13" rMBP - 4,096,000 pixels, $1700-2000, INTEGRATED GRAPHICS?!?

[cypherpunks01]

Let’s look at this from a bit diff. point.

1. Prev MBP 13 didn't had discrete GPU.
2. Discrete GPU will only benefit you if you're playing games, doing 3d and stuff like this. dGPU DOES NOT work when you're doing simple 2d stuff.
3. "100 bucks debate" (MBP13 256GB costs 100 bucks less as compared to MBP15 256GB) is not that important for people who are used to their 13" MBPs. Like me. 15 seems sort of big.
4. 8GB is sort of small for 2012 but I still mess around with ~6-7gb for real (doing web dev stuff). OS X doesn't feel like it's doing constant swapping etc.
5. 600$ may be overpriced, but I don't care.

What I do care is performance of dual core vs quad core.

Today I launched activity monitor app at both retina macbooks at apple store. 13" MBP took up to 30-35% of perf. 15" with 8 virtual cores (HT) took up considerably less, e.g. 10-15%.

So, it would be pretty cool to see real performance compare of these macbooks. A dude in the thread posted super nice link to someone who launched 1080p + raw 22M + garageband and told MBP13 ate just 40% of perf.

 

[Trubbles]

Let’s look at this from a bit diff. point.

1. Prev MBP 13 didn't had discrete GPU.
2. Discrete GPU will only benefit you if you're playing games, doing 3d and stuff like this. dGPU DOES NOT work when you're doing simple 2d stuff.

1. Previous MBP 13 had 1/4 as many pixels to drive. Also, earlier gen 13" MBP (and PowerBook before that) had discrete GPU.

2. For this price, these extra options should be included. It can even have an effect on 2D. I'd imagine that if you're stretched out to 2 or 3 monitors, scrolling through images in Photoshop would lag. I'm only guessing, but if you added a 1920x1080 external screen you're up to about 6 million pixels being run by a weak POS

 

[Jiten]

I know a couple of friends who are event and wedding photographers who would love to have a much more powerful 13 retina. The lighter weight and small size in a relatively powerful package would have been ideal since they usually lug around quite a lot of gear during shoots. Every weight/bulk savings helps. The 8GB RAM ceiling and the lack of a discreet GPU killed it for them.

 

[magbarn]

Let’s look at this from a bit diff. point.

1. Prev MBP 13 didn't had discrete GPU.
2. Discrete GPU will only benefit you if you're playing games, doing 3d and stuff like this. dGPU DOES NOT work when you're doing simple 2d stuff.
3. "100 bucks debate" (MBP13 256GB costs 100 bucks less as compared to MBP15 256GB) is not that important for people who are used to their 13" MBPs. Like me. 15 seems sort of big.
4. 8GB is sort of small for 2012 but I still mess around with ~6-7gb for real (doing web dev stuff). OS X doesn't feel like it's doing constant swapping etc.
5. 600$ may be overpriced, but I don't care.

What I do care is performance of dual core vs quad core.

Today I launched activity monitor app at both retina macbooks at apple store. 13" MBP took up to 30-35% of perf. 15" with 8 virtual cores (HT) took up considerably less, e.g. 10-15%.

So, it would be pretty cool to see real performance compare of these macbooks. A dude in the thread posted super nice link to someone who launched 1080p + raw 22M + garageband and told MBP13 ate just 40% of perf.

The dgpu does work even when in '2d' osx uses many 3d elements in it's UI and on my rMBP 15 the nvidias chip will kick in routinely just while surfing etc. agree with the quad core, as I've mentioned in other threads intel has a quad core chip for only $125 more that has the same speed and power usage but it's quad core.

 

[Dark Void]

13'' rMBP looks like a train wreck.

Sure the screen is great, but what else has changed? Not to mention you can only go with 8GB RAM, 128GB entry storage, and the GPU hasn't improved. CPU is the same.

I know it has all been said, but I agree with pretty much everything here.

iMac is disappointing too in my opinion, albeit off topic a bit. Apple is slipping in terms of traditional computers in my opinion - they seem more focused on Phones and Tablets.

 

[Liquinn]

13'' rMBP looks like a train wreck.

Sure the screen is great, but what else has changed? Not to mention you can only go with 8GB RAM, 128GB entry storage, and the GPU hasn't improved. CPU is the same.

I know it has all been said, but I agree with pretty much everything here.

iMac is disappointing too in my opinion, albeit off topic a bit. Apple is slipping in terms of traditional computers in my opinion - they seem more focused on Phones and Tablets.

I could just upgrade my cMBP 13" to 16GB of RAM and 2x512GB SSDs if I wanted to. No retina display though lol

 

[Dark Void]

I could just upgrade my cMBP 13" to 16GB of RAM and 2x512GB SSDs if I wanted to. No retina display though lol

That's basically what I was getting at, you're paying the price difference between the cMBP and rMBP for the screen and a different form factor.

I guess that's worth $500?...

