PDA

View Full Version : 13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Shows Up in Benchmarks




MacRumors
Jul 10, 2012, 01:18 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/10/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-shows-up-in-benchmarks/)


Amid continued rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/10/apples-13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-to-launch-before-october/) that Apple intends to release a 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro in the coming months, a Geekbench 2 (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/809568) benchmark submitted late last month as a "MacBookPro10,2" appears to represent the machine in question.

In comparison, the new non-Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro carries the model identifier "MacBookPro9,2", while the 15-inch non-Retina model is "MacBookPro9,1" and the corresponding Retina model is "MacBookPro10,1".

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/07/geekbench_macbook_pro_10_2.jpg


While the machine name of MacBookPro10,2 on the new entry could be faked, other information included in the Geekbench result is consistent with what would be expected on the new machine. The machine is listed as running a 2.9 GHz Intel Core i7-3520M processor, which is offered in the high-end model of the non-Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro. The machine is also listed as running Build 12A2056 of OS X Mountain Lion, with the four-digit build number suffix frequently being used on Apple's custom operating system builds.

In addition, the motherboard identifier of AFD8A9D944EA4843 previously surfaced as a new machine in early builds of OS X Mountain Lion. While many of the other new motherboard identifiers found in Mountain Lion were accounted for with Apple's MacBook Pro and MacBook Air models released last month, the identity of AFD8A9D944EA4843 has remained unknown. Finally, the machine's score of 7806 is on par (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/18/benchmarks-for-new-13-inch-macbook-pro-beat-macbook-air-previous-macbook-pro-by-10-15/) with results seen for the non-Retina model running the same processor.

One inconsistency, however, is the listing of just 4 GB of RAM on the Geekbench result. The 2.9 GHz Core i7 processor is paired with 8 GB of RAM even on the non-Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro, although prototype machines could have different configurations.

Back in May, similar Geekbench benchmarks (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/14/unreleased-2012-macbook-pro-and-imac-models-showing-up-in-benchmarks/) for what turned out to be the non-Retina 15-inch MacBook Pro, as well as a revamped iMac, surfaced in the results browser. The revamped iMac has, however, yet to see a public launch.

(Thanks, Matthew!)

Article Link: 13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Shows Up in Benchmarks (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/10/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-shows-up-in-benchmarks/)



underkuerbis
Jul 10, 2012, 01:19 PM
Already? This comes, well... unexpected.

pgiguere1
Jul 10, 2012, 01:23 PM
Maybe the i7 processor will be on the base model along with 4GB of RAM, that way there's a significant speed difference with the MBA. Hopefully the second model could have a quad-core :cool:, but I doubt it.

RoelJuun
Jul 10, 2012, 01:24 PM
There are going to be a lot of pissed off people that just bought the 13" MBP ;)

prfrma
Jul 10, 2012, 01:25 PM
Would it be that much more powerful than the high end MBA?

jontech
Jul 10, 2012, 01:25 PM
Dual Core and only 4gb of memory (probably taps out at 8gb)

jumanji
Jul 10, 2012, 01:25 PM
Already? This comes, well... unexpected.

it shouldn't be. the 13" is the bigger seller. in the past, there has been speculation that apple purposely waits on updating the 13" solely to drive up sales of the 15". i guess they could have waited a little longer but just because we're seeing benchmarks doesn't mean a release is eminent...just look at the imac benchmarks.

Eidorian
Jul 10, 2012, 01:26 PM
Tell me more about the video card.

jav6454
Jul 10, 2012, 01:26 PM
If the 13" brings a discrete gpu, I will be left in quite a debacle. I love the 13", but I don't want Intel's crap graphics.

Anlino
Jul 10, 2012, 01:26 PM
Any predictions on when this will be released? Thinking about buying a 13" MacBook Air, but if this will be released soon, I'd rather wait. Need a new computer for college this fall.

eyebex
Jul 10, 2012, 01:28 PM
Enough with the laptops already. How about a new iMac Apple?

mygoldens
Jul 10, 2012, 01:29 PM
BRING IT ON!!

I would like a 13 retina! Maybe even in matte finish! :D

Peace
Jul 10, 2012, 01:30 PM
Wasn't there another benchmark for the 15" MBP that had a base 4GB while the shipping product had 8GB ?

It could be Apple is testing these with one stick of RAM in them.

iScott428
Jul 10, 2012, 01:36 PM
Assuming Apple keeps the same pricing model as the 15", $1499 for the base price rMBP 13" is well a decent price IMO. Not sure if 4gb of DDR will cut it though.:apple:

Anthony0224
Jul 10, 2012, 01:36 PM
Any predictions on when this will be released? Thinking about buying a 13" MacBook Air, but if this will be released soon, I'd rather wait. Need a new computer for college this fall.

I strongly believe September is going to be a month that a lot of things are released from Apple. If any of you have noticed (most likely anyone with Apple stock), Apple has been releasing things lately in the last 2-3 weeks of each fiscal quarter. This makes a ton of sense because all of the intial huge lump of sales will fill that fiscal quarter with revenue, while the quarter including the next three months collects all of the sales as the new product planes out as far as sales. I find it highly unlikely that Cook will wait until after the end of this quaurter (July/Aug/Sept) to relase things like the new macbook, new iMac, iPhone 5, etc. The 3rd calendar quarter earnings would take a severe drop and Cook knows better than to let that happen.

gpat
Jul 10, 2012, 01:37 PM
There are going to be a lot of pissed off people that just bought the 13" MBP ;)

Did somebody actually buy the 13" Pro at this refresh? It was underwhelming to say the least.
(Written as a 13" Pro owner)

dukebound85
Jul 10, 2012, 01:38 PM
Did somebody actually buy the 13" Pro at this refresh? It was underwhelming to say the least.
(Written as a 13" Pro owner)

I did

samac92
Jul 10, 2012, 01:41 PM
The identifier was found in earlier builds of ML, it's the one at the bottom of the list here - http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1386254

Note only iGPU, no dedicated graphics card just as the rumours say.

Apple obviously believes the Intel 4000 can support the retina display just fine, the 15 inch retina pro is running on only the Intel 4000 most of the time. Graphic intensive applications won't run great but the 13 inch has never been for that.

8281
Jul 10, 2012, 01:42 PM
I'd be happy if Apple just put the 13" Air screen in the 13" Pro. And I think driving a Retina Display might be asking too much of the HD4000 graphics.

hobo.hopkins
Jul 10, 2012, 01:42 PM
I can't wait! Hopefully the graphics of the computer will be able to handle that screen resolution.

Mac32
Jul 10, 2012, 01:43 PM
I'd much rather have a Haswell retina MBA 13'. If Apple decide to release a retina MBP 13', I'm afraid they will deliberately cripple some core features in the MBA 13''. IMO MPA 13'' is a brilliant form factor, and when the next generation Intel IGP/CPU is released it will be a (even more) very capable machine.

dukebound85
Jul 10, 2012, 01:44 PM
I'd be happy if Apple just put the 13" Air screen in the 13" Pro. And I think driving a Retina Display might be asking too much of the HD4000 graphics.

why? it can power external monitors and the built in just fine

SteveJobs2.0
Jul 10, 2012, 01:45 PM
I would still get the 13" MBA if it had a dedicated graphics card since it is cheaper, lighter, and powerful enough for most tasks. For people that need a good graphics card for some gaming and more power, retina MBP is the way to go. :/

spb3
Jul 10, 2012, 01:46 PM
There are going to be a lot of pissed off people that just bought the 13" MBP ;) the price difference will probably quench the rage.

Krazy Bill
Jul 10, 2012, 01:48 PM
BRING IT ON!!You're going to think, "Bring it on!" when that squirrely 256gb SSD ain't big enough and you can't go inside to upgrade it. Not to mention the RAM that will be soldered on the motherboard. :(

Getting closer to the end of an era folks... RIP.

NewbieCanada
Jul 10, 2012, 01:48 PM
Apple obviously believes the Intel 4000 can support the retina display just fine, the 15 inch retina pro is running on only the Intel 4000 most of the time.

It's never going to be a gaming powerhouse, but that's always been the case for the 13".

For web, spreadsheets, word proc and HD video playback, the Intel 4000 is just fine on the 15 inch and will be equally fine on the 13 inch.

Of course anyone wanting to buy one for the start of school may be out of luck, since this should outsell the 15-inch rMBP buy a wide margin and there's still a 3-4 week wait on those.

Djlild7hina
Jul 10, 2012, 01:50 PM
hm... would be nice if they offered a quad-core option, 16gb ram, and some discrete graphics. that's just wishful thinking though :S

Vctr
Jul 10, 2012, 01:51 PM
why? it can power external monitors and the built in just fine

The difference is that things are being scaled on the retina display ... so the cpu and gpu have to render the display elements on the fly which can be pretty taxing.

I imagine displaying extended resolutions is less taxing on the cpu and gpu since its a 1 to 1 pixel mapping.

AppleMad98004
Jul 10, 2012, 01:52 PM
the price difference will probably quench the rage.

Great point. Given a massively more expensive machine those that bought the Mac Pro 13 will not feel so bad that they saved $600+. I am assuming a $1899 (4gb RAM 256GBSSD) starting price base given the 15 retina premium. I'm sure an 8GB with 512 will be in the mid to upper $2000's.

