I know there have been similar discussions before, but I have a specific question I'm hoping someone can answer. Whenever people complain about the 13" rMBP being underpowered they seem to be comparing it to the 15" pro. What about compared to an air? My last computer was a maxed out 2011 11" air. I never noticed any slow down and was very happy with its performance. Is the 13" rMBP going to run noticeably slower than that?
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" rMBP underpowered?
- Thread starter smurray
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, it will be clearly faster than a 2011 air. You might experience some minor UI lag due to current software limitations of the retina implementation, but its a very subjective issue. I suggest that you go to an Apple store and try the machine out.
I have recently acquired my rmbp 13 and it's an absolute joy to use. Up until now I haven't noticed any lag whatsoever, so, in my opinion, there is no need to worry about any performance issues
I have been comparing this with a 11" 2011 MBA, and it feels a lot snappier
I have been comparing this with a 11" 2011 MBA, and it feels a lot snappier
I have recently acquired my rmbp 13 and it's an absolute joy to use. Up until now I haven't noticed any lag whatsoever, so, in my opinion, there is no need to worry about any performance issues
I have been comparing this with a 11" 2011 MBA, and it feels a lot snappier
And that comparison is completely useless. Of course it will be snappier, it's a generation newer processor, plus the 11" is not as good as the 13". You'll need to compare it to the 13" 2012 MBA in order to make a relevant comparison.
Actually that is the exact comparison I wanted, since a 2011 11" air is the last computer I owned and was quite happy with the performance. In fact, that's the specific comparison I asked for in my original post.
Ah, right, I see it now. It kind of got lost in your post
For the usual-day stuff, you won't notice any difference between the current air and the 13" rMBP, if you have to do some number-crunching, the MBP will be a bit faster. The main difference between the two is the much better display of the MBP.And why would you even ask that? It should be quite obvious that a NEW generation computer will be faster than the OLD generation computer. So again; it's a flawed comparison. You might as well compare a computer from 1996 to the new 2012 rMBP as it's equally obvious which one will be faster.
Comparing to a computer from the same generation is the only real comparison in this context. As for how MUCH faster it is, there are various charts and test-results available on the net that you can find.
True but I came across this thread and was able to make the exact comparison the op asked for, so I figured I'd reply
Your assumption that just because a computer is of a newer generation it is automatically faster is flawed. I've read that the integrated graphics of the 13" rMBP aren't powerful enough to drive the retina screen. I've also read that people have noticed stuttering and slowdown under normal usage. Whether a person considers a computer to be slow or not depends on what they have been using previously. If someone was using a maxed out 15" MBP and then used the 13" retina they may notice it to be slower. My question was whether or not I would consider the computer to be underpowered if I thought my 2011 11" air ran perfectly fine. My original question and Bollebep's reply may not have been useful to you, so feel free to skip this thread and move on.
From a processor standpoint (the "power" of the machine) no its not. Each new generation follows Moore's law almost to a tee.
What you seem to be referring to is the strength of the GPU, in which case that point is valid.
From the Verge review:
"Youll also notice some general lag when you start multitasking heavily. Open more than a few tabs and apps and youll start to notice things slowing down around the system as a whole."
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/1/3585082/13-inch-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review
But I broke down last week and ordered one anyway. The 15" form factor is just too big for me, even though it's a beautiful machine. If they offer a quad-core BTO option on the 13" rMBP in the next few months I'll be really pissed!
"Youll also notice some general lag when you start multitasking heavily. Open more than a few tabs and apps and youll start to notice things slowing down around the system as a whole."
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/1/3585082/13-inch-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review
But I broke down last week and ordered one anyway. The 15" form factor is just too big for me, even though it's a beautiful machine. If they offer a quad-core BTO option on the 13" rMBP in the next few months I'll be really pissed!
I also ordered one. It'll arrive next week. I'm curious about how it'll perform, coming from a 2010's Air. I suppose a 15" MBP, iMac or MacPro will be significantly snappier, but I'll see if it's sufficient or not...
That's the review that caused me to create this thread. Nilay is used to running a 15" MBP w/ a quad core processor. Obviously the 13" rMBP is going to feel slower to him, because it is. I was looking for the opinion of someone who thinks the 11" air is plenty fast.
