The 13" pro never gave discrete graphics and there never was a 15" Air, so I don't know what your doing here.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Coming in October?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 13" pro never gave discrete graphics and there never was a 15" Air, so I don't know what your doing here.
It's not native resolution, but there is always the "More Space" option on the Retina MBPs...
I don't get what people are saying about the price of the 15" Retina MBP... At first, it is a hell of a lot of money, and more so over here in the UK by a good amount...
But try specing another laptop to have the same CPU, GPU, highest res screen and a 512GB SSD and see what you get
But try specing another laptop to have the same CPU, GPU, highest res screen and a 512GB SSD and see what you get
We are entering an era of laptops that have no upgrade path... Which leaves me with the dilemma that any new laptop I buy in future will have to be max or near-max spec (in terms of memory and capacity).
If the MBP 13" had problems with the games then the hiDPI screen would be twice as worse. The problem would get bigger so the loss is bigger.
It isn't just 3D games though. Increasing number of regular apps use OpenGL to accelerate even what has traditionally been 2D oriented apps. IF open alot of windows that are accelerated and they all use the framebuffer to do lots of work then will get a slowdown. The HD 3000 and still the HD4000 were not meant to run very large pixel areas with no slowdowns. It will "run" at the max resolution. The issue is whether enough folks who have paid $1,500 will be happy with the performance.
Sure if users are running 10-15 xterm windows it will run just fine. I don't that's the mainstream audience for the model though.
WWDC only seems boring because you are not the target audience. It was always about the designers, and this was very apparent right from the get go. What with that video clip about how their apps are helping mankind, the introduction of retina MBP (because devs need time and incentive to design apps for the retina display). Tim Cook was really going out of his way to make the designers feel special and appreciated, so they would continue to create apps for Apple (and drive the sales of apple devices).
I still believe it was an outright mistake to not have a 17" MBP... Hopefully one will come along later. If not I'm simply not buying anythingless and will getalong fine with a 17" other quality brand. I am hoping for a MBPthough... I do like the interconnectivity ofstuff.
Everything is getting smaller and thinner. I can't see the 17" coming back. Best bet is to buy a 27" monitor for home then have the 15" for the road.
Ethernet works fine even though the port is not built-in.
----------
What makes you think that ?
----------
You don't have to run in HiDPI mode, switch your game to 1280x800. Am I repeating myself here ? Geez.
Nothing would be lost (since a retina 13" MBP doesn't exist).
----------
The beauty of it is you can try it right now, on any MB with integrated graphics shipped since 2008. All of them can run monitors using a dual link DVI at 2560x1600, which is the same resolution this would be.
Go on, then tell us if there's any issues. OpenGL accelerated frame buffers aren't as intensive as some of you pretend.
Not necessarily. With the MBPR, the price is only high because together with the Retina display, you also get an SSD drive, lots of RAM, and a quad core processor. MBPR starts at $2199. The difference between MBP 15" with 500 GB HD and 256 GB SSD is $500, the difference between 4 GB and 8 GB is $100. So a MBPR with 500 GB HD (which obviously won't fit) and 4 GB RAM would be $1599. The difference between dual core Mac Mini and quad core Mac Mini is $200; that's the only computer that I found with dual and quad core. So a hypothetical MBPR with dual core, 500 GB HD, 4 GB RAM would be $1399, still with a 15" screen.
Take the existing MBP case, remove the optical drive, and you have an awful lot of battery space. Not a gaming machine, and not high performance, and not a lightweight, but a perfect screen.
Thanks for the breakdown. I notice you didn't address quad versus dual cores -- how would the space/heat dissipation constraints affect that? I assume it's a factor as it has been for the existing Pro line for the past year, but then again two years ago quads weren't in the line at all. Are they still impractical in a 13" laptop, or just in a very slim one (or not at all)?
Also, would the lack of a discrete GPU have a significant effect outside of gaming? For instance, would these be a problem?
- 1080p video playback
- running a 27" thunderbolt display alongside the laptop's own retina
Also, would the lack of a discrete GPU have a significant effect outside of gaming? For instance, would these be a problem?
- 1080p video playback
- running a 27" thunderbolt display alongside the laptop's own retina
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.
They have surrendered. Just like the dedicated graphics folks will be forced against their will and the obvious need for it to surrender.
The 13" model did in fact formerly have an NVidia GPU but you are correct that the later and current models do not. We'll see soon if the new 13" model goes gains discrete graphics once again - I suggest there is a good chance for it to happen so as to better segment the range.
I realize there has not been a 15" Macbook air to date.
I was merely comparing features between the two product lines. While today there is only one screen size that is offered in both lineups, that could change in the future.