SchneiderMan
Jul 10, 2012, 01:54 PM
Definitely think that will kill the 13-inch MBA, so I don't think that'll happen.

asd789789
Jul 10, 2012, 01:55 PM
I'd rather love to see an updated Thunderbolt Display with higher resolution, discrete GPU, and USB 3.0 etc. for my mid 2011 13" base MBA...
As far as i understood the opportunities of Thunderbolt, this should be possible, right?

shaown
Jul 10, 2012, 01:55 PM
Its also possible the 13 MBPr just couldn't perform w/o the release of ML - and they held it up for that. Of course its also possible the HD4000 is just lacks enough ooopmh - and we won't see the model released until Haswell.
Thanks,
-Shaown

AppleMad98004
Jul 10, 2012, 01:56 PM
Definitely think that will kill the 13-inch MBA, so I don't think that'll happen.

I don't think so given the huge price premium it will have.

chrissto
Jul 10, 2012, 02:02 PM
hm... would be nice if they offered a quad-core option, 16gb ram, and some discrete graphics. that's just wishful thinking though :S

Intel actually offers a mobile quad core cpu that also has only 35W TDP, the Core i7-3612QM. So maybe they put that one combined with 8gb of ram in the high end 13" retina?

I was wondering why Apple does not offer this cpu in the 13" MBP as a built to order option.

Anlino
Jul 10, 2012, 02:03 PM
I'd rather love to see an updated Thunderbolt Display with higher resolution, discrete GPU, and USB 3.0 etc. for my mid 2011 13" base MBA...
As far as i understood the opportunities of Thunderbolt, this should be possible, right?

It's possible, and it needs to happen. It would be the perfect marriage between power and portability.

saturn79
Jul 10, 2012, 02:06 PM
With the exclusion of an optical drive that takes up so much space in the current 13 inch MacBook Pro, Apple could possibly fit some sort of discrete GPU into the new 13 inch Retina MacBook Pro. Maybe not the Nvidia GT 650, but something like the GT 640 LE with lower heat output and energy requirements. It's pretty obvious that an Intel HD 4000 would struggle rendering animations and would BARELY be able to push out any sort of graphics at such high resolutions. The GT 650 is already being heavily exerted with the insane resolution of the 15 inch...

gugy
Jul 10, 2012, 02:13 PM
I wonder if there is any hope a retina 17" MBP will come back someday. :(

ixodes
Jul 10, 2012, 02:14 PM
I envision Apple including retina displays in all laptops between now and then (whenever that is). My gut feeling is it won't be too long at all. Especially since they've cleverly setup a scenario where nearly everyone believes it's the "Magic Display"... and are very willing to part with the handsome price Apple commands.

Currently the amount of momentum and success Apple's enjoying is one more reason to keep the upgrades rolling in and sell, sell, sell. The worlds greatest cash cow is cranking out sales like never before.

When one considers the soft economy, languishing under cloudy skies, there's no reason for Apple to gamble and wait. It's time to get this conversion done, sell all they can, and celebrate their accomplishment.

Apple tax is back, more lucrative than ever, even better is the fact that customers do not seem to be price sensitive. It's an amazing show to watch.

In the final analysis, no graph goes straight up in a perfect linear fashion. Apple's enjoyed a run of success, so strong for so long, that sooner or later they're bound to hiccup. And when they do, it may be more like a seizure than a hiccup. :eek:

SBlue1
Jul 10, 2012, 02:16 PM
Wow, that was not expected.

Digital Skunk
Jul 10, 2012, 02:19 PM
Price it at $1399 and bring it to me NOW. . . .

ONLY if the GPU can handle the Retina Display though.

diamond.g
Jul 10, 2012, 02:24 PM
With the exclusion of an optical drive that takes up so much space in the current 13 inch MacBook Pro, Apple could possibly fit some sort of discrete GPU into the new 13 inch Retina MacBook Pro. Maybe not the Nvidia GT 650, but something like the GT 640 LE with lower heat output and energy requirements. It's pretty obvious that an Intel HD 4000 would struggle rendering animations and would BARELY be able to push out any sort of graphics at such high resolutions. The GT 650 is already being heavily exerted with the insane resolution of the 15 inch...

Wouldn't the retina resolution for the 13" be 2560x1600? I would think that is not too much for the HD4000 to handle.

dynamojoe
Jul 10, 2012, 02:26 PM
BRING IT ON!!

I would like a 13 retina! Maybe even in matte finish! :D

I'd take any 13" in matte. My late '08 MacBook is annoyingly reflective. If the rMBP had a matte option I'd already have my order in for one.

DeltaRage
Jul 10, 2012, 02:30 PM
If this happens, surely Apple will kill off the current MBP next year when Haswell is released, and then possibly release a 15" Air, creating the following line-up:

11" MBA

13" MBA
13" rMBP

15" MBA
15" rMBP

Aodhan
Jul 10, 2012, 02:40 PM
I am continually surprised at how crazy popular the 13-inch MBPs are. I mean for me, the 15-inch is only just adequate, and I use it almost exclusively with an external monitor. The 13-inch seems so small. Also, without a discreet GPU, ouch.

Why do people love the 13-inch so much?

dukebound85
Jul 10, 2012, 02:44 PM
If this happens, surely Apple will kill off the current MBP next year when Haswell is released, and then possibly release a 15" Air, creating the following line-up:

11" MBA

13" MBA
13" rMBP

15" MBA
15" rMBP

I think it will ultimately be

11" rMBA
13" rMBP
15" rMBP

----------

I am continually surprised at how crazy popular the 13-inch MBPs are. I mean for me, the 15-inch is only just adequate, and I use it almost exclusively with an external monitor. The 13-inch seems so small. Also, without a discreet GPU, ouch.

Why do people love the 13-inch so much?

I prefer the size MUCH more than my 15in mbp at work

Navdakilla
Jul 10, 2012, 02:45 PM
the price difference will probably quench the rage.

Agreed, I can see this easily costing 1600ish for the base model.

Now my personal debate is to either get the MBA now, or wait

dcorban
Jul 10, 2012, 02:55 PM
I'd take any 13" in matte. My late '08 MacBook is annoyingly reflective. If the rMBP had a matte option I'd already have my order in for one.
You should seriously check out the current Air then. I also had a late 2008 MacBook with the hardcore glossy screen. I now have the 2012 13" Air and the screen is virtually reflection-free. It is "glossy", but not very reflective, and has an anti-reflective coating.

ericrwalker
Jul 10, 2012, 02:55 PM
I am continually surprised at how crazy popular the 13-inch MBPs are. I mean for me, the 15-inch is only just adequate, and I use it almost exclusively with an external monitor. The 13-inch seems so small. Also, without a discreet GPU, ouch.

Why do people love the 13-inch so much?

I prefer the size, I'd even go smaller if the specs are good enough. I will buy a retina MBP I want a 13 inch, if the GPU not a crap integrated one. If not I am going to end up buying a 15 inch rMBP.

Personally I can't believe so many people want 15, 17 or even larger laptops. Just like you can't believe people want smaller ones.

dcorban
Jul 10, 2012, 02:57 PM
Agreed, I can see this easily costing 1600ish for the base model.

Now my personal debate is to either get the MBA now, or wait

Only $1600? I'd love that. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt it will be that low. The current Air with only 4GB RAM and 256GB SSD is already $1500. Throw in an i7 CPU and Retina display for $100 more? Unlikely.

I'm expecting this to start at $1799.

I am continually surprised at how crazy popular the 13-inch MBPs are. I mean for me, the 15-inch is only just adequate, and I use it almost exclusively with an external monitor.

Your lack of actually using the laptop as a laptop is why you don't see the problem. A 15" is relatively huge and heavy compared to a 13".

hkenneth
Jul 10, 2012, 03:00 PM
Well ...
http://fmn.rrfmn.com/fmn058/20120114/0935/large_414t_10a80000502c1262.jpg

fertilized-egg
Jul 10, 2012, 03:02 PM
I'm expecting this to start at $1799.


Sounds about right given that the most comparable laptop - Sony Vaio Z - starts at $1600 with i5 and 128GB SSD. Or maybe Apple'll be more aggressive by matching Vaio Z's price?

evildede
Jul 10, 2012, 03:03 PM
I have personally bought a new MBP 13 inch and I wouldn't see myself being pissed at a refresh in September/October, simply because I would definitely expect 1600$ for it which I definitely wouldn't pay for a 13 inch laptop, soldered RAM, performance probably wouldn't be that great for gaming (yes, I do enjoy World of Warcraft and Diablo 3 on my MBP and they run fine) and the fact that I can have 2 hard drives in my MBP while only one in a rMBP makes a big difference for me considering I don't have to bring an external HDD with me.

I think retina is awesome, and seeing the 15 inch model in store definitely blew me away, however, until performance becomes acceptable for integrated graphics with that kind of resolution, I wouldn't be surprised if it easily takes another year or 2, and I definitely will be getting at least 4 years out of my laptop, and at that point when I'll upgrade to a retina model I think it will be cheaper as they will probably phase out the older Macbook Pros, but I also think at that point graphics performance will be adequate. I have seen the 15 inch rMBP run on integrated and performance is definitely lackluster.

elppa
Jul 10, 2012, 03:04 PM
Sony make a 13.3" laptop which is thinner and lighter than the current Pro.

It has a 1600x900 resolution monitor. A hybrid graphics system with 2GB dedicated Nvidia Kepler graphics to complement the intel HD 4000 chipset. It also has a slot loading Blu Ray drive and user serviceable RAM, HDD and battery.