It's just so backwards in my opinion. Who, that would have a genuine purpose when using a screen of that quality, would be content with 128GB of internal storage and 8GB RAM?

Facebook has never looked sharper!

 

[KPOM]

I know a couple of friends who are event and wedding photographers who would love to have a much more powerful 13 retina. The lighter weight and small size in a relatively powerful package would have been ideal since they usually lug around quite a lot of gear during shoots. Every weight/bulk savings helps. The 8GB RAM ceiling and the lack of a discreet GPU killed it for them.

Haswell should provide better options. As it was, Ivy Bridge was a pretty big improvement. For now, the 15" rMBP remains an option.

 

[justit]

A dude in the thread posted super nice link to someone who launched 1080p + raw 22M + garageband and told MBP13 ate just 40% of perf.

At this point, the only real attempt at trying to stall the dGPU, and he wasn't able to. Pretty impressive.

http://youtu.be/Wy1dLr0g6Yc

 

[bill-p]

1. Previous MBP 13 had 1/4 as many pixels to drive. Also, earlier gen 13" MBP (and PowerBook before that) had discrete GPU.

2. For this price, these extra options should be included. It can even have an effect on 2D. I'd imagine that if you're stretched out to 2 or 3 monitors, scrolling through images in Photoshop would lag. I'm only guessing, but if you added a 1920x1080 external screen you're up to about 6 million pixels being run by a weak POS

1) Not true. Early MBP 13" had integrated GPU from nVidia since Intel was still playing nice and allowing other OEMs to create chipsets for their CPUs. Then Intel stopped letting other OEMs create chipsets for their CPUs, and Apple was stuck with Intel integrated graphics again. In terms of performance, they are similar, but Intel's iGPU is worse because Intel sucks at producing usable drivers.

2) Unless it's fullscreen animations, most interface stuffs on OSX are driven by the CPU, not the GPU. And yes, that includes scrolling.

 

[Maven1975]

Ahem. 12" PowerBooks had dGPUs.

The ONLY reason the 13" line does not have a dGPU is Apple themselves.

Don't kid yourself. Apple does not want to sell 13" laptops with longer satisfying use because it will cripple the continued sales turnover time.

 

[markus843]

13" Mbp w/o retina is fine

I have the baseline 2012 13" mbp w/o retina and I can play skyrim on ultra with 20-30 fps, and medium with 40-55 fps (with windows bootcamp)

 

[Hakone]

It's really a Macbook Air Pro.

 

[bill-p]

Ahem. 12" PowerBooks had dGPUs.

The ONLY reason the 13" line does not have a dGPU is Apple themselves.

Don't kid yourself. Apple does not want to sell 13" laptops with longer satisfying use because it will cripple the continued sales turnover time.

Ahem... 12" PowerBook ran a PowerPC processor, of which there was NO integrated graphics processor solution, so Apple HAD to use a separate graphics chip.

Even if the 13" MacBook line does not have a dGPU, the iGPU of the 13" MacBooks still OUTPERFORM the dGPU in the 12" PowerBook.

I think you guys are seriously over-reacting over this.

 

[heisenberg123]

everyone had delusions of some kind of super edition 13" rMBP for $1200, all the crap people are whining about never was in the previous 13 MBP's

its not like removed a bunch of stuff included in the past

 

[mcdj]

What a disgrace.

For that price, and with that many pixels to push, any form of 3D, or even the simplest modern games, are going to make this otherwise beautiful computer slow to an unusable crawl.

I have the money sitting and collecting dust. I was SO excited to buy this computer. Now, there is an absolute zero percent chance I'm going to buy this.

Apple ignores casual gamers, and those who work with 3D, AGAIN.

Now I have no choice but to go back to a Windows machine, and that makes me want to cry

Apple doesn't care about you with this computer. And why should they? Apple's core business is no longer tech geeks. It's now soccer moms and the nouveau riche. They want a sleek Apple computer with a screen as sharp as their iPhone and iPad and this is it. Apple will sell a buttload of 13 rMBPs to people who don't know or care what a discrete GPU even is.

 

[heisenberg123]

Apple doesn't care about you with this computer. And why should they? Apple's core business is soccer moms and the nouveau riche. They want a sleek Apple computer with a screen as sharp as their iPhone and iPad and this is it. Apple will sell a buttload of 13 rMBPs to people who don't know or care what a discrete GPU even is.

exactly, lot more soccer moms than techy people, people sit back i awe at how apple makes buttloads of money but tries to criticize them for not knowing what they are doing

 

[macness]

I'm not gonna complain since I can play Diablo 3 comfortably at 2370 x 1480 on my rMBP. It's not native resolution, but it's close enough.

But I didn't get the machine with Diablo 3 in mind. I wanted something that can display iPad Simulator in portrait mode. Aside from the rMBP 15" running at scaled resolutions, there is no other laptop I know of that can do that.

What is iPad simulator???

 

[Purant]

What is iPad simulator???

When you develop apps for iOS, XCode has an option to instead of building to the device, to run the app in a simulator. So you run the app on your mac. It's for testing purposes.

