Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

appliv

macrumors newbie
Feb 14, 2013
1
0
You are within your return period. In addition to the 0.1GHz base speed (which is actually 0.2GHz in Turbo Boost), you would also get the lower price. I'd see if you can get the price differential back if you don't want to go through the hassle of getting a new machine.

I am in the situation and called the apple store. The representative only offered me 30$ refund. I am still yet to decide whether to return it or accept the rather small refund!
 

poorcow

macrumors newbie
Feb 13, 2013
2
0
London, UK
You'd be best of calling them - if you bought it through Apple online they won't exchange in a store.

Find the number for the country where it was bought - they allow extra time providing they're aware of the situation.

It was actually bought from an Apple Premium Reseller.

It's more of a matter of Apple's exchange/return policy/protocol rather than a timing issue as I am still within the 14 days period by the time I get back to the UK.

But I will check with the shop to clarify.

Cheers.
 

throAU

macrumors G3
Feb 13, 2012
8,775
6,936
Perth, Western Australia
It matters if software is written for a given architecture. iPads, having an ARM architecture, cannot run Microsoft Office, for instance, or other software written for x86 CPUs. Software has to be written specifically for the architecture, and that makes the difference.

In addition, there is the difference in performance. An Intel processor is far faster than a processor made by AMD these days, and that affects the user experience. Quad-core processors tend to heat more, and that may also affect the end user experience.

So, it makes pretty much of a difference, even though the end user is not always aware of it.

I'm not saying the internals have no bearing on performance. I'm saying the end user isn't concerned about how the performance is obtained. If they run Windows then sure they'll likely be swayed to an x86 machine, because it will perform well. But whether it is intel or AMD is irrelevant to most people.

Again. End user cares about the performance (what the machine does) not the bits inside that provide it.

They care about how hot and noisy the machine is. Not that it necessarily has a quad core vs dual core.

----------

It has been consistently proven that you can do about the same with 8GB memory in a Mac as you can with 16GB in a PC.

Sorry but that is just not necessarily true.

I'm a massive apple fanboy, but there are plenty of cases where i can do more with less on a PC, especially if I'm running Linux or similar on it.

But its moot anyway. RAM is cheap. Load up on it, and run the platform you need to support your apps.
 

apple-win

macrumors regular
Dec 4, 2012
226
0
Figure of Merit

Use "battery life to weight ratio" as figure of merit, 2010 13" MBP is better than 13" retina MBP. This is one of the reasons I'm not planning to buy a 13" retina MBP to replace my 2010 model.

2010 model : 10 hours / 4.5 pounds = 2.222 hour per pound :)

Retina model : 7 hours / 3.57 pounds = 1.96 hour per pound :(

Acoustic performance : 2010 model 16 dB, retina model no spec (i.e. more noise than other models)

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP583
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP658

Retina display needs high power backlight that reduces battery life. For example, iPad3 retina display has shorter battery life than iPad 2, and heavier too.

There is other figure of merit, such as, battery life per weight per price, 13" retina MBP still gets low score. Apple need to drop the price more.
 

Djlild7hina

macrumors 6502a
Mar 28, 2009
753
64
And now Apple offer i7-3820QM and 16GB in their stock-standard configuration, so it'll cost a little less money for me, I just need to configure it to a 2.80Ghz i7-3840QM (just considering though. $250 for just 100Mhz of clock speed difference, same cache size, same features. hmmm… :rolleyes: ).

Actually the new 2.7 i7 is the 3740QM with 6mb Cache and not the 3820QM with 8 mb cache.

Personally, I'm waiting for Haswell to see what they will do with the cMBP and if they'll drop the prices on the retinas.
 

Raizen.Z09

macrumors member
Jul 8, 2010
75
9
Cambodia
Actually the new 2.7 i7 is the 3740QM with 6mb Cache and not the 3820QM with 8 mb cache.

Personally, I'm waiting for Haswell to see what they will do with the cMBP and if they'll drop the prices on the retinas.

Ahh. My bad. The stock one is 2.7Ghz i7-3740QM with 6MB cache. I'm okay to spend $250 for 2MB more cache then. Thanks for the correction.

For me, I can't wait a few more months since my 2010 13" MBP is as slow as a snail. And I don't think Haswell worth the wait, those new feature will not benefit me much, I think.
 