For this reason I believe Apple is treading water a bit with the current Pro. With the removal of the optical drive, even with a thinner form factor, there should still be room for hybrid graphics system.

Sony's miniaturisation expertise might be a bit ahead of Apple, but it won't be that far ahead.

I believe if the retina MacBook Pro does represent the rethinking of the MacBook Pro then it will include discrete GPU. If it doesn't, then it ought to.

ericrwalker
Jul 10, 2012, 03:07 PM
Well ...
Image (http://fmn.rrfmn.com/fmn058/20120114/0935/large_414t_10a80000502c1262.jpg)

Nice the hackintosh model, what's this rig look like?

klover
Jul 10, 2012, 03:16 PM
Tell me more about the video card.

Sure. It's called the Intel 4000 laggy-scrolling GPU.

blow45
Jul 10, 2012, 03:23 PM
Sure. It's called the Intel 4000 laggy-scrolling GPU.

you mean the chop chop 4000? the ultimate cutting board, chop, chop, chop...chop chop.

Instead of apple buying, implicitly via foxconn, sharp, to make that effing tv, they should have just bought amd to bring these great apu's to market. Sadly apple is just an assembler of components these days...

iMcLovin
Jul 10, 2012, 03:34 PM
Now if this mb pro will come out before the benchmarked iMac I'm gonna get REALLY annoyed

iMcLovin
Jul 10, 2012, 03:39 PM
Now if this mb pro will come out before the benchmarked iMac I'm gonna get REALLY annoyed

kd5jos
Jul 10, 2012, 03:40 PM
Dual Core and only 4gb of memory (probably taps out at 8gb)

Here I thought that the 4GB was because of a 32 bit software limitation. Wouldn't the 64 bit system address the other 4 GB? I'm just asking?

Steve121178
Jul 10, 2012, 03:46 PM
Why do people love the 13-inch so much?

Power & portability? Isn't that the whole point?

asd789789
Jul 10, 2012, 03:47 PM
It's possible, and it needs to happen. It would be the perfect marriage between power and portability.

Guessing that the retina Thunderbolt Display will have a MagSafe 2, we would need a MagSafe 2 to MagSafe (1) Connector :D
(Or they will stuck with a MagSafe (1) at the Display and keep on adding the current converter) :D

I hope option #2 will be chosen... An angled Power Supply makes more sense while working at a desk!

Narsqt
Jul 10, 2012, 03:53 PM
Just boxed up my new 13" MBA and filed the return, thank jeebus for the 14 day grace period.

JohnRN
Jul 10, 2012, 03:54 PM
Here I thought that the 4GB was because of a 32 bit software limitation. Wouldn't the 64 bit system address the other 4 GB? I'm just asking?

Yes you are correct about 32 vs 64 bit but OSX is 64bit (has been for years) so it would make you think it's just configured with 4 (which would suck) but is not unheard of as the base 13" has only 4GB.

Rennir
Jul 10, 2012, 03:55 PM
Just bought a new MBP 13" and I won't be pissed at all if they come out with a retina MBP 13 in the next month or two :) I knew what I was getting into when I bought my current laptop. $1600 is more than I'd be willing to pay for a 13" laptop, and retina really isn't all that important to me because my current screen looks fantastic. Besides, I'd rather buy a polished product with all its bugs worked out than the first revision of a completely new product, which will inevitably have some bugs. The only thing bugging me is the 1280 x 800 resolution of the 13", which is really small IMO :(

yanksrock100
Jul 10, 2012, 03:56 PM
This is great! Hopefully an iMac/13 rMBP release coming soon! I'm guessing this will be about $1499-1799. Somewhere in that range.

JohnRN
Jul 10, 2012, 03:56 PM
I am continually surprised at how crazy popular the 13-inch MBPs are. I mean for me, the 15-inch is only just adequate, and I use it almost exclusively with an external monitor. The 13-inch seems so small. Also, without a discreet GPU, ouch.

Why do people love the 13-inch so much?

I personally love my 13 inch. Super portable, I can hook it up to an external monitor and then grab and go if I want too. Not as heavy, fits easily into a backpack or other bag. Plenty fast for my needs. If I need a big screen there's the big monitor/iMac that i can use. I had a 15" previously and going to 13" I thought the same thing.....how the hell can I do this.....I adapted and found I liked it better.

eyebex
Jul 10, 2012, 04:11 PM
I personally love my 13 inch. Super portable, I can hook it up to an external monitor and then grab and go if I want too. Not as heavy, fits easily into a backpack or other bag. Plenty fast for my needs. If I need a big screen there's the big monitor/iMac that i can use. I had a 15" previously and going to 13" I thought the same thing.....how the hell can I do this.....I adapted and found I liked it better.

I wondered if I would like this setup but am concerned about using the mb with and external monitor. Do you not find that the mb's display is sorta in the way of the external display?

Maybe if i got an external keyboard to plug into the mb and set it well away from the external monitor....?

elppa
Jul 10, 2012, 04:13 PM
Just boxed up my new 13" MBA and filed the return, thank jeebus for the 14 day grace period.

What are you going to do tomorrow when the "Retina 13" delayed until January" rumour appears? ;)

rovex
Jul 10, 2012, 04:17 PM
I am continually surprised at how crazy popular the 13-inch MBPs are. I mean for me, the 15-inch is only just adequate, and I use it almost exclusively with an external monitor. The 13-inch seems so small. Also, without a discreet GPU, ouch.

Why do people love the 13-inch so much?

Are you saying a Retina Macbook Pro shouldn't be popular?

elppa
Jul 10, 2012, 04:17 PM
I wondered if I would like this setup but am concerned about using the mb with and external monitor. Do you not find that the mb's display is sorta in the way of the external display?

Maybe if i got an external keyboard to plug into the mb and set it well away from the external monitor....?

Look up Clamshell mode.

modular
Jul 10, 2012, 04:17 PM
if it doesnt include a dGPU, it shouldnt be called a Pro

gnasher729
Jul 10, 2012, 04:19 PM
If the 13" brings a discrete gpu, I will be left in quite a debacle. I love the 13", but I don't want Intel's crap graphics.

I want a beautiful screen, and I want good battery life. Graphics performance to me is very secondary, while CPU performance is quite important. Everyone has different priorities. As long as supply of Retina displays is limited, Apple can build a Retina computer that appeals to a limited audience (because the limited audience still buys every Retina display they can get).


if it doesnt include a dGPU, it shouldnt be called a Pro

"Pro" means people use it professionally, to make money. I don't need a fast GPU to make money.

On the other hand, a 1280 x 800 Retina MBP would be able to display 1706 x 1066 in a mode equivalent to the 1920 x 1200 mode on the current Retina MBP, and I would find that very, very useful. Much more beneficial for a Pro than the GPU.


Agreed, I can see this easily costing 1600ish for the base model.

Now my personal debate is to either get the MBA now, or wait

Compare the price of the 15" MBP and the Retina MBP - once you picked the same CPU, the same RAM, and the same SSD drive. The Retina MBP is actually considerably cheaper. With a 13" MBP, Apple could use the same case, 2.9GHz i7, 8 GB Ram, 750 GB hard drive, optical drive removed and the space used for more battery, for $1499. Display 1280 x 800 Retina, with optional 1492 x 933 and 1706 x 1066 mode.

eyebex
Jul 10, 2012, 04:21 PM
Look up Clamshell mode.

Ok, got it.

GorgonPhone
Jul 10, 2012, 04:25 PM
BRING IT ON!!

I would like a 13 retina! Maybe even in matte finish! :D

yes.... i will for sure get he 13 inch retina MBP in 2 years time.. when my current MBP 13 is obsolete:o

charlieegan3
Jul 10, 2012, 04:28 PM
There are going to be a lot of pissed off people that just bought the 13" MBP ;)

And this makes you happy?:eek:

Narsqt
Jul 10, 2012, 04:42 PM
What are you going to do tomorrow when the "Retina 13" delayed until January" rumour appears? ;)

Buy a normal 13" mbp and sell it off before the launch in January :p

I loved the form factor of the air but I just couldn't get used to the screen, I have 27" iMacs at home and at the office so they made the air screen just look so dull. I know the res on the MBP is pretty dire but I would rather deal with that than the difference in colour between my machines.

It's a shame because the air really is a cracking little machine, I'm just too picky.

asd789789
Jul 10, 2012, 04:47 PM
I loved the form factor of the air but I just couldn't get used to the screen, I have 27" iMacs at home and at the office so they made the air screen just look so dull. I know the res on the MBP is pretty dire but I would rather deal with that than the difference in colour between my machines.

It's a shame because the air really is a cracking little machine, I'm just too picky.

Maybe you should check this one out: http://osxdaily.com/2011/10/30/how-to-check-for-an-lg-display-in-a-macbook-air-and-make-it-look-better/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+osxdaily+%28OS+X+Daily%29
Not as good as the 27" Panel, but quite a bit better :)

(Sorry, if this was posted on MacRumors too... I just got that link in my history)

Edit: Now i see it was a MacRumors user who did it. Thanks to the original creator!

Eidorian
Jul 10, 2012, 04:53 PM
Price it at $1399 and bring it to me NOW. . . .

ONLY if the GPU can handle the Retina Display though.Yeah, I am on the edge between a 13" MacBook Air or the base 15" MacBook Pro. My current MacBook is on its last legs. I do not want to buy another battery for it.

Narsqt
Jul 10, 2012, 04:55 PM
Maybe you should check this one out: http://osxdaily.com/2011/10/30/how-to-check-for-an-lg-display-in-a-macbook-air-and-make-it-look-better/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+osxdaily+%28OS+X+Daily%29
Not as good as the 27" Panel, but quite a bit better :)

(Sorry, if this was posted on MacRumors too... I just got that link in my history)

Edit: Now i see it was a MacRumors user who did it. Thanks to the original creator!

Thanks, but I had seen all about the LG panel fiasco when I was first looking to buy it was the second thing I checked for when I unboxed it. My Air didn't have an LG so I never went for that colour profile.

Again, to be fair to the air it was more down to me being overly picky about things. I wasn't too keen on the viewing angles being so tight either.

SpyderBite
Jul 10, 2012, 04:59 PM
There are going to be a lot of pissed off people that just bought the 13" MBP ;)

Unless the 13" rMBP is priced at $1199, I doubt very many 2012 13" MBP purchasers, including myself, will be upset at all.

1. Weren't interested in a Retina display on our notebook computers
2. $1199 was the price that we were looking for

Now, I suspect that some of the people who purchased the 15" rMBP might be perturbed because they didn't have a choice in sizes and might have preferred a smaller notebook.

I don't need the ODD or the ethernet in my 2012 13" MBP.. however, I did want the ability to upgrade the RAM to 16gb for only $119 (Amazon) which is what I did. So, while I suspected that a 13" rMBP was possible; I had no interest in it or the price tag that it is likely to carry.

Aodhan
Jul 10, 2012, 05:02 PM
Are you saying a Retina Macbook Pro shouldn't be popular?

Certainly not, I don't see how you took that from what I said. My question was what people see in the 13-inch version of MacBook Pros. The general response has been that they love the portability of the 13 over the 15. That's good enough a reason for me. As a couple people pointed out, I don't use my MBP on the road very often, so I don't "get it" like they do.

You know, when I was in college, I had a Powerbook 150. Nine point five glorious inches of four levels of gray (no color). It weighed about a ton, but with a two hour battery, it never left my dorm room.

seek3r
Jul 10, 2012, 05:09 PM
Did somebody actually buy the 13" Pro at this refresh? It was underwhelming to say the least.
(Written as a 13" Pro owner)

I bought *9* for work, also a new MBA for myself to replace my old C2D 15".

I won't be pissed about the MBPs at work, they were bought on a grant that had an expiration date, but if there's a retina 13" in the next couple months I'll be pissed about my air!

asd789789
Jul 10, 2012, 05:09 PM
Thanks, but I had seen all about the LG panel fiasco when I was first looking to buy it was the second thing I checked for when I unboxed it. My Air didn't have an LG so I never went for that colour profile.

Again, to be fair to the air it was more down to me being overly picky about things. I wasn't too keen on the viewing angles being so tight either.

Clever move! I'm sitting in front of an MBA with a LG Display and the slower Toshiba SSD's. Ordered the Day it was released...
Well, never mind. I don't notice the difference in daily use :)

HalfBlazed
Jul 10, 2012, 05:17 PM
Why would Apple share the results?

Fandongo
Jul 10, 2012, 05:19 PM
You're going to think, "Bring it on!" when that squirrely 256gb SSD ain't big enough and you can't go inside to upgrade it. Not to mention the RAM that will be soldered on the motherboard. :(

Getting closer to the end of an era folks... RIP.

Sad and true.

They really should have removed the ODD from the fat models.
WANT: 2x SSDs--the caddies when removing the ODD = tons of wasted space.
ADD: extra Thunderbolt port + USB (like the retinas).

Rumors from last year were all about the 13" getting an ivy quad core option.
3610 or GTFO.

Performance + upgradability trumps a few millimeters in fatness.

Confuzzzed
Jul 10, 2012, 05:21 PM
Clever move! I'm sitting in front of an MBA with a LG Display and the slower Toshiba SSD's. Ordered the Day it was released...
Well, never mind. I don't notice the difference in daily use :)

Wasn't the LG display eventually proven to be the better of the two?!

asd789789
Jul 10, 2012, 05:28 PM
Wasn't the LG display eventually proven to be the better of the two?!

The LG display was said to be "lighter and a bit flat" -> washed out... I prefer the other (MacRumors) color profile. It's all a matter of opinion. If you don't have the two displays stand next to each other you can hardly see any difference ;)

bushido
Jul 10, 2012, 05:30 PM
me wants - me being poor college student - me sad :( ^^

pfff downvoted for what exactly?

Narsqt
Jul 10, 2012, 05:31 PM
Wasn't the LG display eventually proven to be the better of the two?!

I believe it went brighter than the samsung (IIRC there was a third panel brand too?) so once you had installed the profile to fix the washed out colour you were supposedly left in a better state than if you got a non-LG panel from the start. At least that's what I read about it

Rennir
Jul 10, 2012, 05:34 PM
BRING IT ON!!

I would like a 13 retina! Maybe even in matte finish! :D

Matte (anti-glare) by its nature, makes your screen less sharp, which kind of defeats the purpose of buying a rMBP in the first place IMO :p

Confuzzzed
Jul 10, 2012, 05:36 PM
If you don't have the two displays stand next to each other you can hardly see any difference ;)

I did, and I preferred the LG one (once recalibrated). The only advantage of the Samsung display as far as I could tell (albeit sample size of 1) was the viewing angle which was better by a few degrees. That didn't bother me because I don't share my screen content with anyone else...

waloshin
Jul 10, 2012, 05:39 PM
With a starting price of $1600?

Confuzzzed
Jul 10, 2012, 05:40 PM
Word of caution, the iMac benchmarking scores came out on May 14th (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1370880&highlight=imac+benchmark+geekbench), still no iMac obviously so benchmarking per se doesn't mean anything as it does not take into account stage of development and GPU

jav6454
Jul 10, 2012, 05:50 PM
I want a beautiful screen, and I want good battery life. Graphics performance to me is very secondary, while CPU performance is quite important. Everyone has different priorities. As long as supply of Retina displays is limited, Apple can build a Retina computer that appeals to a limited audience (because the limited audience still buys every Retina display they can get).



Pointless then. If the GPU isn't strong enough, the display will be meaningless due to the limited amount of work. I want strong GPU to drive the display so that way there will be no issues with programs, applications and other computing things.

Snowshiro
Jul 10, 2012, 06:16 PM
Bwahahaha. Integrated graphics and 2 cores in a laptop with "Pro" in its name?

Someone needs to buy Apple a new dictionary. They obviously don't understand what the word means any more.

Maybe the "Macbook Basic" would be more appropriate.

I've got no objections to them doing whatever they want with their laptop line, but keeping the old name for this low to mid-range notebook would be a joke.

Sylon
Jul 10, 2012, 06:44 PM
My 2011 is only 5 months old, so I'm right there with the refresh crowd. But my MBP has been a godsend during my deployment. It's made my life so much easier during this trip that I probably wouldn't have had the same results with my PC laptop. So, do I regret it? Nope. I'll look into this retina model when the next batch of MacBooks come out. Plus, the price on that thing is going to be horrendous anyway. It gives me plenty of time to start saving up.

JacobMarley
Jul 10, 2012, 07:10 PM
Apple has been very frugal since they have modified the GPU card of the 13" macbook pro series. They used to come with dedicated gpu then they switched to intel graphics card. I believe there is no need for a 13" macbook pro unless you do hard video editing or running graphics hungry applications like Zbrush and Maya. I used a 13" i7 macbook pro but I came short of my studies cause I was running Maya on the MBP and each time I had to bear with the sluggish processor. it doesnt matter what they claim with the new Ivy Bridge processor but it is impossible to benefit from a macbook pro full fledged unless it has a dedicated graphics card. I dont care about the retina display on the MBP. they better straighten up the graphics card on the 13" mbp. It is not a ultrabook and If they will adjust the price like $1499 on the new 13" mbp it is a great waste of money cause it will still have no dedicated GPU. i dont care about the zebra's beautiful eyelash on a retina display. I like performance and smoothly running applications. I think Apple failed the class by bringing up the so-called retina innovation as a cutting-edge innovation for Apple. Real Apple consumers actually look for performance based innovations than a new display innovation . They better revamp the 13" macbook pro with some beefy hardware. Brawnier the better on macbook pro

----------

Pointless then. If the GPU isn't strong enough, the display will be meaningless due to the limited amount of work. I want strong GPU to drive the display so that way there will be no issues with programs, applications and other computing things.


I totally agree with you.

gnasher729
Jul 10, 2012, 07:13 PM
And this makes you happy?:eek:

Clearly, if in five years time someone said "I bought this MBP 5 years ago, and it is still totally up-to-date", that wouldn't be good news. If Apple shows a MBP next week that makes todays MBP look totally outdated, that would be excellent news.

----------

Pointless then. If the GPU isn't strong enough, the display will be meaningless due to the limited amount of work. I want strong GPU to drive the display so that way there will be no issues with programs, applications and other computing things.

There are plenty of applications that will have no issues at all with a 2560x1600 display and the latest integrated graphics. Sure, if you are into playing computer games, that's something else, but that's not what I use a computer for.

JacobMarley
Jul 10, 2012, 07:14 PM
Clearly, if in five years time someone said "I bought this MBP 5 years ago, and it is still totally up-to-date", that wouldn't be good news. If Apple shows a MBP next week that makes todays MBP look totally outdated, that would be excellent news.

