphics shipped since 2008. All of them can run monitors using a dual link DVI at 2560x1600, which is the same resolution this would be.

Go on, then tell us if there's any issues. OpenGL accelerated frame buffers aren't as intensive as some of you pretend.

gnasher729
Jun 15, 2012, 11:07 AM
The price for Retina MBP 13 will be higher than that at around $1600-1700 range. MBA will never have Retina just because there is no room to put a dedicated graphics card and large battery cells to support running Retina display in the current Air platform. Think of how much space battery cells take inside of Retina MBP 15.

Not necessarily. With the MBPR, the price is only high because together with the Retina display, you also get an SSD drive, lots of RAM, and a quad core processor. MBPR starts at $2199. The difference between MBP 15" with 500 GB HD and 256 GB SSD is $500, the difference between 4 GB and 8 GB is $100. So a MBPR with 500 GB HD (which obviously won't fit) and 4 GB RAM would be $1599. The difference between dual core Mac Mini and quad core Mac Mini is $200; that's the only computer that I found with dual and quad core. So a hypothetical MBPR with dual core, 500 GB HD, 4 GB RAM would be $1399, still with a 15" screen.

Take the existing MBP case, remove the optical drive, and you have an awful lot of battery space. Not a gaming machine, and not high performance, and not a lightweight, but a perfect screen.

brianus
Jun 15, 2012, 11:34 AM
Thanks for the breakdown. I notice you didn't address quad versus dual cores -- how would the space/heat dissipation constraints affect that? I assume it's a factor as it has been for the existing Pro line for the past year, but then again two years ago quads weren't in the line at all. Are they still impractical in a 13" laptop, or just in a very slim one (or not at all)?

Also, would the lack of a discrete GPU have a significant effect outside of gaming? For instance, would these be a problem?

- 1080p video playback
- running a 27" thunderbolt display alongside the laptop's own retina

Very little chance if Apple keeps the same goals exhibited in the 15" model. There are a couple of competing factors even though the HDD and ODD are gone.

manu chao
Jun 15, 2012, 11:36 AM
Are you serious?

And anyway, weren't they selling the 13" Macbook, macbook pro, and macbook air all at the same time before the discontinued the macbook?
Yes, but only for a limited period (Oct 2008 when the unibody 13" MB was introduced until mid-2010 when the white MB was discontinued except for educational customers). And the white MB was clearly a hanger-on, kept in the line as an entry-level model (it was the cheapest Mac laptop during that period). And the discontinuation of the white MB as entry-level model coincided with the introduction of the 11" MBA as the new sub-$1000 model.

Thus, while size and features matter, clearly delineated price brackets matter at least as much. The co-existence of the 13" MBA with the 13" MBP was already a little bit of an odd relationship as they were too close in price.

Rocketman
Jun 15, 2012, 11:41 AM
Nicest thing about this thread - there's no one insisting it will have Ethernet, Firewire or an optical drive.They have surrendered. Just like the dedicated graphics folks will be forced against their will and the obvious need for it to surrender.

mkoesel
Jun 15, 2012, 11:42 AM
The 13" pro never gave discrete graphics and there never was a 15" Air, so I don't know what you're doing here.

The 13" model did in fact formerly have an NVidia GPU but you are correct that the later and current models do not. We'll see soon if the new 13" model goes gains discrete graphics once again - I suggest there is a good chance for it to happen so as to better segment the range.

I realize there has not been a 15" Macbook air to date.

I was merely comparing features between the two product lines. While today there is only one screen size that is offered in both lineups, that could change in the future.

manu chao
Jun 15, 2012, 11:44 AM
Prob because its 2012. Firewire? Never caught on.
Among the cheapskates or those who use external drives only for backups (for which you can live with USB 2).

hudson1
Jun 15, 2012, 11:57 AM
Same for me - dedicated GPU and I will buy it! Intel 4000 is great now, but also to low for my purpose. That's the reason I never have bought a 13" mac book...

MacBooks didn't have the HD4000 until this week so it had to have been another iGPU that you didn't buy

manu chao
Jun 15, 2012, 12:08 PM
But if the customers vote with their pocketbooks that DVD and edge sockets are more valuable to them Apple will probably move along a longer transition.
I don't buy that edge sockets and DVD are a major factor. People have external backup drives connected almost 24/7 or at least daily. Having an internal TM volume would be much more valuable than an internal ODD, one you need daily, the other a few times per month. Edge sockets mainly matter for legacy stuff (FW). With USB 3, two TB ports, adaptors for legacy stuff is not a big problem.

No, the main reason why the 13" MBP might outsell the Air is disk space (particularly disk space per dollar) and to a lesser extent more RAM and faster CPU (and until now also faster I/O with the Air defacto limited to 100 MbitE and USB 2 because of lack of affordable TB stuff).

----------

So going forward, the Pro will offer vs. the Air:

- Retina display
- Quad core processor
- Discrete graphics
- Twice as much RAM capacity
- HDMI
- SDXC card slot
- Audio line out
- Dual microphones

This assumes of course, that the forthcoming 13" Retina Pro has all of these same features that the 15" one does (I think it is a pretty safe bet, though I could also see the HDMI port being omitted from the 13").

Formerly the Pro offered vs. the Air:

- Faster processor
- Discrete graphics
- Twice as much RAM capacity
- SDXC card slot
- Optical drive
- Firewire port
- Ethernet port
- Audio line out
- Kennsington lock slot

I may have missed some minor items on those lists.

