1440x900 screen resolution and Intel HD 3000 graphics

[LoganT]

I've seen people on this forum claim the reason why Apple didn't upgrade the 2011 13" MBP screen to 1440x900 from 1280x800 was because the Intel HD 3000 graphics couldn't handle that high of a resolution. Is this true? Maybe I'm confusing things, but if the 2011 13" MBP can drive a screen up to 2560x1600, surely it can handle a 1440x900 screen, right?

Thanks.

 

[henrikrox]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nb-no) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Ofcourse it can drive the screen. I guess they meant the intel would not do games in 1440x900 very good

 

[Hellhammer]

I doubt the Intel IGP was the reason why Apple went with 1280x800. There was 15" MBP with 9400M and 1440x900 and 9400M is worse than Intel 3000.

 

[nsdjoe]

Yes, not to mention that the 15 and 17 MBP fall back on the HD3000 when not using a graphically intensive program and they can draw the higher res desktops without a problem.

As far as I can tell, Apple left 1280x800 in the 13" MBP for product differentiation.

 

[namtaB]

The technical hardware was not the reason. Its obvious that it was a business decision. Placing specs similar to the MBA in the MBP 13 with a better processor and optical drive would have cannibalized sales of the MBA enough to worry Apple.

 

[bobnugget]

I doubt the Intel IGP was the reason why Apple went with 1280x800. There was 15" MBP with 9400M and 1440x900 and 9400M is worse than Intel 3000.

I thought that all of the 15" MBPs with a 9400M had a 9600M as well? Only the 13" had the 9400M, and the 13" MBA has a 320M

 

[Grouchy Bob]

Yes, not to mention that the 15 and 17 MBP fall back on the HD3000 when not using a graphically intensive program and they can draw the higher res desktops without a problem.

^This

As far as I can tell, Apple left 1280x800 in the 13" MBP for product differentiation.

And to piss us off. Who says they don't have a sense of humor?

It's like paying $1199 for hooker only to find under all that lipstick and gloss she really is a pig.

 

[alust2013]

I thought that all of the 15" MBPs with a 9400M had a 9600M as well? Only the 13" had the 9400M, and the 13" MBA has a 320M

That's correct, however the 15" and 17" can only use one at a time, so often they would be using the 9400m.

Just for reference, the 9400m in my Aluminum MacBook can run my 1280x800 laptop display, with my 1680x1050 monitor at the same time without hiccups, and it's definitely not as powerful as the HD 3000.

 

[vincenz]

The technical hardware was not the reason. Its obvious that it was a business decision. Placing specs similar to the MBA in the MBP 13 with a better processor and optical drive would have cannibalized sales of the MBA enough to worry Apple.

Yep, this exactly. And it's very effective too.

 

[Demosthenes X]

I thought that all of the 15" MBPs with a 9400M had a 9600M as well? Only the 13" had the 9400M, and the 13" MBA has a 320M

There was a short-lived 15" model that only had integrated graphics. IIRC it sold for around $1600, so it was a step below the more recent $1800 base models which all have integrated + discrete graphics.

And I think the claims were that the Intel graphics wouldn't drive games very well at the higher res... whether that's true or not, I don't know.