Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by JesseW6889, Sep 10, 2012.
Is there any chance of this happening?
I would see this as possible, yes.
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.
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".
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
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.
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.
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.
Anyone has any idea about the possible native screen resolution of the 13" retina MBP?
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.
I think I read 2560 x 1600 somewhere...
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.
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 )
I wonder if rMBP 13" will have HDMI output built-in.
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
Wat? What would be the point of putting there retina display, then?
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.
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??
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)
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).
Thank you for correcting me.
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.
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.
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.