Apple is focused on differentiating the products as much as possible. So that's why you'll not get a dGPU in the 13''. Or a quad-core CPU. It may be possible, but Apple won't do it. They want you to buy the 15'' instead = more profit for them. That's how it works... It's also why you'll never get the "perfect" device from a company like Apple.
Apple is focused on differentiating the products as much as possible. So that's why you'll not get a dGPU in the 13''. Or a quad-core CPU. It may be possible, but Apple won't do it. They want you to buy the 15'' instead = more profit for them. That's how it works... It's also why you'll never get the "perfect" device from a company like Apple.
I would be happy with a quad core with Iris Pro graphics and no dGPU.
actually you know what? with a 150w psu, that thing comes with a quad, there is no way that they needed more than 90w if it was pairing even with a 28w cpu
and a 70wh battery with expected lifetime of 6h sounds about right on windows with optimus
in the end I quite like that notebook, I wonder what mSATA ssd they are using, and Im sure as hell willing to buy one
that or the w230st - haswell, 765m and 13'', it sure as hell wont be as thin
Profit margins are quite similar on both... might want to check facts before making them up.
Second, that Razer laptop is significantly bigger in two dimensions than the 13" MBP/MBAs. So we're really talking about a new design (bigger) in order to accommodate the dGPU and other hardware (cooling). Let's not forget that this doesn't offer 2 ThunderBolt ports of the Retina MBPs (it only has 1 HDMI vs rMBP's 2 Thunderbolt + 1 HDMI). It also lacks an SD card reader (although it's a gaming laptop so SD cards aren't really important).
So you believe there's purely technical reasons/limitations why Apple doesn't provide certain specs/upgrades/features for their various products?
I mean, there's a reason you don't get that "perfect" device, and it's not because of technical reasons/limitations. That much I have observed...
Razer just introduced a 14" laptop thinner than the airs thickest point with a Nvidia GTX dGPU and Quad i7.
It's time Apple. Loyal users such as myself know that the only reason now would just be greed to not include it.
No excuses.
Not going to happen, with a quad core and dGPU, that Razer laptop is going to have max 2 hours battery life. It makes sense for gaming laptops but for ultraportables that are used normally it won't make sense.
I would be happy with Iris Pro graphics and no quad core. The successors to the current line of chips offer 10-15% performance increase across the board. And it's not as if the current processors are slow.
As far as I know there won't be any Haswell chips with Iris Pro that aren't also quad core.
What are you getting at? The Blade is larger than the 13" MBP/rMBP. If Apple made it bigger, could they have squeezed in a discrete graphics card? Probably. Razer did it, Apple isn't too poor to hire some engineers. There are purely technical reasons/limitations to the current laptop designs that Apple is using. If Apple changed those designs, as they do every few years or so, then things can change.
Not going to happen, with a quad core and dGPU, that Razer laptop is going to have max 2 hours battery life. It makes sense for gaming laptops but for ultraportables that are used normally it won't make sense.
Different machines built for different uses. One is gaming (and has very few ports). The other is workstation grade.
My point is that I don't believe there's purely technical reasons/limitations to why we see the current line up of notebooks from Apple. I believe there is product differentiation involved, in order to maximize overall profits for Apple.
This is typically how companies do business (well, from my observations).
If you are talking about fitting in extra hardware into the exact design they have for the 13'' today, that I cannot answer. But perhaps they can make small, if none at all, modifications to put in extra hardware there, for example, a dGPU. Can speculate about that, but it doesn't lead anywhere, I am afraid.
13" rMBP: 12.3" x 8.6" = ~106 square inches (20 square inches smaller)
14" Razer: 13.6" x 9.3" = ~126 square inches
15" rMBP: 14.1" x 9.7" = ~137 square inches (11 square inches larger)
It looks to me like the 14" Razer is closer to the 15" rMBP in footprint than the 13".
The 15" rMBP, with basically an extra 0.5" extra footprint in each direction, gives you a larger screen as well as the quad core CPU and dedicated GPU.
I'm not sure what the argument is here. Apple should make a machine that's similar in size, weight, and performance to the 14" Razer? They basically already have with the 15" rMBP.
I'm not sure what the argument is here. Apple should make a machine that's similar in size, weight, and performance to the 14" Razer? They basically already have with the 15" rMBP.