Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 10, 2012, 12:40 PM   #1
JesseW6889
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
13" Retina with dedicated graphics?!

Is there any chance of this happening?
JesseW6889 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 12:44 PM   #2
charlieegan3
macrumors 68020
 
charlieegan3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: U.K
I would see this as possible, yes.
charlieegan3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 12:47 PM   #3
NutsNGum
macrumors 68030
 
NutsNGum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
I, on the other hand, doubt it.

The HD4000 in my 11" 2012 Air runs my 2560x1440 Thunderbolt Display and its own 1366x768 display without breaking a sweat. I imagine that they've been holding off in order to get Mountain Lion to a point where performance is -- at least -- reasonable on the HD4000. Seems like that time is about now.
NutsNGum is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 01:23 PM   #4
stevelam
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by NutsNGum View Post
I, on the other hand, doubt it.

The HD4000 in my 11" 2012 Air runs my 2560x1440 Thunderbolt Display and its own 1366x768 display without breaking a sweat. I imagine that they've been holding off in order to get Mountain Lion to a point where performance is -- at least -- reasonable on the HD4000. Seems like that time is about now.
i would never use the hd4000 for both retina display AND an external monitor. you can't even do that on the RMBP now as it automatically switches to the 650m if you have another monitor plugged in. when you try to force the hd4000 it just disables the other monitor.

the fact is the hd4000 already shows performance issues just on its own and still running only at 1440 hidpi mode. no way will it push another extended monitor on top of that.
stevelam is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 01:26 PM   #5
heisenberg123
macrumors 603
 
heisenberg123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
only if it cant be done without it, adding an upgraded CPU and GPU will make the entry 13" in the 1699-1799 range
__________________
15" i7 Quad Core MBP (Early 2011) 2.0GHz, 16GB RAM, 1TB HD, AMD Radeon HD 6490M(Intel HD Graphics 3000) OSX 10.9
16GB Samsung Galaxy SIII with 32GB microSD
heisenberg123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 01:28 PM   #6
charlieegan3
macrumors 68020
 
charlieegan3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: U.K
Quote:
Originally Posted by iisforiphone View Post
only if it cant be done without it, adding an upgraded CPU and GPU will make the entry 13" in the 1699-1799 range
Yeah i think the 13" rMBP will be comparatively more expensive than the 15".
charlieegan3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 04:41 PM   #7
Glenn.eu
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
I think the battery will be too small in the 13" retina unibody for running dedicated graphics. I hope i'm wrong! Would love to see a 13u retina with dedicated graphics and the battery life of the 15" retina
Glenn.eu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 05:52 PM   #8
AzN1337c0d3r
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
I doubt it, the added price of a Retina screen without discrete graphics would put the rMBP13 right between where the uMBP13 and the uMBP15 is currently.

Assuming they could pull off the engineering hurdle of power disappation/battery life and add discrete graphics, it would drive up the cost so much that it would head into uMBP15 territory.

At that point, I think most people would choose the hypothetical discrete-graphics rMBP13 over the uMBP15 (slower CPU in exchange for flash storage, and much better screen?) and Apple doesn't want to get rid of the uMBP15 line quite yet.
__________________
rMBP (10.8), 2.6 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD
Hackintosh (10.7.4), 4.6 GHz i7-3930K, 32 GB RAM, 3xHD7970, 2x240GB Vertex 3 RAID 0 SSD, 2x600GB Velociraptor 10KRPM, Drobo S 5x2TB, 2x HP LP3065 30-inch.
AzN1337c0d3r is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 07:13 PM   #9
watchthisspace
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
The 2010 MBP 13" had discrete graphics so anything is possible really.
watchthisspace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 07:23 PM   #10
T5BRICK
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchthisspace View Post
The 2010 MBP 13" had discrete graphics so anything is possible really.
No, it just had one of the better integrated solutions of that time.
T5BRICK is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 01:47 AM   #11
watchthisspace
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by T5BRICK View Post
No, it just had one of the better integrated solutions of that time.
And at the time, the nVidia 320M was separate from the CPU, obviously taking up space on the logic board, creating additional heat and using more power. So I feel my point is still valid.
watchthisspace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 02:02 AM   #12
raymondso
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Anyone has any idea about the possible native screen resolution of the 13" retina MBP?
raymondso is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 02:11 AM   #13
yusukeaoki
macrumors 68030
 
yusukeaoki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Tokyo, Japan
I just think its pointless to have a 13in Retina.
Rather have a 15in or 17in.

Having a Retina Quality resolution on 13in?
i dont want that.
__________________
17" MacBook Pro (Early 2011), 2.2GHz i7-2720QM, 16GB RAM, 128GB SSD+1TB HDD@5400rpm
11" MacBook Air (Mid 2013), 1.7GHz i7-4650U, 8GB RAM, 512GB Flash
HTC J One (White) 32GB
yusukeaoki is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 02:13 AM   #14
M5RahuL
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 39.73 N, 104.98 W
Quote:
Originally Posted by raymondso View Post
Anyone has any idea about the possible native screen resolution of the 13" retina MBP?
I think I read 2560 x 1600 somewhere...
__________________
Late '13 15" rMBP 2.3 ' 16 ' 512
Mid '13 MBA All Samsung i7`8`256 iPhone 5S Unlocked TMO Galaxy Note 3 Nexus 5
M5RahuL is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 02:28 AM   #15
boto
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by raymondso View Post
Anyone has any idea about the possible native screen resolution of the 13" retina MBP?
Same as the current 13" MBPs...? It's just going to have double the resolution and set to 1280 by 800 to be readable on a small screen.

