13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Coming in October?

[GorgonPhone]

Now this I would buy.

The 15" is way too pricy for me for what it is.

Yes the 13s are perfect for portability and power combo and i love to hook in to my 21" monitor when at home i will sell me current get MBP 13 fro the retina

 

[twoodcc]

people who just bought one would not like this. i personally think the faster apple goes all retina, the better

 

[Colpeas]

If they had the same specs, I'd go for the 13"


They can support it. Also, the 13" MBPro would have a Nvidia 650Chip.

I doubt that 13" Next-gen Pro will get the same 650M as the 15" model. Reason? It is way too power-hungry. IMO it will be either 630M GDDR5 or 620M DDR3 (w/out dedicated memory). But on the other hand, processors will be quad-core for sure.

 

[gnasher729]

According to my calculation, the price of the 13" MBPr will be $1599.

Here's how it breaks down...

Just take the current 13" price and compare that to a 15" price... the 15" is $600 more.

Now take the normal 15" MBP and compare it to the 15" MBPR... the MBPR is $400 more.

So..... $2199 - $600 = $1599
and.... $1199 + $400 = $1599

Makes perfect sense!

Eleven positive ratings for a calculation that is just - wrong.

You compared the price for the cheapest 15" MBP and the cheapest 15" MBPR and found that the MBPR is $400 more. But you didn't compare compareable computers. If you compare the 15" MBP with the same 8 GB RAM and with the same 256 GB SSD drive of the cheapest 15" MBPR, then you find the comparison is $2399 vs $2199 - the MBPR is $200 less.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I would buy a thin 13" Retina MBP with dual Thunderbolts, etc. in a heartbeat!

 

[cire1244]

AGHDASBKFUAIEK'OPNIWNU;NICOWPSANIALDHF'!!!!!

Been waiting for the last 6 months for a new 13". The 15" MBP Retina blows me away, but I don't have $2200 to drop, nor want a 15" laptop.

I was planning on buying the new 13" MBP sometime this month and be satisfied, albeit a little disappointed.

Now with this news, I KNOW I will kick myself if the 13" MBPR comes out within the next few months, especially at a ~1600 price point, which I am willing to spend.

Not sure if I can get my used and totally abused 2007 Blackbook to last through the summer, but I might have to try.

Sigh. why do you mess with me so?

 

[Cheffy Dave]

Excellent news!

Once you use Retina screen, you cannot go back, I was ruined by my third gen iPad, now I know all the reasons why due to graphics and battery, why it can't happen, but I wish for an 11" MBA with one:

 

[thekev]

While offering much more powerful shaders, both are still integrated graphics sharing from the system RAM.

I'm of the opinion that at the low power end, AMD wouldn't be a bad chip especially if OpenCL can be implemented wherever possible. It could make the gpu functions a bit less bleh on models that rely strictly on integrated graphics.

 

[Yebubbleman]

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Four days before the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro was introduced, KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo released a report claiming that Apple would launch the machine alongside the then-current MacBook Pro line rather than as a direct replacement.

Kuo's report turned out to be nearly exactly on point, as was the case with his April report claiming that Apple would discontinue the 17-inch MacBook Pro, and so it pays to revisit his Retina MacBook line claims to see what the future might hold.

In that report, Kuo claimed that the 13-inch MacBook Pro would likely arrive in the August timeframe at the earliest, with the machine's release being held back by display yield and challenges with heat dissipation in the smaller body.

Image


Figure from Kuo's June 7 report with estimated launch info for 2012 MacBook lineup​

With the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro now available, Kuo has released a new report taking another look at Apple's plans for the 13-inch version, and AppleInsider reports that he is now estimating a September production ramp for the machine with an early October launch to follow.In his note last week, Kuo predicted that the 15-inch Retina model would carry a thickness of 19 millimeters (0.75 inches), while the 13-inch model could come in slightly thinner at 18 millimeters (0.71 inches). But the 15-inch model Apple actually introduced already comes in at the 18 millimeter figure, so it is unclear whether Apple would be able trim any additional thickness off for the 13-inch model.