----------



There are plenty of applications that will have no issues at all with a 2560x1600 display and the latest integrated graphics. Sure, if you are into playing computer games, that's something else, but that's not what I use a computer for.

correct

jav6454
Jul 10, 2012, 07:18 PM
There are plenty of applications that will have no issues at all with a 2560x1600 display and the latest integrated graphics. Sure, if you are into playing computer games, that's something else, but that's not what I use a computer for.

However, we are not using a 2560x1600 display are we? We are using that pixel amount to make a 1280x800 emulation with "retina" graphics. In other words, we are driving 4x pixels to make pictures look sharper, smoother and crisper.

At 2560x1600 native there is no issue, but making that into a 1280x800 configuration requires heavy computing in the GPU. Hence why the iPad got a quad GPU in it (up from a dual).

gnasher729
Jul 10, 2012, 07:18 PM
Unless the 13" rMBP is priced at $1199, I doubt very many 2012 13" MBP purchasers, including myself, will be upset at all.

The 13" MBP sells at either $1199 or $1499 (without any build-to-order extras). I would speculate that Apple could build a 13" MBP that is unchanged except for the Retina display, and the optical drive swapped for battery space, at the same price. And in that case, they would first offer the $1499 model only, and the $1199 model later when more displays are available.

JacobMarley
Jul 10, 2012, 07:19 PM
Clearly, if in five years time someone said "I bought this MBP 5 years ago, and it is still totally up-to-date", that wouldn't be good news. If Apple shows a MBP next week that makes todays MBP look totally outdated, that would be excellent news.

----------



There are plenty of applications that will have no issues at all with a 2560x1600 display and the latest integrated graphics. Sure, if you are into playing computer games, that's something else, but that's not what I use a computer for.

go ahead and try to run MAYA on the high end 13" macbook pro for 30 minutes . You will see it bloats up and gets very slow cause it has dedicated graphics card. Nvidia and ATI make graphic cards for consumers using their computer for graphics related assignments. Being a gamer and being an apple user are two irrelevant topics. I am a 3d editor and I would want to have a 13" macbook pro with a dedicated GPU than spending money on horrendously expensive macbook pro either with retina or without retina display. They better make the new macbook pro 13" with a dedicated graphics card. They claim the new ivy bridge processor along with intel hd 4000 integrated card intertwined for perfection is a big pseudo.

gnasher729
Jul 10, 2012, 07:21 PM
At 2560x1600 native there is no issue, but making that into a 1280x800 configuration requires heavy computing in the GPU. Hence why the iPad got a quad GPU in it (up from a dual).

That doesn't make the slightest difference. Displaying a screen full of 12pt text on a 1280 x 800 Retina display takes exactly the same amount of GPU power as displaying a screen full of 24pt text on a 2560 x 1600 native display.


go ahead and try to run MAYA on the high end 13" macbook pro for 30 minutes . You will see it bloats up and gets very slow cause it has dedicated graphics card. Nvidia and ATI make graphic cards for consumers using their computer for graphics related assignments. Being a gamer and being an apple user are two irrelevant topics. I am a 3d editor and I would want to have a 13" macbook pro with a dedicated GPU than spending money on horrendously expensive macbook pro either with retina or without retina display. They better make the new macbook pro 13" with a dedicated graphics card. They claim the new ivy bridge processor along with intel hd 4000 integrated card intertwined for perfection is a big pseudo.

Here we go. You say you need a dedicated graphics card. I say I don't.

diamond.g
Jul 10, 2012, 07:25 PM
However, we are not using a 2560x1600 display are we? We are using that pixel amount to make a 1280x800 emulation with "retina" graphics. In other words, we are driving 4x pixels to make pictures look sharper, smoother and crisper.

At 2560x1600 native there is no issue, but making that into a 1280x800 configuration requires heavy computing in the GPU. Hence why the iPad got a quad GPU in it (up from a dual).

The HD 4000 is a 16 core GPU. That should be more than enough to keep up with the resolution (Assuming core count matters).

JacobMarley
Jul 10, 2012, 07:27 PM
That doesn't make the slightest difference. Displaying a screen full of 12pt text on a 1280 x 800 Retina display takes exactly the same amount of GPU power as displaying a screen full of 24pt text on a 2560 x 1600 native display.

I think we are not on the same page here. It is nothing to do with the resolution of the screen but the flow power of the graphics card. Streaming a 3D application on a undedicated and dedicated graphics card computers differ at a great scale. 3d rendering applications require dedicated graphics card on the worked computer or they do not support their customers. If you end up calling the proprietor for any failure or imminent failure they ask you the specs of the laptop you work. There is no difference between a ultrabook and macbook pro 13" if that macbook pro doesnt have the dedicated graphics card. thats my point

modular
Jul 10, 2012, 07:29 PM
"Pro" means people use it professionally, to make money. I don't need a fast GPU to make money.


pro is just a way to separate the lineup. I'm sure there are plenty of people making money on airs as there are college students with 13"/15" mbp.

my point is, there needs to be something else to it besides the name that differentiates the lineup. the gpu should be it. I'm not talking about games, i'm talking about creative professionals that could really benefit from a dedicated gpu. Having a 13" Air with the HD4000 and a 13"MBP with the HD4000 just seems like a waste of macbook pro.

I think there are a ton of people that would jump on a 13" macbook pro with dedicated gpu. And if you don't want the gpu, then get the Air and save some weight.

lets get dedicated gpu's in all pro machines please apple!

jav6454
Jul 10, 2012, 07:30 PM
That doesn't make the slightest difference. Displaying a screen full of 12pt text on a 1280 x 800 Retina display takes exactly the same amount of GPU power as displaying a screen full of 24pt text on a 2560 x 1600 native display.


Beyond nonsense. There are several factors at play. Using 24 pt at 2560 will still yield the same squared results.

The HD 4000 is a 16 core GPU. That should be more than enough to keep up with the resolution (Assuming core count matters).

No it doesn't mean squat. There are other aspects of it.

JacobMarley
Jul 10, 2012, 07:36 PM
pro is just a way to separate the lineup. I'm sure there are plenty of people making money on airs as there are college students with 13"/15" mbp.

my point is, there needs to be something else to it besides the name that differentiates the lineup. the gpu should be it. I'm not talking about games, i'm talking about creative professionals that could really benefit from a dedicated gpu. Having a 13" Air with the HD4000 and a 13"MBP with the HD4000 just seems like a waste of macbook pro.

lets get dedicated gpu's in all pro machines please apple!

that's my point . Folks here still postulate the resolution power of the retina display paired with intel hd 4000. Intel Hd 4000 can only support the demanded picture resolution output but cant be enough to edit video applications. I think macbook pro and macbook air with not dedicated graphics card(intel) should be deemed in the same line of series other than separating these two as macbook pro and macbook air . What I would understand is if the name macbook pro is for a strong laptop I would first ask for the graphics card on it than the display features. I bought a 13" i7 macbook pro last year and I was going berserk trying to edit 3d images on it . I could actually edit the 3d image but I could not flow the picture at all. Graphics card is a must on the upcoming 13" macbook pro. I bought a 15" macbook pro with i7 2.0ghz processor and upgraded it to 8 gb and it runs anything I want but I cant lug around the big hefty 15" macbook pro so I need the 13" one with the dedicated graphics. I wont buy otherwise.

malman89
Jul 10, 2012, 07:46 PM
The Sony Vaio S 13.3" laptops are basic consumer laptops for around a grand with the NVIDIA 640M LE (1GB and 2GB varieties) - a low clock/low power GPU built for thin laptops. I see no reason why It can't be a BTO or higher model option. I really doubt there's going to be anything better than that, if that, included.

JacobMarley
Jul 10, 2012, 07:50 PM
The 13" MBP sells at either $1199 or $1499 (without any build-to-order extras). I would speculate that Apple could build a 13" MBP that is unchanged except for the Retina display, and the optical drive swapped for battery space, at the same price. And in that case, they would first offer the $1499 model only, and the $1199 model later when more displays are available.

If Apple revamps the Apple sign on the lid with a better light or motley colors people would still take it as a great innovation . I think retina display is just an eye candy and conscience fodder for those who were innovation trackers since the end of 2011 and Apple came up with the so-called retina display. It may be a great innovation for people who are into photography to see the very details they work on the photos they edit but is not something Apple should take a great pride in . They got rid of the dvd rom drive for what ? to make it sleek in look or they wanted to find an air passage to flow the air inside out the unit to cool it down ? I am very frustrated with the new macbook pro and I am afraid very same thing will also do on the 13" macbook pro. What i cant compromise on the new macbook pro 13" is the dedicated graphics card and the dvd rom drive. I would still accept to buy it without the dvd rom drive if they revamp it with a dedicated graphics card. Period

MehApple
Jul 10, 2012, 08:06 PM
I am continually surprised at how crazy popular the 13-inch MBPs are. I mean for me, the 15-inch is only just adequate, and I use it almost exclusively with an external monitor. The 13-inch seems so small. Also, without a discreet GPU, ouch.

Why do people love the 13-inch so much?

People love the 11' MBA too. If you have never had a laptop with a huge screen it is a luxury IMHO.

JacobMarley
Jul 10, 2012, 08:09 PM
The Sony Vaio S 13.3" laptops are basic consumer laptops for around a grand with the NVIDIA 640M LE (1GB and 2GB varieties) - a low clock/low power GPU built for thin laptops. I see no reason why It can't be a BTO or higher model option. I really doubt there's going to be anything better than that, if that, included.