I expect the legacy Pro models will soon disappear, perhaps with the introduction of the new Retina 13" Pro, or perhaps after the possible introduction of a future 15" Air.

I also think that, eventually, the Airs will get Retina displays as well. I wonder what resolution a 11" retina display would have? Perhaps 2048x1280.
You missed that the Airs do have audio out and the 13" Air also an SD card slot.

Eidorian
Jun 15, 2012, 12:17 PM
I have no choice but to wait until then. Having a lack of money sucks ;-)I have the money. It is just finding the right product. It is still not out, yet...

jonnysods
Jun 15, 2012, 12:19 PM
That's my machine right there. Maybe they can squeeze in a discrete video card and for sure I'm getting it!

mkoesel
Jun 15, 2012, 12:20 PM
You missed that the Airs do have audio out and the 13" Air also an SD card slot.

Yes, I meant Audio in, not out.

But I did totally forget that the 13" Air has an SD slot.

yanksrock100
Jun 15, 2012, 12:22 PM
Now this is something I would consider. I am torn between the retina Pro and 13 INch air, and this would be the perfect sweet spot in between! I will be getting one for the holidays, so October would be perfect (for me). I'm guessing the resolution will be 1280x800, which will be awesome. I would be willing to pay, and guessing, it will start at $1499, because that is the price of the high end 13 inch model, and the RMPB is the price of the high end 15 inch Macbook Pro.
This is good news, hopefully we will be getting some more rumors coming in! (Even though im all rumored-out from WWDC) :apple:

smoldering
Jun 15, 2012, 12:25 PM
I don't see why a dedicated GPU can't be included in the 13" retina. Its not like apple has never done a 13" MBP with dedicated graphics before.

Most importantly, you have to consider the fractional space gained by the removal of the optical drive. That optical drive took up a larger fraction of the internal space in the 13" machine than it did in the 15". If the report here is accurate that the battery capacity in the 13" retina did not increase as much as the 15", when by all accounts the 13" should be gaining even more fractional battery space, then that leads me to believe that only part of the space gained from excluding the optical drive went to the battery. I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the extra space went to a dedicated GPU.

deconstruct60
Jun 15, 2012, 12:25 PM
Thanks for the breakdown. I notice you didn't address quad versus dual cores -- how would the space/heat dissipation constraints affect that?

It would probably be duals. Both the current 13" MBP and MBA have duals. Shrinking the case isn't going to help.

Besides at the next Haswell increment Intel is going to come out with a dual CPU that is an "system-on-chip" configuration. The CPU and I/O Hub support chipset are going to merge into one chip; kind of silly to just call it a CPU at that point but I'm sure most folks will still label it that way. It is likely Apple will move to that solution. If remove the I/O Hub chip from the board and shrink/consolidate a few more components (even higher density RAM ) in the next iteration of the MBP 13" hiDPI might pick up a GPU with all the freed up space.





Are they still impractical in a 13" laptop, or just in a very slim one (or not at all)?

Quads are practical as long as move to a different set of constraints. I don't think it really buys all that much and the system vendors are going to like the product segmentation it gives them with the 15" at 4 and the 13" at 2.



Also, would the lack of a discrete GPU have a significant effect outside of gaming?

It can.


For instance, would these be a problem?

- 1080p video playback


No. There is now fixed logic in most GPUs to do video. Most of the GPU can be switched off if just dong generic 1080p playback. The HD3000 does 1080p playback OK.


- running a 27" thunderbolt display alongside the laptop's own retina

Depends. If there are large number of OpenGL accelerated windows on both screens then may start to choke bandwidth to the GPU. Remember the iGPU is sharing bandwidth to memory with the CPU cores. If all the GPU cores are tugging at memory at the same time all the CPU cores are tugging at memory you can bottleneck. It will run, but you won't get 'instantaneous' responses out of menus and the like. For some, that is a problem.


If just running a big Excel spreadsheet on one screen and a Web browser & iMessages on another... then no.

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2012, 12:31 PM
The 13" model did in fact formerly have an NVidia GPU but you are correct that the later and current models do not.

The 13" MBP never had a discrete GPU. It had an nVidia integrated GPU (integrated to the north bridge and sharing system memory).

deppisch
Jun 15, 2012, 12:35 PM
You realize he was talking about real estate, not density, right? If it's got 2560x1600 pixel density, then it's 1280x800 in effective real estate.

If you've messed around with the Retina MBP, you'll see that in the display settings, you can have the screen mimic a 1920x1200 screen for more real estate. I'm assuming the 13" MBP Retina would have a similar option, allowing the standard 1280x800 to be chosen, with the option of a higher perceived resolution, giving the user more screen real estate if desired. The technology is there, and the precedent is set.

crsh1976
Jun 15, 2012, 12:39 PM
The 13" MBP never had a discrete GPU. It had an nVidia integrated GPU (integrated to the north bridge and sharing system memory).

Err, the Geforce 320M from 2 generations ago was effectively a discreet GPU; the fact that it used shared system RAM rather than dedicated GDDR3-4-5 memory doesn't change that.

It's a separate processor, not one integrated in the north bridge or part of the CPU die; that's what qualifies it as a discreet GPU, not the type of memory it uses.

mkoesel
Jun 15, 2012, 12:44 PM
The 13" MBP never had a discrete GPU. It had an nVidia integrated GPU (integrated to the north bridge and sharing system memory).

Ah, yes indeed. My mistake.

