2012 rMBP vs. 2013 rMBP: Any Difference?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by legaleye3000, Aug 30, 2013.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    #1
    The only difference I see is a bump in the cpu from 2.3 to 2.4ghz. Any other difference as to why I should get the 2013? Thanks.
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    B...

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    #2
    The inclusion of an LG SJA2 display, which fixed IR issues.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    #3
    I wonder if direct refurbs from apple of the 2012 model include this...?
     
  4. macrumors regular

    NickPhamUK

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    #4
    Pretty much what poster #2 said, but I'd want to add in. The new technology in Haswell makes CPU more efficient, hence more battery power. We already see 12h (from 7h) battery life in MBA, so we can expect a bump to 9-10h in MBP.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    #5
    Thanks Nick but I'm talking about 2012 vs. Early 3013 refresh
     
  6. macrumors 68040

    petvas

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Location:
    Mannheim, Germany
  7. macrumors regular

    NickPhamUK

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    #7
    Oh I'm sorry, didn't realise that. But aren't they in the same range of price? Shouldn't you just get the refresh? Or better, Apple is releasing Haswell soon (like in 2-6 weeks). You can either get the latest tech or get the previous gen with a hugely discounted price.
     
  8. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    #8
    Looking specifically at the refurbs on apple's website for the 15" rMBPs, there seems to be a substantial price difference between the June 2012 and Feb 2013 models for the exact same specs (except for 0.1 GHz difference).

    It's $1599 for 2012 (2.3GHz, 8GB Ram, 256GB SSD) vs $1869 (2.4GHz, 8GB Ram, 256GB SSD) for 2013. Is the +$269 really worth it to get the later refurb model?
     
  9. macrumors member

    Tavicu

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Location:
    Romania
    #9
    With the 269$ that you save you can buy Apple Care from B&H for 244$ and you still have some $ for a beer :D
     
  10. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Location:
    NH
    #10
    There were a couple threads on this back in Jan-Feb 2013 time frame. Those that upgraded thought the 2013 was much better than their 2012, but they generally had early 2012 models. The 2013 is a better machine especially at the high end, many small updates from the 2012 that help with cooling and performance in general, especially battery life some claim. Not sure how much difference it makes on the low end. Not all 2013s came with the SA2, I believe it wasn't till early March that they started putting those into the BTO ones.

    Difference may be subjective but I don't know of anyone that thinks the 2013 is a step down.

    Oh deriving real performance from Ghz differences went out with the stone age. It is a CPU upgrade. Most benchmarks show a noticeable improvement. Worth it depend on what you use it for.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    vpro

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    #11
    But we all know.

    In real world use, that will mean a full 7 hours on next mbps, the previous gens you only get up to 6 hours full use in real world sense anyways. I guess the evolution of processors (for now until battery technology improves), is just to cater to limited battery capacity, so the focus on new processors makes sense to conserve battery power over more hours of use, but it just means the same every year. We won't really know until a bunch of us has got a hand on these new mbps to give them a good test drive to know if they will go 9 - 10 hours or if just at a reasonable full 7 hours. Remains to be tested in real world consumer and prosumer use.

    ???
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Location:
    NH
    #12
    Haswell has something to do with that, depending how the MBA is used, but they also bumped the MBA battery capacity quit a bit.

    I get 10+ hours out of my rMBP now without trying but long battery life is not a selling point to me (as long as it runs 5-6 hours). There are a few around here for which a longer battery life may actually be useful, but not the vast majority of MBP users. The MBA is a different story. My daughter only gets 9 hours out of her 2012 MBA 13 inch. :)
     
  13. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada | Sibiu, Romania
    #13
    I think the 3013 model is 7000% thinner, and has a 1024 core Intel i77 @3 Hecta-Hertz which is a bit faster than the 2012 model
     
  14. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    #14
    Guys- I'm talking about the early 2013 refresh, not the Haswell model.
     
  15. macrumors regular

    NickPhamUK

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    #15
    Yeah I realised that too but didn't want to be a douche. But your comment is still funny tho.
     
  16. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada | Sibiu, Romania
    #16
    Ha ha, yeah, I try. :p
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #17
    Main CPU speed, of which 100MHz (2.3->2.4) is pointless for many reasons, is not going to fix the video slugging problem - I'd expect a faster GPU. Since cooling is no longer an issue with the rMBP cooling grilles and fan innovation, if the video sluggishness is dealt with I will definitely buy one. Hopefully it will allow the buyer to upgrade RAM on one's own...

    Assuming the AC brick is still 85W, anything that requires more power isn't going to do any good. And I miss the 17" model having a larger battery, which is why the 2011 17" could outperform the 15" version despite having identical CPU and GPU chips... :D More battery to provide the needed current with...
     
  18. macrumors 68040

    petvas

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Location:
    Mannheim, Germany
    #18
    Mavericks fixes all performance issues once and for all. Video is smooth on my rMBP..
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #19
    You don't even have a 15" rMBP yet you yack on about video slugging. Please people, 100x worse cards were able to output to 3x full HD monitors which is roughly a megapixel more. video sluggishness was due to crappy implementation and its all fixed in 10.8.3. my 2012 2.7 works like a charm.

    And no, replaceable ram will not see its grand return.


    17" battery was 95Wh, the same as 15" retina. So no idea what are you on about "more bettery to provide the needed current with", especially considering they both use 85W power supplies as well.
    Also, constant PSU and better performance indicates advancements in hardware design. You know, like engines of todays car can pull of many more mpg despite the same power-rating and displacement as 20y old fuel-guzzlers?

    That's some nice misinformed post you managed to pull off.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    M5RahuL

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #20
    Zero difference, in my experience and I have an August 2012 built rMBP.

    Get the 2012 model, unless a .1 Ghz speed increase is worth spending an extra $270 to you.

    Also, if you get the 2.7 Ghz processor, the 2012 version has an extra 2MB of cache VS the 2013 version, since we are looking at 0.1 Ghz differences :p

    Honestly, go for the 2012 model, get AppleCare from B&H Photo for a greatly discounted price over Apple, and enjoy your savings !! :apple:
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    #21
    Just to tag on a similar question, I have an early 2011 mbp, the quad 2.2. I usually do a computer refresh every few years, around the time my AppleCare is due to expire.

    Previously, I've enjoyed some massive jumps in processing power each time I update: going from a 2005 ppc machine to a 2008 intel was a huge leap, and similarly the jump to a quad in 2011.

    Obviously some of the main updates of late have been to stuff like the screen, form factor and (upcoming with Haswell) battery life. Those are all awesome updates, don't get me wrong. But given that I use my computer as a production machine, my main justification has always been the speed boost.

    Since 2011, it feels like the improvements to raw performance have been fairly incremental; benchmarks I've seen (even rumoured ones for Haswell) seem to be only 25% above my current system. Again, it's not nothing, but its certainly not the doubling and tripling I'd seen in the past.

    So I guess my question is basically if the Moore's law days are essentially behind us, and performance improvements will be more modest moving forward, or its just a lull right now where battery and efficiency has been the focus, and there is are rumblings of a more substantial speed boost on the horizon.

    Thanks!
     

Share This Page