Steve121178

macrumors 603
Apr 13, 2010
6,385
6,912
Bedfordshire, UK
For me, I can't wait a few more months since my 2010 13" MBP is as slow as a snail. And I don't think Haswell worth the wait, those new feature will not benefit me much, I think.

There's no reason for a machine that's barely 3 years old to be performing "as slow as a snail". Have you tried reinstalling the OS or perhaps upgrading the HDD before splashing out on a new machine?
 

iSunrise

macrumors 6502
May 11, 2012
382
118
This are the desktop versions. Mobile versions should appear in Apple products in Q4/2013-Q1/2014.
I was talking about the Intel release date, not the Apple release date, which still is purely speculation. Intel is going to introduce them pretty soon (4 months). The dual-cores will follow after that. Which means that the 15" line-up could be replaced sometime after June.

Haswell Quad-Cores are already up for pre-order:
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/...-4900MQ_CPUs_are_available_for_pre-order.html
 

sanford

macrumors 65816
Jan 5, 2003
1,265
0
Dallas, USA
.1 GHz?

Wait a minute. On the base model 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro, the 8GB RAM/256GB flash drive model, the update here, the only difference is it's a 2.4 GHz quad-core i7 updated from the exact same quad-core i7 clocked at 2.3 GHz? Is that correct? Because usually I get pinched more by updates within 90 days of buying a pricey laptop but this is essentially no pinch at all. Not that even the top version, the 2.7 GHz/16GB RAM model, would do anything for me. 2.3 GHz/8GB more than blows the doors off the sort of work I do.

But am I missing something here? A .1 GHz update? That's sounds less like an update and more like a tech spec alignment with competing pro-line Windows laptops, or because the 2.3 GHz i7 is going out of production.
 

31 Flavas

macrumors 6502a
Jun 4, 2011
775
406
Wait a minute. [... snip ...] But am I missing something here? A .1 GHz update? That's sounds less like an update and more like a tech spec alignment with competing pro-line Windows laptops, or because the 2.3 GHz i7 is going out of production.
Right, this was not a refresh of the product line. That might happen June - July or in the Fall.

This was a readjustment (or re-alignment) to packages on the existing line-up. Some places they adjusted the hardware, but kept the price. On others, they didn't change the hardware and instead cut the price.
 

linux2mac

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2009
1,330
0
"City of Lakes", MN
For me, I can't wait a few more months since my 2010 13" MBP is as slow as a snail. And I don't think Haswell worth the wait, those new feature will not benefit me much, I think.

Huh? My 2010 13" C2D MBP is still running strong and I run Fusion VM's on it. I also have 8GB RAM and do clean installs for every major OSX Update ( i.e. SL to Lion and Lion to ML). Plus I run Onyx on a regular basis.
 

cjmillsnun

macrumors 68020
Aug 28, 2009
2,399
48
Oh Bollocks. Guess who got a 2.6GHz RMBP less than a month ago (15 days) :(

NVM, it's still an awesome Mac
 
Last edited:

Zandros

macrumors regular
Sep 1, 2010
124
82
Use "battery life to weight ratio" as figure of merit, 2010 13" MBP is better than 13" retina MBP. This is one of the reasons I'm not planning to buy a 13" retina MBP to replace my 2010 model.

2010 model : 10 hours / 4.5 pounds = 2.222 hour per pound :)

Retina model : 7 hours / 3.57 pounds = 1.96 hour per pound :(

Acoustic performance : 2010 model 16 dB, retina model no spec (i.e. more noise than other models)

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP583
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP658

Retina display needs high power backlight that reduces battery life. For example, iPad3 retina display has shorter battery life than iPad 2, and heavier too.

There is other figure of merit, such as, battery life per weight per price, 13" retina MBP still gets low score. Apple need to drop the price more.

Didn't Apple fairly recently say that they had adjusted how they calculate battery life though?
 

apple-win

macrumors regular
Dec 4, 2012
226
0
Didn't Apple fairly recently say that they had adjusted how they calculate battery life though?
Battery life data are from Apple's technical specifications.

13" Retina MBP does not have optical drive and it is lighter. Therefore battery life per pound worst than 2010 model is not acceptable.