In any case, going forward, I do expect the 13" Pro to gain discrete graphics. As one poster mentioned above, the removal of the optical drive (even while acknowledging the new, smaller form factor and larger capacity battery) could very well make this feasible.

jeremyshaw
Jun 15, 2012, 12:45 PM
Err, the Geforce 320M from 2 generations ago was effectively a discreet GPU; the fact that it used shared system RAM rather than dedicated GDDR3-4-5 memory doesn't change that.

It's a separate processor, not one integrated in the north bridge or part of the CPU die; that's what qualifies it as a discreet GPU, not the type of memory it uses.

It WAS the NB, lol (as with all later nVidia chipset designs, where the NB/IGP and SB came together onto the same package/die). It's an IGP, with typical IGP bandwidth limitations.

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2012, 12:46 PM
Err, the Geforce 320M from 2 generations ago was effectively a discreet GPU; the fact that it used shared system RAM rather than dedicated GDDR3-4-5 memory doesn't change that.

It's a separate processor, not one integrated in the north bridge or part of the CPU die; that's what qualifies it as a discreet GPU, not the type of memory it uses.

I meant south bridge sorry. The 320M was an integrated part, containing a GPU, memory controller, PCI bridge, etc...

EDIT: nvm, it was both north bridge/south bridge. You're just wrong.

deconstruct60
Jun 15, 2012, 12:51 PM
I don't buy that edge sockets and DVD are a major factor.

Perhaps shouldn't have limited to the edge and DVD. The HDD , RAM , and CPU play a role but those can be negated.



People have external backup drives connected almost 24/7 or at least daily. Having an internal TM volume would be much more valuable than an internal ODD,

An internal TM volume in a mobile device is a dubious idea. The major reason why folks shift to SSD in mobile products is to avoid the disconnect between walking around and spinning hard drives. A HDD that is being bounced around as being your primary source of back-up is a bit off. It is nice just as long as don't think about just how vulernable your back-up drive is located there.

Frankly, I don't think most folks back up much even with stationary drives. Time Machine makes it easy by many don't. There is an even smaller number of folks backing up to either two time machine stores or back-stopping with incremental clones in addition to time machine. I seriously doubt that is mainstream. Nor an idea Apple would encourage to go mainstream.



No, the main reason why the 13" MBP might outsell the Air is disk space (particularly disk space per dollar)

I suppose that will last this year. Apple bought a flash controller IP company. I suspect they are soon going to deploy flash with "good enough" capacity and just leave those with high bulk and strong $/GB demands to small external drive powered off the Thunderbolt port. Just like how the Ethernet can be pushed into a dongle, 2.5" HDD can just as easily be pushed into a dongle once Apple turns that into "the few who need it".



and to a lesser extent more RAM and faster CPU (and until now also faster


RAM is much of an issue if comes with 8 or 16GB by default. If Apple cut the "extra" Apple tax slightly for the 16GB variant all the more true.


I/O with the Air defacto limited to 100 MbitE and USB 2 because of lack of affordable TB stuff).

Errr? The Air now has USB 3.0. and the 1GbE will be (or is ) $29.99. For the latter, just how much affordable you want it to be? [ the 1GbE dongle isn't a BTO option for the MBA now but I suspect that is a hiccup that Mountain Lion will cure. It is just a matter of drivers and configuration testing. The dongle's driver update was screwed up some folks on Lion. ]

I don't think Apple is going to measure against what the MBA 13" and MBP 13" sales were before. I'm talking now that the prices and some of the feature sets have been evened out it is going to be much more clear which one has more inate appeal over the medium term.

The MBP 13" an MBA 13' were tiered slightly above each other before. Apple could go back to that with the MBP 13" staying at the lower spot and the new MBP 13" taking the higher price tier structure. The MBA 13" could just peter out after about a year's run until the next update cycle if it is the weakest out of the three.

crsh1976
Jun 15, 2012, 12:51 PM
My bad, you guys are right; I had the GT 320M in mind, not the non-GT/integrated 320M used in the 13-inch MBP of yore.

Carry on. :(

jeremyshaw
Jun 15, 2012, 12:51 PM
Ah, yes indeed. My mistake.

In any case, going forward, I do expect the 13" Pro to gain discrete graphics. As one poster mentioned above, the removal of the optical drive (even while acknowledging the new, smaller form factor and larger capacity battery) could very well make this feasible.

Eh, Sony already does it in the Vaio SA (full speed dual core + HD6630m) and the new Vaio S13A (full speed dual core + gt640m le) lineup. It even includes the optical drive, doesn't use proprietary SSDs, and gives a 1600x900 13" panel, to boot. So how the MBP13 didn't have that this time around, is rather disappointing to me. I even tried to get my old SA to overheat (to see if it could)... it just refused to even throttle, much less overheat. So no excuses. Ultrabook makers are punching in 620m and 630m chips into ultrabooks, for crying out loud.

gnasher729
Jun 15, 2012, 01:00 PM
Thanks for the breakdown. I notice you didn't address quad versus dual cores -- how would the space/heat dissipation constraints affect that? I assume it's a factor as it has been for the existing Pro line for the past year, but then again two years ago quads weren't in the line at all. Are they still impractical in a 13" laptop, or just in a very slim one (or not at all)?

Also, would the lack of a discrete GPU have a significant effect outside of gaming? For instance, would these be a problem?

