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 Reportedly Still on Track for 4Q 2012 Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can't wait for the 13in rMBP!
1) Retina Display - Honestly, I'd forgo retina and just up the resolution. More screen real-estate!
2) The gloss-black frame around the screen looks infinitely sleeker than the aluminum, in my opinion.
3) LV CPU (rather than ULV) + discrete GPU + up to 16GB RAM + 512GB SSD = beast!
4) Probably only half a pound heavier than the 13in MBA, NICE
Come on Apple, I'll be first in line when this is released!
1) Retina Display - Honestly, I'd forgo retina and just up the resolution. More screen real-estate!
2) The gloss-black frame around the screen looks infinitely sleeker than the aluminum, in my opinion.
3) LV CPU (rather than ULV) + discrete GPU + up to 16GB RAM + 512GB SSD = beast!
4) Probably only half a pound heavier than the 13in MBA, NICE
Come on Apple, I'll be first in line when this is released!
Perfect. Another non-upgrade piece of crap that's too underpowered to drive it's own display all in the name of saving 1/4". The mbp is the last product apple makes I actually want, so if they replace the mpb line with garbage, I'm totally done with apple, except for a hackintosh for my desktop 
.
.So if the new MBPR pushes 2560x1600 with a GPU, will it be able to display a sharp 1280x800 on the same screen, without any pixel-edge blur (like when you set a non-native resolution on a monitor) ? That would presumably be both sharp and very fast for gaming etc
Yes, it can be sharper using aliasing. It will make use of the extra pixels for better detail.
If the 13" Macbook Pro models have discreet graphics, I'll take two
You mean "discrete", unless you spend most of your time watching porn....
You forget that they're using the space that the DVD and hard drives took to make it thinner, that cancels out any extra space for the discrete GPU. It's also not like the optical drive was a serious impediment to a 13" MBP with discrete graphics.
If this is true then that would mean Apple is selling 3 different 13" Macbooks, it seems possibly a bit redundant
You forget that this is clearly a transitional stage; it is all but mentioned that when Haswell comes out the non-retina 15" MacBook Pro will be discontinued. It's not all that far-fetched of an idea to assume that the non-retina 13" MacBook Pro will also be discontinued at that time too, leaving the numbers at two 13" models (MBA and rMBP) and one 15" model (rMBP). Hopefully by then, they will have redesigned the battery to not require the whole top case to be replaced and they will have finally optimized the OS and software to not have such sluggish HiDPI performance.
That's possible. More probable is that the 13" rMBP won't come out until the next refresh in which all non-retina MacBook Pros are discontinued leaving the retina family to be the singular MacBook Pro family.
If they removed the optical drive and didn't make it thinner, you'd be right. However, making it thinner cancels out whatever space you gain by cutting out that drive.
No. I mean you no disrespect whatsoever, but that is a terrible idea.
THANK YOU!!! Been trying to tell people that on here forever...no one seems to get it!
He's not being rude; he's pointing out a fact. Those assuming the poor frame rate performance in the rMBPs is a problem with the GPU really don't know anything about GPUs or how they work. GPUs push out pixels; GPUs don't care about how tightly the pixels are crammed together, case in point, the current 13" MacBook Pro and its ability to drive its own display, as well as two 27" Thunderbolt displays without the problems experienced by rMBP users. Hardware is not the issue. To call it the issue when it isn't demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how that stuff works. It's okay to be a newbie on here, but if you don't know what you're talking about you will be called out on it. That's just how Internet forums work.
Honestly why do we need two 13" models?
11" & 13" MBA plus 15" & 17" MBP-Retina would be a perfect balance.
The retina screen is wasted on a 13" device.
I want the desktop replacement 17" MBP back
The 17" didn't sell; that's why it's gone. We currently need two models because the 13" MBP and the 13" MBA are presently very different machines. When the 13" MBP is replaced by the 13" rMBP, perhaps that line will be blurred enough so as to hint at a further merging of the technologies. For the time being, they serve different needs and thusly have reason to co-exist.
Hackintoshes are the best Mac desktops you can buy in terms of power, price, and power for price. If Apple leaves the desktop market (or at least sequesters it to just the Mac Pro), it will only be that much more viable of an option.
If the 13" Macbook Pro models have discreet graphics, I'll take two
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
The GeForce 320M is not a discrete GPU. It's an IGP integrated onto the system controller aka chipset. It's good for what it is and for when it was made, but a discrete GPU it is not.
Perfect. Another non-upgrade piece of crap that's too underpowered to drive it's own display all in the name of saving 1/4". The mbp is the last product apple makes I actually want, so if they replace the mpb line with garbage, I'm totally done with apple, except for a hackintosh for my desktop
It is non-upgradable, that you are right about. Too underpowered to drive its own display, you are completely wrong about. That is a software issue. Should it persist on the would-be 13" MBP, even if it only has the Intel HD 4000 graphics, it will still be a software issue, not an issue of hardware that is too weak. You should read up on how GPUs work. Also, the difference between its and it's.
I agree 100%. If Apple releases a Retina 17in MBP (don't even care if it's retina, just thinner/lighter), I will buy it immediately. The 15in does not replace the 17. Period.