 

[macness]

When you develop apps for iOS, XCode has an option to instead of building to the device, to run the app in a simulator. So you run the app on your mac. It's for testing purposes.

good to know. thnx

 

[Maven1975]

Ahem... 12" PowerBook ran a PowerPC processor, of which there was NO integrated graphics processor solution, so Apple HAD to use a separate graphics chip.

Even if the 13" MacBook line does not have a dGPU, the iGPU of the 13" MacBooks still OUTPERFORM the dGPU in the 12" PowerBook.

I think you guys are seriously over-reacting over this.

Again, you not taking into account that the components, PPC chips and the GPU of those days ran WAY hotter than what we use today.

Apple did not innovate here. This is why most of us are upset. Sure its a slimmer profile, but what did we gain? Retina? The color accuracy of these displays are not something you would want to trust for proofing before going to print anyways. (Only 70% of aRGB)

Furthermore, I bet you a cup of coffee they have locked down the turboboost in BootCamp on the i5's just like they did on the 2012 MBA i5's.

They had the opportunity to knock this revision out of the park. Apple had a blank slate and choose to not only continue to neuter the 13" line, but also price gouge more than ever.

I am reacting to what they are doing to users that want/need power. I have a sick feeling that they will kill off the Mac Pro next stating that the iMac is the future.

 

[0x000000]

Blargh, I've really thought I'd get an Air again, but I had one before and I have psychiological problems spending so much again without any tangible upgrade.

I was almost ready to get the 13" rMBP just now. I configured it in the store and thought, well, the price is okay, isn't it? Let's just do this!

But then I, yet again, saw that for the same price I'd get a 15" rMBP that has everything I need - out of the box. No, it's even better...

Darn it, I cannot in good conscience buy a 13" rMBP.

 

[Maven1975]

everyone had delusions of some kind of super edition 13" rMBP for $1200, all the crap people are whining about never was in the previous 13 MBP's

its not like removed a bunch of stuff included in the past

Who said $1200? I would have gladly paid $2500+ for a proper 13" Pro machine!

 

[terraphantm]

Let’s look at this from a bit diff. point.

1. Prev MBP 13 didn't had discrete GPU.
2. Discrete GPU will only benefit you if you're playing games, doing 3d and stuff like this. dGPU DOES NOT work when you're doing simple 2d stuff.
3. "100 bucks debate" (MBP13 256GB costs 100 bucks less as compared to MBP15 256GB) is not that important for people who are used to their 13" MBPs. Like me. 15 seems sort of big.
4. 8GB is sort of small for 2012 but I still mess around with ~6-7gb for real (doing web dev stuff). OS X doesn't feel like it's doing constant swapping etc.
5. 600$ may be overpriced, but I don't care.

What I do care is performance of dual core vs quad core.

Today I launched activity monitor app at both retina macbooks at apple store. 13" MBP took up to 30-35% of perf. 15" with 8 virtual cores (HT) took up considerably less, e.g. 10-15%.

So, it would be pretty cool to see real performance compare of these macbooks. A dude in the thread posted super nice link to someone who launched 1080p + raw 22M + garageband and told MBP13 ate just 40% of perf.

1. Why does it matter that the previous gen didn't have a discrete GPU? The previous gen also didn't have a retina display - that didn't stop them from putting one in now. And Apple could have easily put a dGPU (even if it's a weaker one than the 15's) if they wanted to. A 76W battery with a dual core and a weaker GPU should last just as long as the 95W battery in the 15" with its quad core and what's essentially a GTX 660.

2. On my 15", the dGPU kicks in with plenty of 2d apps. Photoshop is a notable example. VLC is another that invokes it. The benefits certainly extend beyond games. Even if they didn't, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to game on a 13" laptop - especially since we have the option of hooking it up to an external display.

3. The $100 debate is important to those who are trying to maximize the value of their dollar. Also, the foot print of the 15" isn't really much more. It didn't take me too long to adjust. Now whenever I use my old 13, it feels tiny.

4. You're using 6-7GB already. RAM usage does increase with time since applications get larger. In a year from now you'll probably be using your swap regularly.

5. I don't see how that's an argument. $600 is a lot of money to many people - it's 35% of the price of the laptop... that's not insignificant

 

[Mak47]

Retina with HD4000 must be useless

Considering that all of last years models with an HD3000 can power a Thunderbolt Display (2560x1440) with no problems, and this is just 2560x1600 I can't really imagine it having any trouble at all. HD4000 is a much better GPU than its predecessor.

Come to think of it, I run dual 1920x1080 displays (effectively 3840x2160) without a hiccup on my 2011 Mini with the HD3000.

I don't disagree that the price is a little hefty, but all this whining about the iGPU is a bunch of fuss over nothing. Besides that, it's the first generation of a new product. The price will probably fall in line with the current MBP next year or the year after. The original MBA was introduced at a much higher price tag as well.

13" MBP hasn't ever had a dGPU, anybody who's wanted that has always needed to jump up to the 15". No one should be surprised this hasn't changed.