- 1080p video playback
- running a 27" thunderbolt display alongside the laptop's own retina

Gaming wouldn't work too well, apart from that it's not a problem. 1080p video playback on a 1280*800 retina = 2560*1600 display while browsing MacRumors on a 27" display should work just fine (if you turn Flash off :D ). For gaming you probably want to use 1280 x 800 only.

Astroexe
Jun 15, 2012, 01:02 PM
I think they're more likely to create a new line of MacBooks and discontinue the old MacBook Pros, releasing a 13" or even 17" retina as the top-end model [yes I know it's just been discontinued, that's why I think they'd bring it back for the top-level instead of a 13"]. Why would Apple have their old-line MacBooks if they weren't having an option for those who can't afford the new Retina but want something heftier than the air?
A Mid-line MacBook would be tear-drop shaped, Flash storage, No Retina Display, 14" or 13" and available in Chrome or some other colour [Maybe White? Black?] Creating 5 Mac notebook sizes seems like a very smart thing for Apple to do, and creating a middle-range and more accessible option seems like a chance that Apple really shouldn't miss.

Yinmay
Jun 15, 2012, 01:05 PM
The reasons why people purchase the current MBP13 over the current Air 13 are
1) optical drive
2) larger harder disk
3) ethernet and firewire ports
4) slightly more processing power

A retina MBP13 would not have 1, 2 and 3.

Given that the MBP13 and Air have the same HD 4000, the only advantage left is 4. But the difference in processing power between the current MBP13 and Air is not enough by itself to justify picking the Pro over the Air.

Unless the 13" retina gets a quad core full voltage processor and a discrete GPU, perhaps 620M or 630M, it makes absolutely no sense compared to an Air with BTO retina display.

NutsNGum
Jun 15, 2012, 01:07 PM
Its not like apple has never done a 13" MBP with dedicated graphics before.


They haven't.

NewbieCanada
Jun 15, 2012, 01:09 PM
I personally really need Firewire, but with the thunderbolt ports and affordable adapters, it's a non-issue.

I have no issue with folks who need any technology. I have a firewire drive myself. My issue is with people who insisted Apple wasn't going to remove it when it was pretty clear they would.

smoldering
Jun 15, 2012, 01:10 PM
They haven't.

The first gen 13" came with GeForce 9400M and then 320M dedicated GPUs.

Analog Kid
Jun 15, 2012, 01:15 PM
Holding out for an 11" retina. Niche product for sure, but I really need a small and light, high resolution laptop to carry for tethered photography.

CountSessine
Jun 15, 2012, 01:15 PM
The 13" MBP never had a discrete GPU. It had an nVidia integrated GPU (integrated to the north bridge and sharing system memory).

Yup. Until Intel locked nVidia out of the north bridge business, laptop buyers actually an option to get good integrated graphics.

Eidorian
Jun 15, 2012, 01:16 PM
The first gen 13" came with GeForce 9400M and then 320M dedicated GPUs.While offering much more powerful shaders, both are still integrated graphics sharing from the system RAM.

ralphthemagi
Jun 15, 2012, 01:17 PM
The first gen 13" came with GeForce 9400M and then 320M dedicated GPUs.

As someone pointed out above, those were not dedicated GPUs.

The old PowerBooks had dedicated GPUs IIRC. No Intel-based 13" has ever had a dedicated GPU. The NVIDIA solutions are IGPs, just third party IGPs.

In order for a GPU to be considered "dedicated" it needs it's own memory, and as a result has a significantly larger footprint on the logic board.

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2012, 01:29 PM
The first gen 13" came with GeForce 9400M and then 320M dedicated GPUs.

Both those are chipsets with integrated GPUs. Not dedicated cards at all.

smoldering
Jun 15, 2012, 01:29 PM
As someone pointed out above, those were not dedicated GPUs.

The old PowerBooks had dedicated GPUs IIRC. No Intel-based 13" has ever had a dedicated GPU. The NVIDIA solutions are IGPs, just third party IGPs.

In order for a GPU to be considered "dedicated" it needs it's own memory, and as a result has a significantly larger footprint on the logic board.

Are they not graphics processing chips separate from the CPU? Is that not the definition of a dedicated GPU? I think there is some confusion here about the difference between a dedicated GPU and a discrete GPU (and it may be on my end...). Are these chips (or their contemporaries) really considered IGPs and are no better than Intel HD 3000/4000? I would think they are better, given that the 9400M was briefly the sole graphics solution on the base 15".

Are these solutions still available, or as CountSessine mentions, did Intel lock out options such as these, making a discrete GPU the only upgrade path?

BSW13
Jun 15, 2012, 01:31 PM
According to my calculation, the price of the 13" MBPr will be $1599.

Here's how it breaks down...

Just take the current 13" price and compare that to a 15" price... the 15" is $600 more.

Now take the normal 15" MBP and compare it to the 15" MBPR... the MBPR is $400 more.

So..... $2199 - $600 = $1599
and.... $1199 + $400 = $1599

Makes perfect sense!:cool::D

I doubt it will be that cheap. You can't compare it to the legacy MBP's 13 or 15 inch.

The legacy 13 inch MBP's replacement is the 13 inch MBA, hence the identical pricing.

I assume the new Macbook Pro will only be 128g SSD, so lets start with the 13inch MBA 1199. Add 4g ram which in apple pricing structure is $100. I assume they will bump to the I-7 cpu so add another $100. I'm guessing the price premium Apple will add for the Retina screen is $300-$400

$1199+$100+$100+$300/$400= $1699-$1799

The higher end model will be add 256g SSD in apple pricing structure that is + $300

That gives apple the line up:

11inch MBA
-$999
-$1099

13inch MBA
-$1199
-$1499

13inch MBP
-$1699 or $1799
-$1999 or $2099

15inch MBP
-$2199
-$2799

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2012, 01:32 PM
Are they not graphics processing chips separate from the CPU? Is that not the definition of a dedicated GPU?