I'm hoping for a GT 640m in the 13" rMBP if anything, I just might sell my 15" rMBP to get a smaller form factor, but that is only if the new speaker system will be integrated to it as well.
boto is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 02:30 AM   #16
mac jones
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
I think it's going to scale like the 15". In other words, the only major changes with the 15" pro retina, are the screen, port changes (really just the screen and sans DVD).

So it will probably be the same for the 13"

Dual core, no DVD. HD4000, USB 3, etc....

(they also will shave off some major weight me thinks )
mac jones is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 02:35 AM   #17
raymondso
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
I wonder if rMBP 13" will have HDMI output built-in.
raymondso is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 02:46 AM   #18
Elijen
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
If Apple did this, it would made me sooo happy:

1. Throw out DVD reader, put there dedicated graphic.
2. Change display for retina display.
3. Keep other spec unchanged (no RAM soldered to mainboard)
4. Keep price unchanged


Quote:
Originally Posted by boto View Post
Same as the current 13" MBPs...? It's just going to have double the resolution and set to 1280 by 800 to be readable on a small screen.
Wat? What would be the point of putting there retina display, then?
Elijen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 02:46 AM   #19
chibiterasu
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: London, The United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchthisspace View Post
And at the time, the nVidia 320M was separate from the CPU, obviously taking up space on the logic board, creating additional heat and using more power. So I feel my point is still valid.
They used an nvidia chipset instead of an intel chipset so no more space was used. The old intel gma 950 and x3100 were on the intel chipset not on the processor, same with the 320m its on an nvidia chipset, so this means that chipset also provides nforce ethernet and other controllers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijen View Post
If Apple did this, it would made me sooo happy:
3. Keep other spec unchanged (no RAM soldered to mainboard)
4. Keep price unchanged
These two points are not going to happen apple have said that they are moving to an all flash architecture (soldered ram and non standard ssd) e.g the 15 rMbp which is also more expensive than its 15 inch cMbp version at base. The specs have to go higher to drive the screen and how are you going to get a gpu with no extra cost??
__________________
MacBook pro 13 inch mid 2012 2.5 Ghz 4gb ram 1TB iMac G4 17 inch osx 10.5.8 1.25Ghz 1.5 gb ram 160gb 7200rpm iPad 4 32gb iPhone 4s 16gb iPod classic 160gb

Last edited by chibiterasu; Sep 11, 2012 at 02:56 AM.
chibiterasu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 03:40 AM   #20
FroColin
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijen View Post
If Apple did this, it would made me sooo happy:

1. Throw out DVD reader, put there dedicated graphic.
2. Change display for retina display.
Battery :/

I mean I agree but... There would be no battery. No, they will redesign it, it won't be user upgradable. After all, your iPhone isn't user upgradable, and that's all anyone wants right? :/

That being said, my rMBP is amazing and I don't mind that I can't upgrade it, I bought the better ram and was happy to do so, and also... Thunderbolt makes upgrades easier.

(I apologize for the overuse of commas)
__________________
rMBP 2.6ghz 16gb RAM
08 Mac Pro 2x2.8 GHz Quad-core 8 GB RAM 3 1 TB HDs;
Canon T2i (50mm 1.4, 70-200mm IS 2.8L, 24-105mm IS 4.0L)
So much software. So much
FroColin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 03:47 AM   #21
Tankmaze
macrumors 65816
 
Tankmaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
The intel HD4000 performance is comparable to my early 2011 mbp GPU which is the AMD radeon 6490m. just look at the benchmark. if my 6490m can run the mbp monitor and 2560x1440 external monitor, intel HD 4000 can run retina (2560x1600) + external monitor (2560x1440).
__________________
Check out our game Tank Maze
Tankmaze is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 04:24 AM   #22
watchthisspace
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by chibiterasu View Post
They used an nvidia chipset instead of an intel chipset so no more space was used. The old intel gma 950 and x3100 were on the intel chipset not on the processor, same with the 320m its on an nvidia chipset, so this means that chipset also provides nforce ethernet and other controllers.
Thank you for correcting me.
watchthisspace is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 07:26 AM   #23
T5BRICK
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchthisspace View Post
And at the time, the nVidia 320M was separate from the CPU, obviously taking up space on the logic board, creating additional heat and using more power. So I feel my point is still valid.
It was integrated into the northbridge chipset and still used system RAM as VRAM. If you're going to say that the 320M was a dedicated graphics card, so was the NVIDIA 9400M in the mid 2009 13" and the Intel GMA 950 in the original MacBook.
T5BRICK is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 07:44 AM   #24
T5BRICK
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oregon
It looks like someone else has already pointed this out. Whoops.

Anyway, the HD4000 is a REALLY good integrated solution, but I don't know if it's good enough for this situation.
T5BRICK is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 07:48 AM   #25
leman
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchthisspace View Post
And at the time, the nVidia 320M was separate from the CPU, obviously taking up space on the logic board, creating additional heat and using more power. So I feel my point is still valid.
The 320M is an integrated GPU. The only difference is that it was integrated within the mainboard chip while current CPUs integrate the parts of mainboard chip (memory controller and GPU).

A dedicated GPU is a GPU which a) resides in a separate chip on its own (not integrated with other system components) and b) has its own RAM.

I doubt that the mainboard of the 13" MBP has enough space to fit a dGPU. Although, this could be possible if the ODD is dropped.
leman is online now   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:46 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC