Calm down. I'm fully aware that it will blow away that ancient laptop- there's a reason why it's almost never turned on anymore. My work laptop (company owns it, I don't) is serving duty as my primary mobile computer ( 15" high res 2011 MBP, 256 MB Radeon 6490M) and I play the occasional game on it on it, but it is a weak GPU. Since I have a desktop which is my primary rendering / gaming machine, I'd like a GPU-heavy portable so that my work computer can remain a "work machine". If a 13" rMBP only has HD4000 graphics, I might as well get an MBA and get roughly the same GPU performance (compared to the number of pixels it's pushing).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro to Launch Alongside iPad Mini in October
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Calm down. I'm fully aware that it will blow away that ancient laptop- there's a reason why it's almost never turned on anymore. My work laptop (company owns it, I don't) is serving duty as my primary mobile computer ( 15" high res 2011 MBP, 256 MB Radeon 6490M) and I play the occasional game on it on it, but it is a weak GPU. Since I have a desktop which is my primary rendering / gaming machine, I'd like a GPU-heavy portable so that my work computer can remain a "work machine". If a 13" rMBP only has HD4000 graphics, I might as well get an MBA and get roughly the same GPU performance (compared to the number of pixels it's pushing).
You are forgetting that per-pixel scaling is going on, which normally would be done in very fast fixed function hardware by the GPU, but instead is being done with slower custom Apple algorithms to ensure the same quality when switching between the integrated and dedicated GPUs. I'm not saying that we'll see an improvement in 2013 or 2014 because GPUs will be more powerful, but because those custom scalers will be designed to work with much higher resolutions.
It's not a raw GPU power problem, as switching to a dedicated GPU doesn't make it any better. Plus, 3D games are far more complex than simply drawing flat triangles on the screen, but the framerate according to AnandTech is about the saem (20-30fps), so you know there's a bottleneck somewhere.
If the 15" rMBP pricing is any indication, the Retina display will be a no-cost option. Upgrade a base 15" non-retina MBP with the same RAM and SSD as the Retina version and it comes out to the same price.
So by that token, if the 13" follows this pricing model, forget dedicated GPUs. You're getting a 1499$ 13 rMBP which is a base 13" with extra RAM and a SSD.
yup, most likely scenario; $1499 but no dedicated GPU.
SSD and RAM prices went down a lot. (if only apple realizes the market rates/prices/cost)
No way, unless it has the same configuration as the 15 retina version. But it probably will not.
1499 or 1599 would be a good price point, considering the cost of a potential 256GB SSD
Cost of SSD went down considerably - top notch 256Gb SSD was around $330 at launch last year, now it is hovering around $150 range.
Also you have variety now with Toshiba/SandForce and Samsung/830.
It really sounds like they are doing a lot of leg work right in software. I don't understand why though, even switching the GPUs shouldn't prevent you from using the hardware scalers to do it. Maybe they haven't yet figured how to do it properly in hardware or they just didn't have the time to test it or they had some issues with the different CALayers blending using the hardware based scalers and disabled the optimized paths in order to ship.
This is probably not something we'll ever read about in a release note either, it'll just be "better" after an OS update.
... really??? i'd love to see it. the choppy performance of the 15R is what made me hate it.
Worth the Price
Everybody here seems very concerned about the price, and rightfully so. Is it worth the $1500 - $1900 we think it might cost? Who knows, but I am excited to go see it either way.
Everybody here seems very concerned about the price, and rightfully so. Is it worth the $1500 - $1900 we think it might cost? Who knows, but I am excited to go see it either way.
Right. And why not use a PPC processor?
Like... never!
...Unfortunately, those times are gone.
Last edited:
Given most professional grade laptops start at $600, and are $800 decently equipped, I can't see Apple charging more than $1000 for it.
But, well, you know. Somehow they'll price it at $1700 and call it a bargain.
But, well, you know. Somehow they'll price it at $1700 and call it a bargain.
You realize that any PC user would make the same claim regarding your MacBook Air.
"$1200 for an underpowered laptop with a nice case no thanks."
----------
If this thing is $1500, then I am going to be very tempted to upgrade my Air. I'm still expecting it to be $1700 or more.
With the removal of the optical drive I really hope Apple uses that extra space for a discrete card, especially when pushing 2560x1600(estimated resolution).
LG LG LG LG LG LG LG LG LG LG LG LG LG LG LG LG LG LG LG LG
IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR
Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow
Primary Apple display is LG. good luck!
IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR IR
Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow
Primary Apple display is LG. good luck!
Plug in an 30" ACD in your 17" MBP and run stuff off the IGP and you'll see it. Seriously, pixel fill rates of modern GPUs have been much more then enough for "Retina" displays for quite a few years. The problem pre-HDMI/Display Port was output bandwidth (dual link DVI was required and was not the cheapest of interconnects).
----------
It'll probably use the same pricing as the Retina 15" MBP model and be 1499$, which is the same price of a non-Retina 13" with SSD and RAM upgrades, just like how the rMBP is currenly priced the same as a non-Retina version with SSD and RAM upgrades.
And 800$ pro grade laptops won't match spec for spec the MacBook Pro. Usually, right around refresh time, when you price match EliteBooks and Lattitudes (the professional grade stuff), they pretty much match up on price too. It's just that HP and Dell offer a few lower end configurations that Apple doesn't bother with.
Can someone explain to me how/why the 2nd configuration of the 13" wouldn't contain the same specs as the entry 15" rmbp, at close to the same price point? Is it an impossibility due to design?
To me, having a quad-core option with dedicated graphics (and allotting for 16gb ram update) would be the only thing that would justify a 13"option. Otherwise, I feel like most are going to re-assess their workflow and upgrade to the 15" dedicated graphics/quad core, or downgrade to the air.
In fact, they would be stupid not to. At some of the configurations/price points I've seen listed in here, this 13" rmbp would be the most unnecessary computer Apple has ever made. Apple has to know that most professionals who purchase this computer will, likely, also buy external monitors -- could this thing comfortably run a cinema display + pro level software without a dedicated GPU?
On the flip-side, if they provide the aforementioned configuration (2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, 8-16GB 1600MHz memory, 256GB flash storage1,
Intel HD Graphics 4000, NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB of GDDR5 memory) at around $1800-2000 it would reach an audience who is currently stuck in limbo -- iMac converts, digital media "do-it-alls", designers looking to future proof themselves, etc
The reason being: even the 15" pros are professional level machines whose screens are, at times, too small for 8+hr/day work periods. Simply put, a smaller (more portable) computer at a price point that allows you to buy 1/2 of a cinema display (getting the iMac experience) before you hit the price of the 15rmbp entry is an easy decision, in my mind, for the aforementioned groups.
Edit: I'd also be curious to see Apple's MacBook Pro sale figures since introducing the 15rmpb...a bang for buck 13rmbp configuration would likely provide Apple with further justification for killing off the old design for good.
To me, having a quad-core option with dedicated graphics (and allotting for 16gb ram update) would be the only thing that would justify a 13"option. Otherwise, I feel like most are going to re-assess their workflow and upgrade to the 15" dedicated graphics/quad core, or downgrade to the air.
In fact, they would be stupid not to. At some of the configurations/price points I've seen listed in here, this 13" rmbp would be the most unnecessary computer Apple has ever made. Apple has to know that most professionals who purchase this computer will, likely, also buy external monitors -- could this thing comfortably run a cinema display + pro level software without a dedicated GPU?
On the flip-side, if they provide the aforementioned configuration (2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, 8-16GB 1600MHz memory, 256GB flash storage1,
Intel HD Graphics 4000, NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB of GDDR5 memory) at around $1800-2000 it would reach an audience who is currently stuck in limbo -- iMac converts, digital media "do-it-alls", designers looking to future proof themselves, etc
The reason being: even the 15" pros are professional level machines whose screens are, at times, too small for 8+hr/day work periods. Simply put, a smaller (more portable) computer at a price point that allows you to buy 1/2 of a cinema display (getting the iMac experience) before you hit the price of the 15rmbp entry is an easy decision, in my mind, for the aforementioned groups.
Edit: I'd also be curious to see Apple's MacBook Pro sale figures since introducing the 15rmpb...a bang for buck 13rmbp configuration would likely provide Apple with further justification for killing off the old design for good.
Last edited:
Right. And why not use a PPC processor?
Like... never!
...Unfortunately, those times are gone.
Well, that's because PPC was falling behind x86.
Hardware scalers were never designed to run 2880x1800, 3360x2100 and 3840x2160 resolutions. The max has always been 2560x1600 for quite a long time. And it's not as if using 2880x1800 uses just a bit more power than 2560x1600. If you can't do it in hardware, then you have to use software, and performance pays a big penalty.