No, that is not the definition of a dedicated GPU. A dedicated GPU has its own die, is a seperate chip and uses RAM reserved to itself.

Integrated GPUs, be they the new type "On the CPU die" or the old type "on the chipset die" share space with other system components (in the case of the 9400m and 320m, we're talking about the PCI bridge, memory controller, I/O controller) and share system RAM with the CPU for framebuffer and texture storage.

The 320M and 9400M were both IGPs, Integrated Graphics Processor.

NutsNGum
Jun 15, 2012, 01:41 PM
The first gen 13" came with GeForce 9400M and then 320M dedicated GPUs.

Both integrated.

Limboistik
Jun 15, 2012, 02:03 PM
I doubt it will be that cheap. You can't compare it to the legacy MBP's 13 or 15 inch.

The legacy 13 inch MBP's replacement is the 13 inch MBA, hence the identical pricing.

I assume the new Macbook Pro will only be 128g SSD, so lets start with the 13inch MBA 1199. Add 4g ram which in apple pricing structure is $100. I assume they will bump to the I-7 cpu so add another $100. I'm guessing the price premium Apple will add for the Retina screen is $300-$400

$1199+$100+$100+$300/$400= $1699-$1799

The higher end model will be add 256g SSD in apple pricing structure that is + $300

That gives apple the line up:

11inch MBA
-$999
-$1099

13inch MBA
-$1199
-$1499

13inch MBP
-$1699 or $1799
-$1999 or $2099

15inch MBP
-$2199
-$2799

Looks about right.
I'm interested to see what's to come next year when they refresh.
Would they simply drop the price? Or bump the specs and keep the entry the point same?

Time will tell.

jeremyshaw
Jun 15, 2012, 02:11 PM
Are they not graphics processing chips separate from the CPU? Is that not the definition of a dedicated GPU? I think there is some confusion here about the difference between a dedicated GPU and a discrete GPU (and it may be on my end...). Are these chips (or their contemporaries) really considered IGPs and are no better than Intel HD 3000/4000? I would think they are better, given that the 9400M was briefly the sole graphics solution on the base 15".

Are these solutions still available, or as CountSessine mentions, did Intel lock out options such as these, making a discrete GPU the only upgrade path?

nVidia used to have a FSB chipset license (everything before the Core "i" i3/i5/i7). Then, when Intel made the move to DMI (rather, when the only remaining exposed chipset interface was DMI [the NB--SB connection], due to Intel moving the NB on package, then on die), they did not allow nVidia to aquire a DMI license.

That is why the Core/Core2 chips where the only ones which had nVidia chipsets (for Apple computers). It's also the exact reason why the MBP13 with the 320m IGP had a Core 2 Duo, while the rest of the lineup had Core i5/i7 with GT330m dedicated GPUs (the early Intel Arrandale IGPs were little more than modified, old P45 NBs put on package with the CPU).

Konrad
Jun 15, 2012, 02:43 PM
I doubt it will be that cheap. You can't compare it to the legacy MBP's 13 or 15 inch.


That gives apple the line up:

11inch MBA
-$999
-$1099

13inch MBA
-$1199
-$1499

13inch MBP
-$1699 or $1799
-$1999 or $2099

15inch MBP
-$2199
-$2799

It would be more realistic of you corrected the 15MBP to $1999.- and $2499.- respectively and continued with the remaining line up accordingly. The market sustainability is different and the retina and SSD by full offer completion will all bring the prices down.

The above prices you suggested would be of significant detriment to the projected and needed quantity.

GorgonPhone
Jun 15, 2012, 02:49 PM
Now this I would buy.

The 15" is way too pricy for me for what it is.

Yes the 13s are perfect for portability and power combo and i love to hook in to my 21" monitor when at home i will sell me current get MBP 13 fro the retina

twoodcc
Jun 15, 2012, 03:24 PM
people who just bought one would not like this. i personally think the faster apple goes all retina, the better

Colpeas
Jun 15, 2012, 04:48 PM
If they had the same specs, I'd go for the 13"


They can support it. Also, the 13" MBPro would have a Nvidia 650Chip.

I doubt that 13" Next-gen Pro will get the same 650M as the 15" model. Reason? It is way too power-hungry. IMO it will be either 630M GDDR5 or 620M DDR3 (w/out dedicated memory). But on the other hand, processors will be quad-core for sure.

gnasher729
Jun 15, 2012, 04:52 PM
According to my calculation, the price of the 13" MBPr will be $1599.

Here's how it breaks down...

Just take the current 13" price and compare that to a 15" price... the 15" is $600 more.

Now take the normal 15" MBP and compare it to the 15" MBPR... the MBPR is $400 more.

So..... $2199 - $600 = $1599
and.... $1199 + $400 = $1599

Makes perfect sense!:cool::D

Eleven positive ratings for a calculation that is just - wrong.

You compared the price for the cheapest 15" MBP and the cheapest 15" MBPR and found that the MBPR is $400 more. But you didn't compare compareable computers. If you compare the 15" MBP with the same 8 GB RAM and with the same 256 GB SSD drive of the cheapest 15" MBPR, then you find the comparison is $2399 vs $2199 - the MBPR is $200 less.