Yes you are right and a lot of people are obsessed with Apple although they don't benefit from that to cater to their needs but have it just to have what mainstream people want to have. I would never ever own a macbook pro if the applications I use were available on pc standards. There are a lot faster computers than current macbook pro models in the market but i am personally restrained to own Apple macbook pro or imac to work on my 3d projects.

----------

People love the 11' MBA too. If you have never had a laptop with a huge screen it is a luxury IMHO.


lugging along 15" macbook pro everyday can become a chore after a while so 13" macbook pro can be a bit convenience. The point here is the demand of dedicated graphics card on the 13" models

MehApple
Jul 10, 2012, 08:09 PM
These new 13" Retina MacBook Pros will reshape the entire computer industry. Marco Arment is right, if you're a web developer or designer you have to own one of these and start building for the future of computing.

I hope you are right, but no google chrome support yet for retina.

28monkeys
Jul 10, 2012, 08:11 PM
I would drool over if 13" macbook pro with retina display + powerful gfx card!

JacobMarley
Jul 10, 2012, 08:12 PM
I hope you are right, but no google chrome support yet for retina.

There is no website available to offer retina screen compatible images and i think website admins wont really revamp their websites for people who have 15" macbook pro with retina display. I think Apple can add some zebra or horse pictures compatible with retina view.

MehApple
Jul 10, 2012, 08:16 PM
I think it will ultimately be

11" rMBA
13" rMBP
15" rMBP

----------



I prefer the size MUCH more than my 15in mbp at work

Retina is the direction of all Apple displays. You are joking about preferring the 13 over the 15 right? Smaller is more portable, but that would be the only reason to have something smaller unless I am missing something.

----------

I prefer the size, I'd even go smaller if the specs are good enough. I will buy a retina MBP I want a 13 inch, if the GPU not a crap integrated one. If not I am going to end up buying a 15 inch rMBP.

Personally I can't believe so many people want 15, 17 or even larger laptops. Just like you can't believe people want smaller ones.

Are your preferences for smaller displays based on price and portability? What am I missing about the smaller displays?

----------

Well ...
Image (http://fmn.rrfmn.com/fmn058/20120114/0935/large_414t_10a80000502c1262.jpg)

good stuff:)

JacobMarley
Jul 10, 2012, 08:20 PM
Retina is the direction of all Apple displays. You are joking about preferring the 13 over the 15 right? Smaller is more portable, but that would be the only reason to have something smaller unless I am missing something.

If you are a stationary person you might not worry about a smaller size macbook pro. I am a portable person per se. I commute from client to client and most of the time I may end up at a starbucks to add or extract something off my assignments. Carrying the big 15" macbook pro in my backpack and taking it out the sleeve and in all the time would be a chore after a while. It is what I have been complaining about . If 13" macbook pro came with discreet graphics I would absolutely downgrade to the 13" one . I really do not care the retina flock

----------

Retina is the direction of all Apple displays. You are joking about preferring the 13 over the 15 right? Smaller is more portable, but that would be the only reason to have something smaller unless I am missing something.

----------



Are your preferences for smaller displays based on price and portability? What am I missing about the smaller displays?

----------



good stuff:)

I actually would want it a bit bigger If I had to deal with a bigger one :) lol

----------

If you are a stationary person you might not worry about a smaller size macbook pro. I am a portable person per se. I commute from client to client and most of the time I may end up at a starbucks to add or extract something off my assignments. Carrying the big 15" macbook pro in my backpack and taking it out the sleeve and in all the time would be a chore after a while. It is what I have been complaining about . If 13" macbook pro came with discreet graphics I would absolutely downgrade to the 13" one . I really do not care the retina flock

----------



I actually would want it a bit bigger If I had to deal with a bigger one :) lol

Mehapple: You are not missing anything here. I have a 15" macbook pro with i7 processor and it has 1gb graphics card on it and it is what is helping me with my work but it is hard to lug it around so I would die to switch to macbook pro 13" if the graphics card was dedicated. There is absolutely no way for me to buy a 13" macbook pro even if they gave the retina feature free unless they give it with undedicated graphics card. Do you now get my point ?

Digital Skunk
Jul 10, 2012, 08:22 PM
Yeah, I am on the edge between a 13" MacBook Air or the base 15" MacBook Pro. My current MacBook is on its last legs. I do not want to buy another battery for it.

That's a tricky decision if weight isn't a major concern. Both machines are rather portable, the 15" giving you much more power and a dedicated GPU, the Air giving you one of Apple's sleekest designs.

Depending on what you intend to use it for, you may want to consider the Air over the 15" unless you need FW800 and a dedicated GPU.

zzLZHzz
Jul 10, 2012, 08:32 PM
Did somebody actually buy the 13" Pro at this refresh? It was underwhelming to say the least.
(Written as a 13" Pro owner)

it is definitely underwhelming. i would take the mba 13" refresh over 13" Pro.

it is a different story if it comes with retina. then again if the form factor follows rMBP 15", then what is the point of mba except that mba would be whole lot cheaper.

JacobMarley
Jul 10, 2012, 08:33 PM
That's a tricky decision if weight isn't a major concern. Both machines are rather portable, the 15" giving you much more power and a dedicated GPU, the Air giving you one of Apple's sleekest designs.

Depending on what you intend to use it for, you may want to consider the Air over the 15" unless you need FW800 and a dedicated GPU.

I can state you really would not want to shell out your money on the 15" macbook pro if you have the sleek macbook air 13". The retina display innovation is just a fodder for those who are tech freaks and waste their money on everything manufacturers offer. You would even regret it after buying it cause it is very expensive and not worth the $. I would tell you to buy a regular 15" macbook pro if you are going to benefit from it's hardware features like using the graphics card to work on stuff etc.. other than that it is a waste of money to spend .

Jynto
Jul 10, 2012, 08:36 PM
I can't wait! Hopefully the graphics of the computer will be able to handle that screen resolution.

The graphics of the non-retina Macbook Pro can already handle that screen resolution. Make no mistake about it, they could have built a non-retina Macbook Pro with a retina display (if that makes sense).

deconstruct60
Jul 10, 2012, 09:07 PM
T I would speculate that Apple could build a 13" MBP that is unchanged except for the Retina display, and the optical drive swapped for battery space, at the same price.

Everything about the MBPr 15" model says that is unlikely. The display and additional batteries are going to cost more money than the DVD drive ( perhaps $70) that is being dropped. That means the costs will go up.

the other problem is that there already is a logjam at MBP 13" prices because they are MBA 13" prices. MBA + MBP + MBPr all priced the same. Not.

Also similar to the MBPr 15" is is likely they'll dump the HDD for a more expensive SSD and also use that space for battery. Again battery + more expensive part will likely increase costs.

They'll need the additional battery space because likely to "throw away" some of the DVD space saved by making the MBPr 13" thinner than the MBP ( dropping 0.2" in height). If they didn't chop the height then perhaps they could put a discrete GPU +VRAM + cooler/fan in but by tossing the so-DIMMs and placing the memory horizontal on the motherboard there won't be room for the GPU and the associated VRAM. Both of which need horizontal board space.

They'll likely layer the MBPr 13" models on top of some of the MBP 15" prices. Since soldered RAM will start at 8GB (instead of the 4GB for the non-retina MBPs ). Again raising prices.

Digital Skunk
Jul 10, 2012, 09:17 PM
I can state you really would not want to shell out your money on the 15" macbook pro if you have the sleek macbook air 13". The retina display innovation is just a fodder for those who are tech freaks and waste their money on everything manufacturers offer. You would even regret it after buying it cause it is very expensive and not worth the $. I would tell you to buy a regular 15" macbook pro if you are going to benefit from it's hardware features like using the graphics card to work on stuff etc.. other than that it is a waste of money to spend .

I was perfectly fine with it until the GPU issues started to trickle in. It's one thing to offer Retina on a 15" machine that's super thin yet packs the CPU of a full sized MBP, it's another to discontinue the 17" for it, but it's just awful when the GPU on this attempt at a 17" replacement isn't even up to snuff for running the base screen at the standard resolution.

deconstruct60
Jul 10, 2012, 09:21 PM
it is definitely underwhelming. i would take the mba 13" refresh over 13" Pro.

Out of box, maybe ( if don't value being able to use FW , upgradable RAM at non-Apple prices , upgradable standard storage, more CPU and GPU performance ).

Put on equal footing with SSD in both then there are definitely system performance differences. If don't need those and willing to stick to fixed RAM size and have a relatively high priority on system weight then the MBA can come out on top.




it is a different story if it comes with retina. then again if the form factor follows rMBP 15", then what is the point of mba except that mba would be whole lot cheaper.

The MBA will likely still be lighter. Less batteries and smaller case will likely equate to less weight. Less expensive as well.

There is somewhat decent chance will have longer battery life on MBA 13" as well. The MBPr 13" may drop a small but substantive amount below 7 hours charge on battery if they cut too much volume from the case. It wouldn't be surprising to see them drop to 6.5 hours and loose 30 mins just so that the height was the same as the 15" retina model.

shurcooL
Jul 10, 2012, 09:32 PM
13" Retina MBP doesn't make sense.

How would it differ from the 13" MBA?

The 13" rMBP wouldn't have an optical drive, so the only differentiating factor would have to be the CPU and GPU. So far the 13" MBPs had the same graphics as MBAs.

The CPU? This one gets just under 8000, while the 13" MBA gets 7000 (http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/839/imagefrk.jpg).

So tell me, what would set the 13" Retina MBP apart from 13" MBA?

