Apple Updates Retina MacBook Pro with New Processors, Drops Pricing on 13-Inch Models and High-End MacBook Air

[appliv]

Originally Posted by KPOM

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]

Originally Posted by chrisrosemusic1

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.

[mrhick01]

Originally Posted by Sky Blue

75% have Retina MacBook Pros?

I've seen a couple of dozen Retinas amongst the students.

[throAU]

Originally Posted by skaertus

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.

----------

Originally Posted by kycophpd

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Raizen.Z09

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… ).

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]

Originally Posted by Djlild7hina

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]

Originally Posted by Raizen.Z09

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]

Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire

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_2013/2...pre-order.html

[sanford]

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]

Originally Posted by sanford

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]

Originally Posted by Raizen.Z09

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]

Oh Bollocks. Guess who got a 2.6GHz RMBP less than a month ago (15 days)

NVM, it's still an awesome Mac

[leftroom]

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

Oh Bollocks. Guess who got a 2.6GHz RMBP less than a month ago (15 days)

NVM, it's still an awesome Mac

Call Apple and say you want to return it. 15 days shouldn't be a problem.. That's what I think.. Come on, 1 day or 2 days.. Who cares. But you could try it

[Zandros]

Originally Posted by apple-win

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]

Originally Posted by Zandros

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]

Originally Posted by apple-win

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]

Originally Posted by sanford

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]

Originally Posted by kycophpd

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]

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.

[maxosx]

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.

[KPOM]

Originally Posted by maxosx

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.

[AndersBeider]

When is the next update then? lol!

[Candlelight]

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]

Originally Posted by Candlelight

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.