Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Unless this has a discrete video card this wont happen.. It can't run a base video card so price will be higher to put one in.. I don't see this happening but if it does it need a discrete video and 8 gigs memory. Also think 256 SSD is base.. 128 just seems to weak to me as entry point. So talking 256 SSD, 8 gig memory, and GT 650M. You are talking some money.. $1800+.. at that price point out reach most 13' MBP users.

This coming for guy owns rMBP and NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB get hit all the time just web surfing.. Personally think need even something better and will something better in future. When last time a 13' had a discrete video card, never?

This will also need a 8 gig base
 
Sign me up

Windows 8 is aweful - think its about time I finally switch

I'll have to ask u guys where the best place to sit in Starbucks so my new mbp gets the most attention though

Who cares what kinda computer you have? Do what works for you dude. No need to show people who you don't even know you exist that you have a MBP. :rolleyes:
 
where is said 'retina macbook 13' or resolution? I don't believe until I will see it actually. ****ing rumor mill. I don't even care whether apple will release it or not.
 
OMG! I've been waiting for a 13 in retina MBP! Please make it come true this October Apple!!!
 
What planet are all of you who think that the onboard Intel graphics won't be able to run a retina display from?

My 2010 11" MBA can run its own screen plus the 27" cinema display just fine. It even uses an older 30" cinema display from time to time without incident.
 
What planet are all of you who think that the onboard Intel graphics won't be able to run a retina display from?

My 2010 11" MBA can run its own screen plus the 27" cinema display just fine. It even uses an older 30" cinema display from time to time without incident.

mean while the 15" retina has been proven to have frame rate issues and that has an nvidia chipset.

Im from planet earth, lol at you:cool:
 
Pros outnumber Airs at my school 10 to 1. Most are the 13 inch variety.

That's not all that surprising as you could upgrade the **** out of a 13'' pro. You still can with the current model. Especially with RAM which can go up to 16 GB. No doubt the rMBP 13'' will go up to 16 GB in Apples BTO, which the Air can't get so it's not really a competition, especially for someone running VMWare Fusion.
 
mean while the 15" retina has been proven to have frame rate issues and that has an nvidia chipset.

Im from planet earth, lol at you:cool:

those frame rate issues are actually a software problem (which have actually been fixed/improved at mountain lion)
 
Having seen a current gen Macbook Pro 13, the screen is really nice. I am not convinced the super hi-resolution laptops are truly worth the extra cost for most people.

Ditto.

This is why I exactly went ahead and got a mbp pro 13. The display is sharp and gorgeous. And after i saw the 15 inch retina base model price tag. I figured that a retina 13 inch base price would probably be like $1800 + tax. Not worth it.
 
Its a shame apple is not releasing it before the back-to-school program ends. As a University student who is waiting to upgrade from an 08'Macbook Pro 13... Its very annoying. Also most students at least in my university(An Engineering focussed one) prefer the 13 pro over the air due to the upgradability option after purchase. I hope they dont make it like the 15rMPB where DIY upgrades are impossible.


there is no such thing as a 08 mbp 13.
 
there is no such thing as a 08 mbp 13.

The late '08 Unibody MacBook is pretty much a MBP 13". It was renamed 6 months later to MacBook Pro so Steve wouldn't lose face after his comments about Firewire.

I had one of those. I always regretted cheaping out and not getting the backlit keyboard.
 
mean while the 15" retina has been proven to have frame rate issues and that has an nvidia chipset.

Im from planet earth, lol at you:cool:

exactly..

those frame rate issues are actually a software problem (which have actually been fixed/improved at mountain lion)

Currently owning rMBP and having updated to ML no didn't totally resolve issues (better). The GT650 is taxed at times and think next year they upgrade the video card again with (internal and external) to help performance. Because IMO it is alittle underpower now. And like I said before just on Facebook or other CNN GT 650M is getting used. And when battery gets below 5% it only uses the internal video card to save battery life and machine becomes dog slow. So yea MBP 13' WILL need a discrete video card. And don't think coming this year. Sorry dreamers..
 
Last edited:
The late '08 Unibody MacBook is pretty much a MBP 13". It was renamed 6 months later to MacBook Pro so Steve wouldn't lose face after his comments about Firewire.

I had one of those. I always regretted cheaping out and not getting the backlit keyboard.

i'm aware. i stand by my statement.
 
Currently owning rMBP and having updated to ML no didn't totally resolve issues (better). The GT650 is taxed at times and think next year they upgrade the video card again with (internal and external) to help performance. Because IMO it is alittle underpower now. And like I said before just on Facebook or other CNN GT 650M is getting used. And when battery gets below 5% it only uses the internal video card to save battery life and machine becomes dog slow. So yea MBP 13' WILL need a discrete video card. And don't think coming this year. Sorry dreamers..