KylePowers
Jul 10, 2012, 09:34 PM
13" Retina MBP doesn't make sense.

How would it differ from the 13" MBA?

The 13" rMBP wouldn't have an optical drive, so the only differentiating factor would have to be the CPU and GPU. So far the 13" MBPs had the same graphics as MBAs.

The CPU? This one gets just under 8000, while the 13" MBA gets 7000 (http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/839/imagefrk.jpg).

So tell me, what would set the 13" Retina MBP apart from 13" MBA?
Idk, maybe the retina screen?

pearvsapple
Jul 10, 2012, 09:40 PM
Get rid of optical drive and a decent discrete GPU and possibly lowest TDP quadcore is possible. Make it happen, Apple!

dukebound85
Jul 10, 2012, 09:45 PM
Retina is the direction of all Apple displays. You are joking about preferring the 13 over the 15 right? Smaller is more portable, but that would be the only reason to have something smaller unless I am missing something.[COLOR="#808080"]



Nope, I do prefer my personal 13 over my work 15. Hard to describe but I just like the size better when on the go. WHen I am docked, I have a screen to plug into

constantsnags!
Jul 11, 2012, 12:01 AM
So. ****ing. What. Considering that practically nothing works properly on the 15" Retina, I'm certainly not terribly interested in a 13" version. It'll be exactly 2 inches less useful than the first version. Utter waste of time and money until CS6, Office, and the software everyone actually uses is updated to take advantage of it. And I don't mean demonstrated at a product release; I mean actually available to BUY to the person on the street.

vikpt
Jul 11, 2012, 01:22 AM
Please let this be true Apple! I've been waiting for a thinner, retina MBP! :)

AppleScruff1
Jul 11, 2012, 01:56 AM
I am continually surprised at how crazy popular the 13-inch MBPs are. I mean for me, the 15-inch is only just adequate, and I use it almost exclusively with an external monitor. The 13-inch seems so small. Also, without a discreet GPU, ouch.

Why do people love the 13-inch so much?

Because of it's price.

charlieegan3
Jul 11, 2012, 03:20 AM
Clearly, if in five years time someone said "I bought this MBP 5 years ago, and it is still totally up-to-date", that wouldn't be good news. If Apple shows a MBP next week that makes todays MBP look totally outdated, that would be excellent news.

He just seemed to be a little too happy that lots of people potentially bought the wrong computer.

PeterJP
Jul 11, 2012, 04:11 AM
you mean the chop chop 4000? the ultimate cutting board, chop, chop, chop...chop chop.

Surely, you must believe that only discrete GPU can be fast ? I'm using a late 2009 Mac mini that has the NVidia 9400M, so discrete, so it must be better than the HD4000, right ? Obviously. Until you start looking it up:

According to the benchmark comparison tool here, the HD 4000 has between 2x and 6x the benchmark scores of the 9400M. (How relevant the scores are to your gaming experience is yet to be seen. Some of these are synthetic benchmarks, so they may not be wholly relevant.) The list is ranked with faster cards first, and the HD 4000 is #181, while the two 9400Ms are at #302 and #310.

Or...

In Passmark's video card benchmark list, the HD 4000 scores 635 and the 9400M scores 301.

So objectively, the HD 4000 will be much more powerful than the 9400M, and according to Notebookcheck.net should be able to get ~60 or ~27 fps in Diablo 3 on low and medium settings, respectively.

Sorry to blow away your dream, but the HD4000 is plenty capable to drive Retina displays and then some. Plenty, plenty. Way plenty. It does exactly that in the 15", particularly when you manually limit it to HD4000 only. Great way to increase battery life:

And while the HD4000 isn't the world's fastest GPU, I still found it to be quite useable. I used it with Apple's iLife apps, including iPhoto, GarageBand, and iMovie, all of which normally activate graphics switching. Performance was perfectly acceptable, with no noticeable hiccups in functionality. I did notice perceptible differences in UI smoothness, but nothing that impeded actually using the apps to get things done. (ArsTechnica)


Peter.

gpat
Jul 11, 2012, 05:42 AM
9400m is not a discrete GPU.

Adidas Addict
Jul 11, 2012, 06:16 AM
Thinner, lighter, beautiful display, full fat CPU and I'm sold. I don't care about the GPU as long as the UI is smooth as I'll never need more than HD4000.

ZipZap
Jul 11, 2012, 06:25 AM
13" Retina MBP doesn't make sense.

How would it differ from the 13" MBA?

The 13" rMBP wouldn't have an optical drive, so the only differentiating factor would have to be the CPU and GPU. So far the 13" MBPs had the same graphics as MBAs.

The CPU? This one gets just under 8000, while the 13" MBA gets 7000 (http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/839/imagefrk.jpg).

So tell me, what would set the 13" Retina MBP apart from 13" MBA?

Nothing....why does it have to. Its another revenue stream for Apple. They have demonstrated many times that their releases dont have to be logical, and the Apples masses drink the coolaid.

My guess is the 13" rMBP will be thin and will replace the MBA. You seeing the start of a transition.

Steve121178
Jul 11, 2012, 07:31 AM
So tell me, what would set the 13" Retina MBP apart from 13" MBA?

The 13" Retina Pro would obviously be higher specced with a discreet GPU. At least that's the theory...

nia820
Jul 11, 2012, 08:51 AM
Did somebody actually buy the 13" Pro at this refresh? It was underwhelming to say the least.
(Written as a 13" Pro owner)

i brought one because i never owned a macbook before and wanted before i started college this fall. and i knew a 13 retina display was probably coming soon. but i really don't care for retina and a retina macbook would be outside my budget.

ugahairydawgs
Jul 11, 2012, 09:13 AM
The 13" Retina Pro would obviously be higher specced with a discreet GPU. At least that's the theory...

That'd be nice, but I'll believe they're putting a dedicated GPU in a 13" laptop when I see it.

shurcooL
Jul 11, 2012, 02:23 PM
The 13" Retina Pro would obviously be higher specced with a discreet GPU. At least that's the theory...
That's the only logical possibility. However, it is unlikely, given in the past all 13" MBPs have always had identical graphics as the MBAs.

----------

Idk, maybe the retina screen?
The Retina screen can be put in the next "MBA with Retina display".

My guess is the 13" rMBP will be thin and will replace the MBA. You seeing the start of a transition.
That makes no sense. The thin MBA form is a huge success, why would they replace it with something thicker? Instead, the 13" MBA will replace the 13" MBP - that makes more sense.

gnasher729
Jul 11, 2012, 04:10 PM
The Retina screen can be put in the next "MBA with Retina display".

There's a problem with that. The Retina display uses a lot more power. That's why the 15" Retina MBP has a much larger battery than the original 15" MBP. Identical design with the non-retina display would have produced incredible battery life. But with the MBA, there is just no space for a bigger battery. It has lower battery life than the MBP already, with a Retina display it would be quite bad.

But with the 13" MBP, no problem. Leave the case as it is, remove the optical drive, use the space for battery. With the MBA, I suggest we'll have to wait until a Retina display can be produced that uses less power.

----------

Beyond nonsense. There are several factors at play. Using 24 pt at 2560 will still yield the same squared results.

Read _carefully_ what I wrote. Then you have a choice of repeating the "beyond nonsense", and from then on I'll know what to think of you, or you admit that you were careless reading.

diamond.g
Jul 11, 2012, 07:16 PM
Beyond nonsense. There are several factors at play. Using 24 pt at 2560 will still yield the same squared results.



No it doesn't mean squat. There are other aspects of it.

What other aspects?

jav6454
Jul 11, 2012, 09:00 PM
Read _carefully_ what I wrote. Then you have a choice of repeating the "beyond nonsense", and from then on I'll know what to think of you, or you admit that you were careless reading.


It is still nonsense. You need a strong GPU to drive a strong display. Period. There is no science to that. Try running a Retina display of GMA X3100 graphics... try running Retina of the nVidia 9400M. Ok, lets go higher, the 320M.. or the 330GT. You won't because although he resolution is supported, the amount of GPU compute power isn't there to deliver quality.

Yes, you can have an Intel 4000 GPU drive the display, but you will get bad quality in daily use. You will see this as jagged or lagged frames. You will get nice results when word processing, but not everyone does that all day long. See recent Facebook web page viewing and how frame rates drop to low 24 fps.... thats barely making it. GPU is finding it hard to keep up.

If I want a retina Mac, I want something with a good GPU behind it. Quality over hype.

What other aspects?

Architecture, pipelining of data, memory bandwidth. 16 cores is useless if the pipeline towards those cores is small. Moreover, if the memory is limited then yo can't store much pixel information. Even more important, if those memory lanes aren't wide enough or fast enough, you won't move data as required... hence you end up with lower frame rates.

JohnRN
Jul 11, 2012, 11:06 PM
I wondered if I would like this setup but am concerned about using the mb with and external monitor. Do you not find that the mb's display is sorta in the way of the external display?

Maybe if i got an external keyboard to plug into the mb and set it well away from the external monitor....?

Nope not at all, just close the MBP and let it drive the external display. There are some nice little stands that you can use. I'm trying to remember the thread that I saw that had tons of pictures of folks with Apple Thunderbolt displays that were being powered by closed MBP's. They just hook em up use apple keyboards/magic mice and then when they wanna go elsewhere they just unhook the thunderbolt/magsafe adapter and go.

cult hero
Jul 12, 2012, 12:05 AM
I am continually surprised at how crazy popular the 13-inch MBPs are. I mean for me, the 15-inch is only just adequate, and I use it almost exclusively with an external monitor. The 13-inch seems so small. Also, without a discreet GPU, ouch.