Potentially supporting the idea of a 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro being in testing is the discovery of a "MacBookPro10,2" listing in the results database for the battery utility app MiniBatteryLogger. The 15-inch MacBook Pro carries a designation of "MacBookPro10,1", and while the MacBookPro10,2 designation could presumably have been faked, there are several indications that it may be legitimate.

Image


First, the database entry appeared on April 25, well ahead of much specific information on the Retina MacBook Pro that might have helped create a legitimate-looking fake entry. Second, the machine's battery registers a design capacity of 6580 mAh, roughly 14% greater than the 5770 mAh battery found in the non-Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro. By comparison, the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro's 8460 mAh battery has roughly 22.5% greater capacity than the 6900 mAh battery in the non-Retina model.

While the battery capacity ratios between corresponding Retina and non-Retina MacBook Pro batteries would not be exactly the same if this MacBookPro10,2 is indeed a genuine 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro, they are at least in the same range and one could imagine that a smaller display and lack of a discrete graphics card could shrink the amount of capacity boost needed to power a 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro.

Article Link: 13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Coming in October?

I am not at all believing in this unless they discontinue the 13" MacBook Pro altogether and make the screen of the 13" MacBook Air a retina display. If they have the ability to give that thing a discrete video chipset and be that thin, there's no reason why they wouldn't have released this current 13" MacBook Pro with a discrete GPU; the optical drive doesn't impede it at all at that point. And without the discrete GPU, the only things separating such a 13" MacBook Pro from the 13" Air at that point would be the retina display (which, last I checked, would operate on the Intel HD 4000 graphics) extra Thunderbolt port and the HDMI port. Otherwise, it seems silly to have a 13" Retina Air-like MacBook Pro when it is THAT MUCH MORE similar to the 13" MacBook Air anyway.

 

[pearvsapple]

Anything over $1199 with only dual core is a major bust.

 

[dank414]

I think this is all wishful thinking. I doubt that there'd be three varieties of 13" again.

 

[turboyo]

What would a 13" Retina weigh?

Correct me if I'm wrong

• 15" retina is 23% lighter than the Pro version. (2.02kg vs 2.56kb)
• So the 13" Retina would likely be around 1.58kb? (23% off 2.06kg).
• That's getting very close to the 1.35kg 13" Air, assuming we can carry over an approximate 23% saving.

If I haven't botched these calculations, then the Air is under pressure.

They either have plans to make the Air far lighter or non existant

So would they rush into a 13" Retina?

 

[mattkilla420]

No one is disputing that Intel graphics suck the big one, but Apple can (and I think will) do a 13" MacBook Pro with Retina display using the HD 4000.

Consider that the HD 4000 has had its maximum resolution upgraded to 2560x1600 - coincidentally, the exact resolution of a pixel-doubled theoretical 13" MBP.

Also consider that the new 15" MBP still supports automatic graphics switching, meaning that Apple is conceivably using the Intel GPU to drive the display when the desktop is set to one of the two supported less-than-native resolution settings.

There may not be enough power there do any games justice at native resolution, but I think there's enough to drive the Mac desktop.

i think it was mobiletechreview that has a 23 min video review on youtube that says the intel 4000 was supporting the display while they did light work. i did not think the 4000 would be able to support the display as i said in another post but i was wrong. thinking back, if the 4000 could not do anything on the retina, apple would not have put it in there in the first place.

 

[coldmack]

I'd be interesting to see if this model will have less glare, and a wider & more accurate color spectrum.

----------

What is really amazing is that my unibody 2008 13" MacBook is 4.5 lbs. The current 13" MBPs are 4.5 lbs. The current 15" MBPs are 5.6 lbs. And they shaved off 1.14 lbs to get the 15" MBPr down to 4.46, less than a 13" MBP. Not sure they can get that much off a 13" MBPr, we're talking 3.36 lbs. But probably in the 3.75 to 3.95 range.

What is also amazing is, many of those other premium 13in x8makes me sick machines, come in at under 4lbs(even with optical drives). If those fickey machines can come at under 4lbs, I am sure Apple could do it also. Maybe they could do a carbon fiber-titanium mix in the next unibody MBP update.