It is a software problem. 2880x1800 pixels is nothing to modern GPUs. Redrawing every pixels on each screen refresh means the GPU needs to be able to process 311,040,000 pixels per second. Sounds like a lot uh ? If we look at nVidia chips, the first one to reach about 300 million pixels per second was the Riva TNT 2 Ultra :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#Pre-GeForce

Yep, that's before the GeForce series. That's a 90s GPU, before we even called them GPUs (the popular term back then was 3D accelerator).

The problem isn't the actual pixel count, that's nothing once the framebuffer is built, it's just one big copy operation. The problem is probably that Apple does multiple pass rendering of its UI with too many memory read/write operations instead of maximising buffer passes. That's the big problem with modern GPUs, they are plenty fast to push the pixels, it's feeding them the information to do it with (all the layers to blend together, the compositing effect) that slows them down.

The Intel HD graphics is probably just as able as the GT650M (the reason it kicks in on Facebook and some other sites is the use of HTML 5 Canvas/Flash and other graphic "intensive" operations. Webkit enables the dedicated GPU for that), Apple just needs to optimize the pipeline better. Why you're seeing better performance out of the dedicated GPU is basically just brute forcing an inefficient rendering pipeline through, and has nothing to do with fill rate.

Also, when getting to 5% battery, it's not just the dedicated GPU that gets turned off, your CPU also probably gets throttled through Intel Speedstep technology.

My '08 uMB 13" (the '08 13 MBP! @haushinka : haha, kidding!) was able to drive both its internal 1280x800 and an external 30" ACD at 2560x1600. That's very close to the same pixel count : 307,200,000 pixels with a 60 hz refresh. It did so on a 9400m nVidia IGP.
 
What planet are all of you who think that the onboard Intel graphics won't be able to run a retina display from?

My 2010 11" MBA can run its own screen plus the 27" cinema display just fine. It even uses an older 30" cinema display from time to time without incident.

On the other hand my TB 2011 i7 13MBP with 16GB ram, 256 SSD after a new logic board replacement four days ago continues to have problems with 27 TB cinema display which goes black every so often. Of course Apple claims to know nothing about this problem...
 
I really do hope it's a fair price on release. I could see early adopters paying the traditional Apple premium on this though.
 
Unless this has a discrete video card this wont happen.. It can't run a base video card so price will be higher to put one in.. I don't see this happening but if it does it need a discrete video and 8 gigs memory. Also think 256 SSD is base.. 128 just seems to weak to me as entry point. So talking 256 SSD, 8 gig memory, and GT 650M. You are talking some money.. $1800+.. at that price point out reach most 13' MBP users.

The recently updated 13" MBP will be for them, I expect.


On the other hand my TB 2011 i7 13MBP with 16GB ram, 256 SSD after a new logic board replacement four days ago continues to have problems with 27 TB cinema display which goes black every so often. Of course Apple claims to know nothing about this problem...

My ATD does that once a day and it's connected to an iMac with a 2GB AMD Radeon HD 6970M so the Intel GPU is not the source of that issue.
 
Count me in as being disappointed if the new 13" rMBP just ends up being the same processors (CPU and GPU) as the current 13" MBP. In that case it will basically be losing a lot of ports, losing the ODD bay, losing expandability all for the point of sliming it down maybe a pound and adding a Retina display, that most likely will have reduced graphics performance. Even at the same price it wouldn't be worth the trade off for me.
 
Not really, when Sony has the ****** Vaio Z has a quad core option, and retna-ish display(1920x1080 on a 13.1in). So yes it does need something more.

Have you priced the Sony Vaio Z 13.1" with the Full HD display recently ? Not in the same league at all. It's over 2k$. And the full HD display is not equivalent to the Retina display a MBP 13" Retina would get at all.

So again, what's not significant about a retina display ? That alone to me would justify the cost.

Anyway, what do you need a Quad core option for ? You're happy running 8 year PPC processors that get smacked down by the piddly ULV CPU in the MacBook Air 11" in both integer and floating point performance.

----------

I really do hope it's a fair price on release. I could see early adopters paying the traditional Apple premium on this though.

If it's the same premium than on the rMBP 15", then sign me up, I like getting discounts.

----------

On the other hand my TB 2011 i7 13MBP with 16GB ram, 256 SSD after a new logic board replacement four days ago continues to have problems with 27 TB cinema display which goes black every so often. Of course Apple claims to know nothing about this problem...

That has nothing to do with GPU performance though so I don't know why you bring it up in response to the person talking about GPU performance.
 
The recently updated 13" MBP will be for them, I expect.




My ATD does that once a day and it's connected to an iMac with a 2GB AMD Radeon HD 6970M so the Intel GPU is not the source of that issue.

What is it then? I duplicated the same problem on two TB displays.
 
Last edited:
Vaio Z has a quad core option, and retna-ish display(1920x1080 on a 13.1in). So yes it does need something more.
170 ppi on a 13" desktop is far from what would be called retina.
How does the OS running the Vaio Z handle this high resolution? 1920x1280 on the rMBP 15" is already at the limit of usability, and scaling isn't yet a panacea on Windows (Win 7 on rMBP15).
What are you trying to compare?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.