Why do people love the 13-inch so much?

The 13" is the perfect size for me. I'd almost go for the 11" but it's just a bit too small.

I don't know anyone with a 15 or 17 that actually uses their machine "on the go." If you slug a laptop from desk to desk, a 19" would probably be fine. The 15" doesn't even really fit on an airplane tray table or those little tables in auditorium classrooms. The 13" does.

And I hear a lot of bellyaching about the lack of a discreet GPU but, again, who cares about a 13"? People who move around with their laptop. Are these people gaming or rendering 3D? As a general rule, no. Battery life is much more important than GPU power generally speaking.

My 13" will currently power a 30" cinema display and its own monitor at the same time. How much does someone need/expect out of a laptop that's a compromise between power and mobility?

That's said, my friend at work has a 15" rMBP and the screen is just plain gorgeous. Unless the price on the 13" rMBP is insane, I'll be getting one. As someone who works on a computer all day, that monitor is a welcome sight.

elppa
Jul 12, 2012, 05:30 AM
And I hear a lot of bellyaching about the lack of a discreet GPU but, again, who cares about a 13"? People who move around with their laptop. Are these people gaming or rendering 3D? As a general rule, no. Battery life is much more important than GPU power generally speaking.

I think the idea is to have a truly no compromise machine, one which is light and portable enough to carry, but powerful enough for some gaming and rendering 3D/video work. They are hard to find on the PC side as well, but Sony do make machines in this class (running Windows obviously), so it would be nice to see a competitor from Apple.

dooby209
Jul 12, 2012, 05:56 AM
I would be happy if they put a dedicated graphic card at least and i7

stewacide
Jul 12, 2012, 10:43 AM
I think the idea is to have a truly no compromise machine, one which is light and portable enough to carry, but powerful enough for some gaming and rendering 3D/video work. They are hard to find on the PC side as well, but Sony do make machines in this class (running Windows obviously), so it would be nice to see a competitor from Apple.

Are you talking about the Vaio Z? That uses a dedicated GPU only when docked, over Thunderbolt in fact.

elppa
Jul 12, 2012, 06:17 PM
Are you talking about the Vaio Z? That uses a dedicated GPU only when docked, over Thunderbolt in fact.

No, I was talking about the VAIO S premium. But previous Z series models did have discrete graphics as well.

gnasher729
Jul 12, 2012, 06:38 PM
It is still nonsense. You need a strong GPU to drive a strong display. Period. There is no science to that. Try running a Retina display of GMA X3100 graphics... try running Retina of the nVidia 9400M. Ok, lets go higher, the 320M.. or the 330GT. You won't because although he resolution is supported, the amount of GPU compute power isn't there to deliver quality.

Yes, you can have an Intel 4000 GPU drive the display, but you will get bad quality in daily use. You will see this as jagged or lagged frames. You will get nice results when word processing, but not everyone does that all day long. See recent Facebook web page viewing and how frame rates drop to low 24 fps.... thats barely making it. GPU is finding it hard to keep up.

If I want a retina Mac, I want something with a good GPU behind it. Quality over hype.

In other words, you either didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote, which all had nothing whatsoever to do with your reply. Pathetic.

jcpb
Jul 12, 2012, 07:39 PM
So. ****ing. What. Considering that practically nothing works properly on the 15" Retina, I'm certainly not terribly interested in a 13" version. It'll be exactly 2 inches less useful than the first version. Utter waste of time and money until CS6, Office, and the software everyone actually uses is updated to take advantage of it. And I don't mean demonstrated at a product release; I mean actually available to BUY to the person on the street.
It is extremely unrealistic to expect that every app be made Retina-ready on the very day MBPR was released.

Keep whining.

----------

Are you talking about the Vaio Z? That uses a dedicated GPU only when docked, over Thunderbolt in fact.
Not through Thunderbolt. The Z-series has Light Peak functionality in the dock port that doubles as a more conventional USB 3.0 port, but Sony cannot call it Thunderbolt simply because it does not meet all of Intel's TB spec requirements.

----------

It is still nonsense... Yes, you can have an Intel 4000 GPU drive the display, but you will get bad quality in daily use. You will see this as jagged or lagged frames. You will get nice results when word processing, but not everyone does that all day long. See recent Facebook web page viewing and how frame rates drop to low 24 fps.... thats barely making it. GPU is finding it hard to keep up.

If I want a retina Mac, I want something with a good GPU behind it. Quality over hype.
Did I read this correctly?

The screen FPS drops to the low-20s on Facebook, not because of the GPU, but because Safari does not support GPU acceleration. All the work going into rendering Facebook is done by the CPU, and one core gets tapped out at 100% usage.

If the user doesn't use Facebook, this "lag" has little to no effect.

The MBPR already has a great mobile GPU, the software just isn't coded to always take advantage of it. The CPU can't finish the work fast enough, while the GPU was behind the lounge sipping a tequila sunrise and browsing through electrical wiring smut.

stewacide
Jul 12, 2012, 08:33 PM
Not through Thunderbolt. The Z-series has Light Peak functionality in the dock port that doubles as a more conventional USB 3.0 port, but Sony cannot call it Thunderbolt simply because it does not meet all of Intel's TB spec requirements.

This seems like a better design to me. I'd rather have a port that can double as USB3 than display port.

And I agree all this lag business can't be pinned on the GPU. The GPU doesn't draw windows the CPU does.

constantsnags!
Jul 12, 2012, 11:08 PM
[QUOTE=jcpb;15238567]It is extremely unrealistic to expect that every app be made Retina-ready on the very day MBPR was released.

Keep whining.

This machine is genuinely nothing but a curio until software that actually gains by using the higher res display is openly available. Obviously it's not realistic to expect that on day one; however we're now a good bit down the line with not a peep from Adobe or Microsoft. Believe me, if this machine had the toolkit available to match I'd be at the front of the line. I still may buy if the updates appear...but I'm not holding my breath. I'm a freelance and the light weight, speed and display are definitely attractive but right now it's pointless and will be for a good few months to come, I suspect.

Eidorian
Jul 13, 2012, 10:20 AM
That's a tricky decision if weight isn't a major concern. Both machines are rather portable, the 15" giving you much more power and a dedicated GPU, the Air giving you one of Apple's sleekest designs.

Depending on what you intend to use it for, you may want to consider the Air over the 15" unless you need FW800 and a dedicated GPU.At least the Macbook Air has the backlit keyboard once more. I would just love to be able to play Battlefield 3 on the road right now. I plan on staying in Mexico for a month next year and I would really not want to miss out.

Not to mention the condition and age of my current Macbook. External Thunderbolt GPUs are still pie in the concept products.

diamond.g
Jul 13, 2012, 11:00 AM
It is still nonsense. You need a strong GPU to drive a strong display. Period. There is no science to that. Try running a Retina display of GMA X3100 graphics... try running Retina of the nVidia 9400M. Ok, lets go higher, the 320M.. or the 330GT. You won't because although he resolution is supported, the amount of GPU compute power isn't there to deliver quality.

Yes, you can have an Intel 4000 GPU drive the display, but you will get bad quality in daily use. You will see this as jagged or lagged frames. You will get nice results when word processing, but not everyone does that all day long. See recent Facebook web page viewing and how frame rates drop to low 24 fps.... thats barely making it. GPU is finding it hard to keep up.

If I want a retina Mac, I want something with a good GPU behind it. Quality over hype.



Architecture, pipelining of data, memory bandwidth. 16 cores is useless if the pipeline towards those cores is small. Moreover, if the memory is limited then yo can't store much pixel information. Even more important, if those memory lanes aren't wide enough or fast enough, you won't move data as required... hence you end up with lower frame rates.
Are you seriously implying that the SGX535MP4 is as powerful as the HD4000 (or even the GT330M)?

jav6454
Jul 13, 2012, 11:21 AM
Are you seriously implying that the SGX535MP4 is as powerful as the HD4000 (or even the GT330M)?

With respect to your inquiry. No I did not imply that. I gave you several other factors that have to be taken into account for a GPU to be considered ok. Core count is not the only important thing.

Sackvillenb
Jul 13, 2012, 11:54 AM
Excellent. 13" retinas will be nice. Especially once all the major applications get updated for retina...

diamond.g
Jul 13, 2012, 12:42 PM
With respect to your inquiry. No I did not imply that. I gave you several other factors that have to be taken into account for a GPU to be considered ok. Core count is not the only important thing.

I understand. I was just curious as to why you thought the iPad GPU ran 2048*1536 well but the HD4000 wouldn't be able to run 2560*1600 well. Even though (for the most part) it seems to run 2880*1800 just fine.

If I am mistaken then sorry.

Casey MAC
Jul 16, 2012, 05:35 PM
End of an Era, aint that the truth. im still not exactly sure why users are happy to trade a DVD drive for a thinner mbp. I really thought the last one was thin enough.

zzLZHzz
Jul 16, 2012, 09:29 PM
End of an Era, aint that the truth. im still not exactly sure why users are happy to trade a DVD drive for a thinner mbp. I really thought the last one was thin enough.

simply because i had a mbp for the past 3 years and had never used the dvd drive for once. not even once. if it doesn't serve most people a purpose, it is a waste of space.

you might be right that the last one was thin enough. in that case i would trade the dvd drive for something else like more battery power or some gpu