Among the cheapskates or those who use external drives only for backups (for which you can live with USB 2).
MacBooks didn't have the HD4000 until this week so it had to have been another iGPU that you didn't buy
I don't buy that edge sockets and DVD are a major factor. People have external backup drives connected almost 24/7 or at least daily. Having an internal TM volume would be much more valuable than an internal ODD, one you need daily, the other a few times per month. Edge sockets mainly matter for legacy stuff (FW). With USB 3, two TB ports, adaptors for legacy stuff is not a big problem.
No, the main reason why the 13" MBP might outsell the Air is disk space (particularly disk space per dollar) and to a lesser extent more RAM and faster CPU (and until now also faster I/O with the Air defacto limited to 100 MbitE and USB 2 because of lack of affordable TB stuff).
----------
You missed that the Airs do have audio out and the 13" Air also an SD card slot.
I have the money. It is just finding the right product. It is still not out, yet...
That's my machine right there. Maybe they can squeeze in a discrete video card and for sure I'm getting it!
Yes, I meant Audio in, not out.
But I did totally forget that the 13" Air has an SD slot.
Now this is something I would consider. I am torn between the retina Pro and 13 INch air, and this would be the perfect sweet spot in between! I will be getting one for the holidays, so October would be perfect (for me). I'm guessing the resolution will be 1280x800, which will be awesome. I would be willing to pay, and guessing, it will start at $1499, because that is the price of the high end 13 inch model, and the RMPB is the price of the high end 15 inch Macbook Pro.
This is good news, hopefully we will be getting some more rumors coming in! (Even though im all rumored-out from WWDC)
This is good news, hopefully we will be getting some more rumors coming in! (Even though im all rumored-out from WWDC)
more room for dedicated GPU?
I don't see why a dedicated GPU can't be included in the 13" retina. Its not like apple has never done a 13" MBP with dedicated graphics before.
Most importantly, you have to consider the fractional space gained by the removal of the optical drive. That optical drive took up a larger fraction of the internal space in the 13" machine than it did in the 15". If the report here is accurate that the battery capacity in the 13" retina did not increase as much as the 15", when by all accounts the 13" should be gaining even more fractional battery space, then that leads me to believe that only part of the space gained from excluding the optical drive went to the battery. I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the extra space went to a dedicated GPU.
I don't see why a dedicated GPU can't be included in the 13" retina. Its not like apple has never done a 13" MBP with dedicated graphics before.
Most importantly, you have to consider the fractional space gained by the removal of the optical drive. That optical drive took up a larger fraction of the internal space in the 13" machine than it did in the 15". If the report here is accurate that the battery capacity in the 13" retina did not increase as much as the 15", when by all accounts the 13" should be gaining even more fractional battery space, then that leads me to believe that only part of the space gained from excluding the optical drive went to the battery. I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the extra space went to a dedicated GPU.
It would probably be duals. Both the current 13" MBP and MBA have duals. Shrinking the case isn't going to help.
Besides at the next Haswell increment Intel is going to come out with a dual CPU that is an "system-on-chip" configuration. The CPU and I/O Hub support chipset are going to merge into one chip; kind of silly to just call it a CPU at that point but I'm sure most folks will still label it that way. It is likely Apple will move to that solution. If remove the I/O Hub chip from the board and shrink/consolidate a few more components (even higher density RAM ) in the next iteration of the MBP 13" hiDPI might pick up a GPU with all the freed up space.
Quads are practical as long as move to a different set of constraints. I don't think it really buys all that much and the system vendors are going to like the product segmentation it gives them with the 15" at 4 and the 13" at 2.
It can.
No. There is now fixed logic in most GPUs to do video. Most of the GPU can be switched off if just dong generic 1080p playback. The HD3000 does 1080p playback OK.
Depends. If there are large number of OpenGL accelerated windows on both screens then may start to choke bandwidth to the GPU. Remember the iGPU is sharing bandwidth to memory with the CPU cores. If all the GPU cores are tugging at memory at the same time all the CPU cores are tugging at memory you can bottleneck. It will run, but you won't get 'instantaneous' responses out of menus and the like. For some, that is a problem.
If just running a big Excel spreadsheet on one screen and a Web browser & iMessages on another... then no.
The 13" MBP never had a discrete GPU. It had an nVidia integrated GPU (integrated to the north bridge and sharing system memory).
If you've messed around with the Retina MBP, you'll see that in the display settings, you can have the screen mimic a 1920x1200 screen for more real estate. I'm assuming the 13" MBP Retina would have a similar option, allowing the standard 1280x800 to be chosen, with the option of a higher perceived resolution, giving the user more screen real estate if desired. The technology is there, and the precedent is set.