Digital Skunk
Jun 15, 2012, 04:52 PM
I would buy a thin 13" Retina MBP with dual Thunderbolts, etc. in a heartbeat!

cire1244
Jun 15, 2012, 05:11 PM
AGHDASBKFUAIEK'OPNIWNU;NICOWPSANIALDHF'!!!!!

Been waiting for the last 6 months for a new 13". The 15" MBP Retina blows me away, but I don't have $2200 to drop, nor want a 15" laptop.

I was planning on buying the new 13" MBP sometime this month and be satisfied, albeit a little disappointed.

Now with this news, I KNOW I will kick myself if the 13" MBPR comes out within the next few months, especially at a ~1600 price point, which I am willing to spend.

Not sure if I can get my used and totally abused 2007 Blackbook to last through the summer, but I might have to try.

Sigh. :apple: why do you mess with me so? :rolleyes:

Cheffy Dave
Jun 15, 2012, 05:14 PM
Once you use Retina screen, you cannot go back, I was ruined by my third gen iPad, now I know all the reasons why due to graphics and battery, why it can't happen, but I wish for an 11" MBA with one::cool:

thekev
Jun 15, 2012, 06:51 PM
While offering much more powerful shaders, both are still integrated graphics sharing from the system RAM.

I'm of the opinion that at the low power end, AMD wouldn't be a bad chip especially if OpenCL can be implemented wherever possible. It could make the gpu functions a bit less bleh on models that rely strictly on integrated graphics.

Yebubbleman
Jun 15, 2012, 08:05 PM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/15/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-coming-in-october/)


Four days before the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro was introduced, KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo released a report (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/08/apple-to-introduce-third-macbook-line-with-retina-display-at-wwdc/) claiming that Apple would launch the machine alongside the then-current MacBook Pro line rather than as a direct replacement.

Kuo's report turned out to be nearly exactly on point, as was the case with his April report claiming that Apple would discontinue the 17-inch MacBook Pro (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/23/apple-predicted-to-discontinue-17-inch-macbook-pro/), and so it pays to revisit his Retina MacBook line claims to see what the future might hold.

In that report, Kuo claimed that the 13-inch MacBook Pro would likely arrive in the August timeframe at the earliest, with the machine's release being held back by display yield and challenges with heat dissipation in the smaller body.Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/kuo_retina_macbook_launch_windows.jpg)


Figure from Kuo's June 7 report with estimated launch info for 2012 MacBook lineup
With the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro now available, Kuo has released a new report taking another look at Apple's plans for the 13-inch version, and AppleInsider reports (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/14/apple_expected_to_launch_13_retina_macbook_pro_by_early_oct.html) that he is now estimating a September production ramp for the machine with an early October launch to follow.In his note last week, Kuo predicted that the 15-inch Retina model would carry a thickness of 19 millimeters (0.75 inches), while the 13-inch model could come in slightly thinner at 18 millimeters (0.71 inches). But the 15-inch model Apple actually introduced already comes in at the 18 millimeter figure, so it is unclear whether Apple would be able trim any additional thickness off for the 13-inch model.

Potentially supporting the idea of a 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro being in testing is the discovery (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1386082) of a "MacBookPro10,2" listing (http://burgos.emeraldion.it/mbl/list/MacBookPro10,2) in the results database for the battery utility app MiniBatteryLogger. The 15-inch MacBook Pro carries a designation of "MacBookPro10,1", and while the MacBookPro10,2 designation could presumably have been faked, there are several indications that it may be legitimate.

Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/macbookpro102_battery.jpg)


First, the database entry appeared on April 25, well ahead of much specific information on the Retina MacBook Pro that might have helped create a legitimate-looking fake entry. Second, the machine's battery registers a design capacity of 6580 mAh, roughly 14% greater than the 5770 mAh battery found in the non-Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro. By comparison, the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro's 8460 mAh battery has roughly 22.5% greater capacity than the 6900 mAh battery in the non-Retina model.

While the battery capacity ratios between corresponding Retina and non-Retina MacBook Pro batteries would not be exactly the same if this MacBookPro10,2 is indeed a genuine 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro, they are at least in the same range and one could imagine that a smaller display and lack of a discrete graphics card could shrink the amount of capacity boost needed to power a 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro.

Article Link: 13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Coming in October? (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/15/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-coming-in-october/)

I am not at all believing in this unless they discontinue the 13" MacBook Pro altogether and make the screen of the 13" MacBook Air a retina display. If they have the ability to give that thing a discrete video chipset and be that thin, there's no reason why they wouldn't have released this current 13" MacBook Pro with a discrete GPU; the optical drive doesn't impede it at all at that point. And without the discrete GPU, the only things separating such a 13" MacBook Pro from the 13" Air at that point would be the retina display (which, last I checked, would operate on the Intel HD 4000 graphics) extra Thunderbolt port and the HDMI port. Otherwise, it seems silly to have a 13" Retina Air-like MacBook Pro when it is THAT MUCH MORE similar to the 13" MacBook Air anyway.

pearvsapple
Jun 15, 2012, 08:24 PM
Anything over $1199 with only dual core is a major bust.

dank414
Jun 15, 2012, 08:43 PM
I think this is all wishful thinking. I doubt that there'd be three varieties of 13" again.

turboyo
Jun 15, 2012, 09:19 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong


15" retina is 23% lighter than the Pro version. (2.02kg vs 2.56kb)
So the 13" Retina would likely be around 1.58kb? (23% off 2.06kg).
That's getting very close to the 1.35kg 13" Air, assuming we can carry over an approximate 23% saving.


