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
Now this I would buy.
The 15" is way too pricy for me for what it is.
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.
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!![]()
While offering much more powerful shaders, both are still integrated graphics sharing from the system RAM.
[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.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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
2 years isn't exactly that limited a period. And anyway, this is almost exactly the same situation: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.
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).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.
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.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?
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.
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.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 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.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?
But the 13" MBP does not (and did not) have an Audio in port either.Yes, I meant Audio in, not out.
Tom's Hardware has been investigating OpenCL on Llano and Trinity recently. The boost from moving to OpenCL is noticeable in CS6 and GIMP.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.