 

[Krauser]

I'm going to cut to the chase here. If there's no discrete graphics, it's a no go. The only thing holding me back from replacing my 08 unibody MacBook is a viable Mac with discrete graphics. In a world where the only 13" and under Macs being sold have a maximum of Intel HD 4000 graphics, I just can't warrant replacing my current book, especially not when a 4 year old machine with a 9400M would be replaced with something only marginally better in the graphics department... and after waiting for 4 years, "marginal increases" are not something I'm very happy with.

I won't see the day for a while, but an 11" system akin to the air with a discrete chip would be blow away. I know it's not what Apple has in mind but a small computer (already aided by the speed of flash memory and storage) would be killer with a decent GPU. And I'm not asking for anything crazy either. Even a 512Mb discrete chip would be better than anything offered up in the integrated department. I know my 9400M is integrated but it does damn well, especially for being 4 years old, and especially for being integrated.

What happened again that required Apple to disregard any notions of utilizing other companies than Intel for integrated solutions? Wasn't it something to do with the fact that anything running on a none "core 2 duo" architecture had to utilize Intel's own integrated solution which meant that Apple had to either utilize old Core 2 Duo's (which, if I remember correctly, they did for quite some time as they went ahead with the iX series processers in their bigger Pros) to keep using nVidia's solutions or go on with the iX series but utilize Intel's, quite frankly, subpar integrated solutions?

It's a shame Intel is leaps and bounds better in the mobile processor sector than AMD, because I'd love nothing more than to see Apple tell Intel to shove it and simply make the faster product utilizing AMD's processors and integrated solutions. It'd make for an interesting lineup, but hey... anyone interested in a 11" laptop probably isn't looking for graphics power... it'd be nice though. When I spend 1400+ on a laptop, I'd expect a little bit of a future proof power offering in the graphics department, among other things... but hey, who am I to ask. Last we've seen, Apple isn't too concerned with what their customers really want... just ask the professionals who've been relying on a 17" MacBook Pro or waiting for Apple to not completely spit in their faces when waiting for a legitimate upgrade to the Mac Pro.

 

[Mr MM]

the HD 4000 aint a marginal increase rather a radical increase from your 9400m, hell the HD 3000 was already a great increase, since it was mostly on par with the 320m

but yes I do agree that the way to make the mbp 13 stay alive is to put some gpu in there, and possibly a quad.

 

[Jynto]

In the coming future, it will be very simple for people who get confused like yourself during the purchase/selection process. Apple will most likely condense the lines into 1. During the customization process they will most likely allow the customer to chose the type of display, and done. Kinda like they used to do with the Matte option. Eventually, you won't have any other choice, but Retina.

Except retina display is not merely an optional add-on. It requires fundamental changes in the graphics card and other internals, and certainly requires more cooling. Hence why they completely redesigned the Macbook Pro to give it a retina display.

 

[KnightWRX]

I'm going to cut to the chase here. If there's no discrete graphics, it's a no go. The only thing holding me back from replacing my 08 unibody MacBook is a viable Mac with discrete graphics. In a world where the only 13" and under Macs being sold have a maximum of Intel HD 4000 graphics, I just can't warrant replacing my current book, especially not when a 4 year old machine with a 9400M

Why wasn't the 08 unibody a no-go in 2008 with its own integrated graphics (the 9400m) ? And frankly, the Intel HD 4000 is not just "marginally better" than the 9400m, it is quite superior. The HD 3000 was already almost 90% of the way there with 320m which is about twice as fast as your 9400m.

So really, you can expect a jump of about 2.5x the performance going from your 9400m to the HD 4000.

 

[rovex]

but yes I do agree that the way to make the mbp 13 stay alive is to put some gpu in there, and possibly a quad.

It'll be one or the other, you would imagine.

 

[KnightWRX]

Except retina display is not merely an optional add-on. It requires fundamental changes in the graphics card and other internals, and certainly requires more cooling. Hence why they completely redesigned the Macbook Pro to give it a retina display.

Explain. The Retina MBPR uses the same Intel HD 4000 graphics as other non-retina options, or the 650M when switching to discrete graphics.

 

[davie18]

Yes, but only for a limited period (Oct 2008 when the unibody 13" MB was introduced until mid-2010 when the white MB was discontinued except for educational customers). And the white MB was clearly a hanger-on, kept in the line as an entry-level model (it was the cheapest Mac laptop during that period). And the discontinuation of the white MB as entry-level model coincided with the introduction of the 11" MBA as the new sub-$1000 model.