If I haven't botched these calculations, then the Air is under pressure.

They either have plans to make the Air far lighter or non existant :cool:

So would they rush into a 13" Retina?

mattkilla420
Jun 15, 2012, 09:51 PM
No one is disputing that Intel graphics suck the big one, but Apple can (and I think will) do a 13" MacBook Pro with Retina display using the HD 4000.

Consider that the HD 4000 has had its maximum resolution upgraded to 2560x1600 - coincidentally, the exact resolution of a pixel-doubled theoretical 13" MBP.

Also consider that the new 15" MBP still supports automatic graphics switching, meaning that Apple is conceivably using the Intel GPU to drive the display when the desktop is set to one of the two supported less-than-native resolution settings.

There may not be enough power there do any games justice at native resolution, but I think there's enough to drive the Mac desktop.

i think it was mobiletechreview that has a 23 min video review on youtube that says the intel 4000 was supporting the display while they did light work. i did not think the 4000 would be able to support the display as i said in another post but i was wrong. thinking back, if the 4000 could not do anything on the retina, apple would not have put it in there in the first place.

coldmack
Jun 16, 2012, 01:13 AM
I'd be interesting to see if this model will have less glare, and a wider & more accurate color spectrum.

----------

What is really amazing is that my unibody 2008 13" MacBook is 4.5 lbs. The current 13" MBPs are 4.5 lbs. The current 15" MBPs are 5.6 lbs. And they shaved off 1.14 lbs to get the 15" MBPr down to 4.46, less than a 13" MBP. Not sure they can get that much off a 13" MBPr, we're talking 3.36 lbs. But probably in the 3.75 to 3.95 range.

What is also amazing is, many of those other premium 13in x8makes me sick machines, come in at under 4lbs(even with optical drives). If those fickey machines can come at under 4lbs, I am sure Apple could do it also. Maybe they could do a carbon fiber-titanium mix in the next unibody MBP update.

Krauser
Jun 16, 2012, 01:19 AM
I'm going to cut to the chase here. If there's no discrete graphics, it's a no go. The only thing holding me back from replacing my 08 unibody MacBook is a viable Mac with discrete graphics. In a world where the only 13" and under Macs being sold have a maximum of Intel HD 4000 graphics, I just can't warrant replacing my current book, especially not when a 4 year old machine with a 9400M would be replaced with something only marginally better in the graphics department... and after waiting for 4 years, "marginal increases" are not something I'm very happy with.

I won't see the day for a while, but an 11" system akin to the air with a discrete chip would be blow away. I know it's not what Apple has in mind but a small computer (already aided by the speed of flash memory and storage) would be killer with a decent GPU. And I'm not asking for anything crazy either. Even a 512Mb discrete chip would be better than anything offered up in the integrated department. I know my 9400M is integrated but it does damn well, especially for being 4 years old, and especially for being integrated.

What happened again that required Apple to disregard any notions of utilizing other companies than Intel for integrated solutions? Wasn't it something to do with the fact that anything running on a none "core 2 duo" architecture had to utilize Intel's own integrated solution which meant that Apple had to either utilize old Core 2 Duo's (which, if I remember correctly, they did for quite some time as they went ahead with the iX series processers in their bigger Pros) to keep using nVidia's solutions or go on with the iX series but utilize Intel's, quite frankly, subpar integrated solutions?

It's a shame Intel is leaps and bounds better in the mobile processor sector than AMD, because I'd love nothing more than to see Apple tell Intel to shove it and simply make the faster product utilizing AMD's processors and integrated solutions. It'd make for an interesting lineup, but hey... anyone interested in a 11" laptop probably isn't looking for graphics power... it'd be nice though. When I spend 1400+ on a laptop, I'd expect a little bit of a future proof power offering in the graphics department, among other things... but hey, who am I to ask. Last we've seen, Apple isn't too concerned with what their customers really want... just ask the professionals who've been relying on a 17" MacBook Pro or waiting for Apple to not completely spit in their faces when waiting for a legitimate upgrade to the Mac Pro.

Mr MM
Jun 16, 2012, 02:26 AM
the HD 4000 aint a marginal increase rather a radical increase from your 9400m, hell the HD 3000 was already a great increase, since it was mostly on par with the 320m

but yes I do agree that the way to make the mbp 13 stay alive is to put some gpu in there, and possibly a quad.

Jynto
Jun 16, 2012, 06:58 AM
In the coming future, it will be very simple for people who get confused like yourself during the purchase/selection process. Apple will most likely condense the lines into 1. During the customization process they will most likely allow the customer to chose the type of display, and done. Kinda like they used to do with the Matte option. Eventually, you won't have any other choice, but Retina.

Except retina display is not merely an optional add-on. It requires fundamental changes in the graphics card and other internals, and certainly requires more cooling. Hence why they completely redesigned the Macbook Pro to give it a retina display.

KnightWRX
Jun 16, 2012, 07:07 AM
I'm going to cut to the chase here. If there's no discrete graphics, it's a no go. The only thing holding me back from replacing my 08 unibody MacBook is a viable Mac with discrete graphics. In a world where the only 13" and under Macs being sold have a maximum of Intel HD 4000 graphics, I just can't warrant replacing my current book, especially not when a 4 year old machine with a 9400M

Why wasn't the 08 unibody a no-go in 2008 with its own integrated graphics (the 9400m) ? And frankly, the Intel HD 4000 is not just "marginally better" than the 9400m, it is quite superior. The HD 3000 was already almost 90% of the way there with 320m which is about twice as fast as your 9400m.