Stumbled upon an Apple store today and the 13" was fluid as usual, at all resolutions, even when opening like 10 apps, just as many tabs and a Youtube video. Smoothness being defined by moving windows around and switching to dashboard and back without stutter. It started getting slower and slower the more videos I started playing at the same time and it got faster when I closed them again.
So what did we learn? Nothing. Or maybe something like "The more heavy stuff you do, the slower the computer gets". Wooow, thanks, Captain Obvious.
That said, I started the videos to to stress the GPU, but since you only saw one running at a time, I guess the GPU didnt even had more to do at all (why render them if they're overlapped by other windows?) and it was the i5 that was suffering from the 10+ flash Youtube videos, something which I btw never do.
I don't know, the performance seemed perfectly reasonable to me.
So what did we learn? Nothing. Or maybe something like "The more heavy stuff you do, the slower the computer gets". Wooow, thanks, Captain Obvious.
That said, I started the videos to to stress the GPU, but since you only saw one running at a time, I guess the GPU didnt even had more to do at all (why render them if they're overlapped by other windows?) and it was the i5 that was suffering from the 10+ flash Youtube videos, something which I btw never do.
I don't know, the performance seemed perfectly reasonable to me.
That's because it's a perfectly reasonable little machine when it is used reasonably.
Something that seemingly many people fail to understand / accept nowadays.
That's because it's a perfectly reasonable little machine when it is used reasonably.
Something that seemingly many people fail to understand / accept nowadays.
I think what people are failing to understand / accept is the unreasonable price for reasonable performance.
That too. But that's really nothing new... There are tons and tons of products in the World that are sold for unreasonable amounts and can hardly perform reasonable tasks. The problem in fact lies in the illusion of many that they could afford buying the newest Apple product while having a quite small budget and expect the product to blow everything out of the water just because it costs more than what the competitors are selling. People are failing to understand that Apple creates semi-luxury products in the end... sure, they have support, quality too and such ( like any serious luxury brand ), but in the end, a large portion of the extra you're paying is because of the brand... also, most of the people are buying Apple products because of bragging rights ( although many can hardly afford the product... but who cares as long as they look "cool" in a coffee shop, or while sitting in their bench at UNI, etc. ).
If you compare it to something faster, it will be slower.
If you compare it to something slower, it will be faster.
If you compare it to something slower, it will be faster.
Spec out a cMBP 13" with a 128GB SSD and 8GB of RAM. It comes to $1,499. Is $200 too much to ask for a cutting edge Retina display at 4X the resolution along with a significantly thinner and lighter design? I don't think its that excessive and I had little problem buying my base 13" rMBP.
People are exaggerating the sticker shock. These Retina displays aren't cheap and are life changing to the user's eye. There's a cost for that.
Spec out a cMBP 13" with a 128GB SSD and 8GB of RAM. It comes to $1,499. Is $200 too much to ask for a cutting edge Retina display at 4X the resolution along with a significantly thinner and lighter design? I don't think its that excessive and I had little problem buying my base 13" rMBP.
People are exaggerating the sticker shock. These Retina displays aren't cheap and are life changing to the user's eye. There's a cost for that.
I seriously doubt that the retina display costs that much more than the non-retina one, and the graphics processing (which should make for a significant cost difference) doesn't because it's the same processor. And the "same price when upgraded" bit is weak. In the real world $1499 gets you a brand new cMBP-13 with 16GB RAM, a 256GB SSD, a 1TB HDD in the optibay, and an external slot load Superdrive (your old one), with 4GB RAM and a 500GB HDD left over to sell, donate, or give away. And you still have the advantage of an ethernet jack and FW 800 at the cost of almost 1lb in extra weight, a prettier screen, and hdmi. Considering that you couldn't even spec the rMBP-13 to 16GB RAM and 1.25GB onboard storage if you wanted to, I'd say that being forced to pay exorbitant pricing for upgrades for the rMBP-13 definitely doesn't create equivalent value.
Those specs are not through Apple.com A cMBP 13" with a 128GB SSD and 8GB of RAM is $1,499. Only $200 less than the thinner, lighter, and 4X resolution rMBP 13". Your spec estimate is likely through OWC or something like that --- 95% of consumers will not send their brand new computer to some website called OWC and let them tear it open...void their warranty...and install aftermarket components. Glad it works for you, but that's just not a viable solution for most people.