Thus, while size and features matter, clearly delineated price brackets matter at least as much. The co-existence of the 13" MBA with the 13" MBP was already a little bit of an odd relationship as they were too close in price.

2 years isn't exactly that limited a period. And anyway, this is almost exactly the same situation:

They used to sell the 13" MBA and MBP while they also sold the MB as they phased it out.

Now they could sell the 13" MBA and a 13" retina MBP, while they phase out the regular 13" MBP in around say late 2014/early 2015? Surely it would make sense seeing as they've done it before?

 

[manu chao]

Eleven positive ratings for a calculation that is just - wrong.

You compared the price for the cheapest 15" MBP and the cheapest 15" MBPR and found that the MBPR is $400 more. But you didn't compare compareable computers. If you compare the 15" MBP with the same 8 GB RAM and with the same 256 GB SSD drive of the cheapest 15" MBPR, then you find the comparison is $2399 vs $2199 - the MBPR is $200 less.

You can equally argue that nobody who is price-conscious would buy RAM or SSDs from Apple directly. Thus a 15" MBP with 8 GB RAM and a 256 GB SSD in reality only costs: $1799 + $60 + $240 = $2099, ie, still $100 less than the retina MBP (and you get a spare 500 GB HDD useable for backups which is worth another $80).

Still, $100 (or $180 if you add the credit for the 500 GB HDD) is not a lot for the retina display. Sure, if you compare 16 GB RAM versions the gap widens again, as it does if you look at 512 GB SSD versions.

Apple can get away with only a $100 (or $180) price for the retina display because it bundles it with more RAM and a SSD, all of which add margins to their bottomline.

----------

2 years isn't exactly that limited a period. And anyway, this is almost exactly the same situation:

They used to sell the 13" MBA and MBP while they also sold the MB as they phased it out.

Now they could sell the 13" MBA and a 13" retina MBP, while they phase out the regular 13" MBP in around say late 2014/early 2015? Surely it would make sense seeing as they've done it before?

Yes, the same scenario might well repeat itself but it is not the preferred solution for Apple to have three competing product lines at the same display size. It will be a transitional solution as before.

 

[NewbieCanada]

What is also amazing is, many of those other premium 13in x8makes me sick machines, come in at under 4lbs(even with optical drives). If those fickey machines can come at under 4lbs, I am sure Apple could do it also. Maybe they could do a carbon fiber-titanium mix in the next unibody MBP update.

There is no next update. The future is the Retina and the Air. There may be more processor bumps before the current Pros die off, but you're not going to see a body redesign. This last round of non-Retinas was Apple saying, "Look, we'll keep making these if you want to buy them. But this is what you get. If it doesn't fit into the current body, it's not getting in."

 

[manu chao]

Frankly, I don't think most folks back up much even with stationary drives. Time Machine makes it easy by many don't. There is an even smaller number of folks backing up to either two time machine stores or back-stopping with incremental clones in addition to time machine. I seriously doubt that is mainstream. Nor an idea Apple would encourage to go mainstream.

I would still argue that people much more often connect external backup drives than they use the ODD. Thus, if connecting a backup drive on a semi-regular basis is not a big hassle, connecting an external ODD infrequently should not be a hassle either.

Errr? The Air now has USB 3.0. and the 1GbE will be (or is ) $29.99. For the latter, just how much affordable you want it to be?

I said: "until now also faster I/O with the Air defacto limited to 100 MbitE and USB 2", ie, my point was that until now the Air was defacto limited to 100 MbitE and USB 2.

----------

Yes, I meant Audio in, not out.

But the 13" MBP does not (and did not) have an Audio in port either.

 

[Eidorian]

I'm of the opinion that at the low power end, AMD wouldn't be a bad chip especially if OpenCL can be implemented wherever possible. It could make the gpu functions a bit less bleh on models that rely strictly on integrated graphics.

Tom's Hardware has been investigating OpenCL on Llano and Trinity recently. The boost from moving to OpenCL is noticeable in CS6 and GIMP.