2010 MBP has 10 hour battery life, it is very important when I fly long-haul. In the airport terminal, the chairs near AC socket outlets are always occupied by other laptop users and smartphone users. I cannot plug AC adpator to use my MBP in the airport.

Another thing, my 2010 MBP runs Mountain Lion, it's not slow, no performance problem.
 

The-Pro

macrumors 65816
Dec 2, 2010
1,453
40
Germany
Battery life data are from Apple's technical specifications.

13" Retina MBP does not have optical drive and it is lighter. Therefore battery life per pound worst than 2010 model is not acceptable.

2010 MBP has 10 hour battery life, it is very important when I fly long-haul. In the airport terminal, the chairs near AC socket outlets are always occupied by other laptop users and smartphone users. I cannot plug AC adpator to use my MBP in the airport.

Another thing, my 2010 MBP runs Mountain Lion, it's not slow, no performance problem.

Just like the user you quoted said, Apple adjusted the way they calculate battery life. You calculation of battery life per pound is done from two apple specified numbers that are not comparable because different tests were run to find out these numbers. If you might have noticed all apple notebooks are rated at 7 hours. Despite the cMBP 13" still being capable of more. You need to compare the 13" rMBP with a current 13" MBP because the claimed battery life was calculated in the same way.

Im sure if you really try and save battery you can get more than 7 hours out of the 13 rMBP
 

KPOM

macrumors P6
Oct 23, 2010
18,020
7,863
But am I missing something here? A .1 GHz update? That's sounds less like an update and more like a tech spec alignment with competing pro-line Windows laptops, or because the 2.3 GHz i7 is going out of production.

It's the latter. It's the same with the 13". The base 13" ships with the 2.5GHz i5-3210M. The 256GB model ships with a 2.6GHz i5-3230M. The 3230M is simply the production replacement for the 3210M (which is still available for sale). It is not the same as the 2.6GHz i5-3320M that Intel has made available to OEMs since June 2012. That version Turbo Boost to 3.3GHz and has a GPU speed of 1.2GHz. The i5-3230M in the new 13" rMBP boosts to 3.2GHz and the GPU tops out at 1.1GHz.
 

OhHaiThere

macrumors regular
Sep 8, 2011
143
0
USA
It has been consistently proven that you can do about the same with 8GB memory in a Mac as you can with 16GB in a PC.

Can you please link me to this proof? I've never seen such claims and haven't had that experience. It would be very hard for an average user to use up 8Gb of ram on a Mac or non-Mac, not to mention 16Gb.

A friend of mine just built a PC with 128Gb of ram, but for the kind of work he does, he needs it. I'm pretty sure a Mac with 64Gb of ram couldn't bend the laws of physics for him ;)
 

DangerClose

macrumors newbie
Feb 16, 2013
5
0
Has anyone who is past the return window inquired about an exchange? I have a 15" 2.7 with 8GB, and I'm ticked off that 16GB is now included for the same price I paid.
 

KPOM

macrumors P6
Oct 23, 2010
18,020
7,863
The 13" is an excellent model yet retina & Apples high margins are hurting it. Finally Apple is realizing the days of charging very high prices are fading.

Yes and no. The 15" model still commands a premium. I always had the sense that the 13" price would come down when Apple decided to "mainstream" it. The 13" cMBP starts at $1199, and so $1699 was always unsustainable long term. That said, the price did come down a bit more quickly than I thought it would. I figured Apple would wait until the Haswell refresh.

As for the NAND prices, Apple had held out at $2/GB for a lot longer than I thought they would. I'm not surprised by those price drops at all. SSDs have been $1/GB for over a year now.
 

Candlelight

macrumors 6502a
Oct 12, 2011
837
731
New Zealand
Until there is a 1TB standard option, the retina line is useless to me.

My current cMBP has 1.5Tb of space, and I chew through that fairly regularly.

(OK I'm being petty as external storage could easily take care of my concerns but I prefer internal storage)
 

Squilly

macrumors 68020
Nov 17, 2012
2,260
4
PA
Until there is a 1TB standard option, the retina line is useless to me.

My current cMBP has 1.5Tb of space, and I chew through that fairly regularly.

(OK I'm being petty as external storage could easily take care of my concerns but I prefer internal storage)

That's an HDD though, the disk in a rMBP is an SSD.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.