I would have been happiest with an updated 17 like they did with the "old" 15, but a rMBP 17 would work. I just want the bigger screen. I don't really see the big deal with retina on a large screen like that; my Feb 2011 MBP17 is fantastic. At least I can milk this one until it dies, but it'll be nice to know Apple didn't completely pull the rug out from us large screen lovers. Here's to hoping.
Please, Apple? PLEASE???
Agreed. I want the 17" to come back. Checked out the 15" rMBP in the shop for a rather long time, doing some video editing on FCP X with the resolution set to 1920x1200 to match the one of the 17" MBP to have the same screen estate. It didn't impress me. Speed wise (in that setting) it didn't feel like a brand new top of the line laptop. It was hardly "snappier" than my 2009 17" MBP. And UI wise, screen estate is one thing , but I can't image doing graphics on a pixel level with After Effects or so on that setting.
I will use my 17" MBP for the time being. Replaced the (to me) useless DVD Drive with a second HD and will eventually upgrade one HD to a SSD.
Even if the 17" didn't sell that well but it would be nice if
would start to offer top of the line or even niche products again and not just mainstream ones. I hope I don't have to Hackintosh a 17" Samsung Laptop in the future
Last edited:
I can understand that but the 17" MBP was selling really well until they hiked up the prices to ridiculous levels. When I bought mine a few years ago I paid about £1600 for it, 2 years later it was priced at around £2200. Of course nobody was buying it, Apple had priced it out of the market for most people.
A lot of pro users I know used the 17" MBP instead of a desktop because it was cheaper than the Mac Pro, had a excellent spec and the screen size was just right for multi-tasking with more than one window open.
It's just another example of how Apple are no longer listening to their pro users and would rather make machines for wealthy consumers instead.
I just don't get that. Why does anyone buy a 13" laptop? For it's portability right? It's not going to be your main machine unless you don't use it much as the screen is too small. So why not buy the 13" MBA which is much lighter, more portable and more stylish if you just want a casual computer for the house.
The 17" MBP filled a market that the 13" doesn't. If you took away the 13" MBP people would just buy the 13" MBA instead. Who needs a "power" machine for an occasional/portable device?
In contrast you take away the 17" MBP and there is err nothing to replace it. The 15" MBP doesn't replace the 17". Having used a 17" MBP for some time now I would hate to drop down to the 15" screen.
Life at Apple can't be just about numbers on a spreadsheet. The 13" MBP is half the price of the 17" so of course it's going to sell much better. But the success of the 15" MBP-Retina proves that if you keep innovating and making it better and price it sensibly enough people will sill buy a high end MBP to make it worth while.
Honestly why do we need two 13" models?
11" & 13" MBA plus 15" & 17" MBP-Retina would be a perfect balance.
The retina screen is wasted on a 13" device.
I want the desktop replacement 17" MBP back
A "retina" screen (aka high-res display) is not wasted on any device of any size. It's great on a 3.5" iPhone screen, it's great in a 15", and it would be great in a 13".
Agreed on the 17". At my job, I just had my 17" (1920x1200) MBP replaced with a 15" rMBP. The retina 15" does 1920x1200 admirably, but the 17" was just glorious and I will miss it. The best part of the rMBP is the low size and weight while being a very powerful machine. I'd love for them to apply the same slimming down techniques to the 17"; hell, I'd want one even without a retina display (keeping the same 1920x1200 resolution). Alas, I doubt this will happen. Maybe years from now when competitors start putting 17" ultra-high-res displays in laptops, maybe Apple will bring the 17" back in response to this (kind of like how they responded to the large screen sizes of Android phones by making the iPhone bigger).
The 13 retina will make sense with a quad core
(even better with a discrete gpu like a 640m ..or the new 645m,625m http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus)
thats why Air are dual core.
(even better with a discrete gpu like a 640m ..or the new 645m,625m http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus)
thats why Air are dual core.
Last edited:
Honestly why do we need two 13" models?
11" & 13" MBA plus 15" & 17" MBP-Retina would be a perfect balance.
The retina screen is wasted on a 13" device.
I want the desktop replacement 17" MBP back
11" and 13" MBA plus 13" and 15" rMBP is what they are going to do next year, I think. I mean discontinuing the other models as well.
For sure, or the integrated GPU will not be able to drive tons of pixels.
Pixel fill rates have been much higher than what the interconnects can push out for years now. The last great bottleneck was DVI. DP 1.1a fixed that, DP 1.2 makes it moot.
The Integrated GPU can very much push out tons and tons of pixels. The old 9400m in the Unibodies could drive 30" ACDs and the internal monitor at the same time since they were the first 13" laptops to get an interface that was superior to single-link DVI.
----------
It seems you think your laptops screen needs to compensate for something... Screen size doesn't matter, it's pixel count that does. The 1440x900 is nice on the 13" MBA, and a rMBP 13" would be able to have up to 1650x1080 scaled mode one would hope, like its 15" bigger brother.
1920x1200 on the rMBP 15" is just godly.
My 13" MBA is my main machine and I use it a lot. When I need more screen, I have an external monitor sitting on my desk. Why waste cash on 2 1000$+ computers when external screens are so cheap ?
