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 Said to Carry 'Unprecedented' Battery Design, Same Port Layout as 15-Inch Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The web page rendering debacle was due to it being stuck on a single thread. Even back in the Sandy Bridge era of early 2011, you were better off spending more on GPU power.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Ivy-Bridge-Guide-for-Gamers.81855.0.html
It is the same today.
We on MacRumors have wanted to drop the optical drive in favor of a dedicated GPU on the 13" Macbook models since 2006. Yes it is getting old.
I'm not super knowledgeable about this, but I see some big lagginess whenever Apple doubles their resolutions (iPhone 4, iPad 3, rMBP) so I'm still unsure about how well this could fare with just integrated graphics.
I don't think it was a stupid comment at all. I agree with OP. I don't want to see every single nut and bolt before the damn thing comes out. MacFacts != MacRumors.
I want to read rumors, like the "unprecendented battery" comment and a possible release date - thats interesting to me.
Showing all their parts just makes it all terribly boring.
people love saying that but for 99% of BMP users the integrated graphics is more than enough now..
So if I was thinking of getting the 13 inch MBPr, would I have to worry about the same issues or have they been solved?
If there were a significant breakthrough in battery chemistry and/or storage capacity, it would already be used in other applications (like cars). Unless Apple is making their own batteries now.
It has nothing to do with the GPU's power, that's quite clear based on the performance metrics we know from these GPUs. There's tons of other processing going on in software and on the I/O backend before the pixels even touch the framebuffer. Heck, Apple could be stuck using software rendering techniques to feed the framebuffer with pre-rendered pixels instead of letting the GPU perform some operations on them.
You really think they're going to launch the Haswell revision merely 3-6 months after the original one?
HD 4000 will be plenty for driving the UI. No, it won't run 3D games at fast framerates at the native panel resolution... but that's not why you buy a 13" macbook pro.
I currently have a windows laptop with a core 2 duo, and a nvidia 8400 mobile graphics chip.
I need a better graphics chip than that. How do the intel HD 4000 compare? I don't see a good place to compare their power.
I am hoping the 13-inch retina MBP has a decent graphics chip.
I need a better graphics chip than that. How do the intel HD 4000 compare? I don't see a good place to compare their power.
I am hoping the 13-inch retina MBP has a decent graphics chip.
There's a third option: lose the optical drive and give us quad-core and discrete graphics.
Given Apple's history, I'd expect the 'unprecedented battery layout' to mean that customers will now be expected to purchase an external battery pack to dangle off the back of their new 5mm thick computer...
Though I think it probably means they are spreading the batteries across the machine in multiple blocks to allow for better heat management rather than having a single slab...
Though I think it probably means they are spreading the batteries across the machine in multiple blocks to allow for better heat management rather than having a single slab...
really is a tough call b.c if you need one, you probably need the other (if you truly need them).
They did it before, so no is certainly not out of the question.
HD 4000 is just not enough to drive the retina display from what I've experienced in my 15 inch. Open up a video and do other tasks at once and the system will become fairly choppy. That is not the experience worth 2k.
And no, nobody in their right mind would game on a laptop, especially one running OSX. I have a custom built watercooled rig for that. Also nobody in their right mind would blow 1.6k just to get the most basic necessties. "it only cost 1600 so do you really expect more than a Facebook machine".
Apple better announce better software optimization of their Retina scaling for OS X because right now, the 15" rMBP's lagginess make people wrongly assume that integrated graphics aren't powerful enough to even drive the OS's UI smoothly at that kind of resolution, and that will probably hurt sales of the 13" rMBP.
I'm confident it will improve with time but it's already late since people now already assumed you would need an high-end gaming graphics card to run anything in Retina resolution range.
I constantly see posts like "Apple should have put 2GB VRAM in the rMBP to reduce lagginess!" and such.
I'm confident it will improve with time but it's already late since people now already assumed you would need an high-end gaming graphics card to run anything in Retina resolution range.
I constantly see posts like "Apple should have put 2GB VRAM in the rMBP to reduce lagginess!" and such.
Sorry, but if a 9400m can drive a 30" ACD which is the same 2560x1600 resolution as this rumored 13" Retina, then the HD 4000 will do it with ease.
So it's a software issue? Because those aforementioned devices never got smoothened out, even after software updates.
My bet is they'll have a hundred tiny little micro watch batteries under the keyboard keys. They could squeeze 10 little batteries inside the space bar alone! 