So really, you can expect a jump of about 2.5x the performance going from your 9400m to the HD 4000.

rovex
Jun 16, 2012, 07:09 AM
but yes I do agree that the way to make the mbp 13 stay alive is to put some gpu in there, and possibly a quad.

It'll be one or the other, you would imagine.

KnightWRX
Jun 16, 2012, 07:09 AM
Except retina display is not merely an optional add-on. It requires fundamental changes in the graphics card and other internals, and certainly requires more cooling. Hence why they completely redesigned the Macbook Pro to give it a retina display.

Explain. The Retina MBPR uses the same Intel HD 4000 graphics as other non-retina options, or the 650M when switching to discrete graphics.

davie18
Jun 16, 2012, 07:10 AM
Yes, but only for a limited period (Oct 2008 when the unibody 13" MB was introduced until mid-2010 when the white MB was discontinued except for educational customers). And the white MB was clearly a hanger-on, kept in the line as an entry-level model (it was the cheapest Mac laptop during that period). And the discontinuation of the white MB as entry-level model coincided with the introduction of the 11" MBA as the new sub-$1000 model.

Thus, while size and features matter, clearly delineated price brackets matter at least as much. The co-existence of the 13" MBA with the 13" MBP was already a little bit of an odd relationship as they were too close in price.
2 years isn't exactly that limited a period. And anyway, this is almost exactly the same situation:

They used to sell the 13" MBA and MBP while they also sold the MB as they phased it out.

Now they could sell the 13" MBA and a 13" retina MBP, while they phase out the regular 13" MBP in around say late 2014/early 2015? Surely it would make sense seeing as they've done it before?

manu chao
Jun 16, 2012, 07:59 AM
Eleven positive ratings for a calculation that is just - wrong.

You compared the price for the cheapest 15" MBP and the cheapest 15" MBPR and found that the MBPR is $400 more. But you didn't compare compareable computers. If you compare the 15" MBP with the same 8 GB RAM and with the same 256 GB SSD drive of the cheapest 15" MBPR, then you find the comparison is $2399 vs $2199 - the MBPR is $200 less.
You can equally argue that nobody who is price-conscious would buy RAM or SSDs from Apple directly. Thus a 15" MBP with 8 GB RAM and a 256 GB SSD in reality only costs: $1799 + $60 + $240 = $2099, ie, still $100 less than the retina MBP (and you get a spare 500 GB HDD useable for backups which is worth another $80).

Still, $100 (or $180 if you add the credit for the 500 GB HDD) is not a lot for the retina display. Sure, if you compare 16 GB RAM versions the gap widens again, as it does if you look at 512 GB SSD versions.

Apple can get away with only a $100 (or $180) price for the retina display because it bundles it with more RAM and a SSD, all of which add margins to their bottomline.

----------

2 years isn't exactly that limited a period. And anyway, this is almost exactly the same situation:

They used to sell the 13" MBA and MBP while they also sold the MB as they phased it out.

Now they could sell the 13" MBA and a 13" retina MBP, while they phase out the regular 13" MBP in around say late 2014/early 2015? Surely it would make sense seeing as they've done it before?
Yes, the same scenario might well repeat itself but it is not the preferred solution for Apple to have three competing product lines at the same display size. It will be a transitional solution as before.

NewbieCanada
Jun 16, 2012, 08:05 AM
What is also amazing is, many of those other premium 13in x8makes me sick machines, come in at under 4lbs(even with optical drives). If those fickey machines can come at under 4lbs, I am sure Apple could do it also. Maybe they could do a carbon fiber-titanium mix in the next unibody MBP update.

There is no next update. The future is the Retina and the Air. There may be more processor bumps before the current Pros die off, but you're not going to see a body redesign. This last round of non-Retinas was Apple saying, "Look, we'll keep making these if you want to buy them. But this is what you get. If it doesn't fit into the current body, it's not getting in."

manu chao
Jun 16, 2012, 08:10 AM
Frankly, I don't think most folks back up much even with stationary drives. Time Machine makes it easy by many don't. There is an even smaller number of folks backing up to either two time machine stores or back-stopping with incremental clones in addition to time machine. I seriously doubt that is mainstream. Nor an idea Apple would encourage to go mainstream.

I would still argue that people much more often connect external backup drives than they use the ODD. Thus, if connecting a backup drive on a semi-regular basis is not a big hassle, connecting an external ODD infrequently should not be a hassle either.




Errr? The Air now has USB 3.0. and the 1GbE will be (or is ) $29.99. For the latter, just how much affordable you want it to be?
I said: "until now also faster I/O with the Air defacto limited to 100 MbitE and USB 2", ie, my point was that until now the Air was defacto limited to 100 MbitE and USB 2.

----------

Yes, I meant Audio in, not out.

But the 13" MBP does not (and did not) have an Audio in port either.

Eidorian
Jun 16, 2012, 10:48 AM
I'm of the opinion that at the low power end, AMD wouldn't be a bad chip especially if OpenCL can be implemented wherever possible. It could make the gpu functions a bit less bleh on models that rely strictly on integrated graphics.Tom's Hardware has been investigating OpenCL on Llano and Trinity recently. The boost from moving to OpenCL is noticeable in CS6 and GIMP.