15" MBP with high-res anti-glare and SSD vs retina MBP

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Nostromo, Jun 13, 2012.

  1. Nostromo macrumors 65816

    Nostromo

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Location:
    Deep Space
    #1
    Both have the same tech specs.

    The 15" classic MBP with anti-glare hi-res screen and self-upgraded to 16 Gb RAM and an 256 Gb SSD (Apple installed)...

    ...and the 15" 256 Gb SSD retina display MBP with 16 Gb RAM (a must in my opinion, as you can't upgrade)....

    Both cost $2500 (without Applecare)

    Difference:

    • how will the beautiful hi-res anti-glare screen compare to the retina display for serious photography and graphic work? That has to be established.

    • the classic model is a mature product, and it will run relatively quiet. What about the thinner retina MBP? Same power as the thicker model, less space inside for heat sinks (if you call it that at all in a laptop) than in the thicker MBP

    I'm really curious if the thinner retina MBP holds up in practicability to the classic model. I'm also curious if there will be a difference in the keyboards.
     
  2. calmasacow macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    #2


    The retina is totally worth it. I can't wait to get my BlackMagic Cinema Camera in a month or so. The screen simply can't be described. But the regular 15" has a very low resolution screen. I have co-workers that all have the 17" MBP and you can't really tell that the MBPR is smaller till you sit the 2 on top of each other.

    If resolution is not a big deal for you then get the 13" MBA and load it up. I had that before I got this and the new one is even better.

    The MBPR is light and very well built! I cannot say enough great things about this machine. I have been amazed by everything I have thrown at it.

    Oh and Keyboard seems the same to me.
     
  3. mohsy90 macrumors 65816

    mohsy90

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Location:
    New York
    #3
    Only time will tell....
     
  4. ladeer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #4

    I have been using matte 15 inch since 2011 and I love that screen. I have done app mockup designs using photoshop, not exactly graphic intensive.

    anyway, like you i care about many factors that retina did not aim to address:

    1. the loss of native resolution from 1680x1050 to 1440x900
    2. the degradation in graphic quality when computer scale (pixelation)
    3. what will my pictures in photoshop look like? is a pixel on the screen a real pixel, or four pixel? sometimes i have to zoom all the way in and edit an image pixel by pixel (web design work), so i definitely would like direct and clear access to all my pixels. it will be confusing as hell if four pixels on my screen are in different colors (due to AA) actually is just ONE SINGLE pixel on other people's screen!

    from what i saw in person, 1 and 2 are not a big deal. i couldn't tell it was not native 1680x1050 when scaled up. there was no noticeable degradation.

    however, i did not test (3.) above, because i wasn't sure how to do that. oh btw, i do all my graphic designs work in Windows 7 environment...haha so i guess i will be screwed since I am not sure what will Windows 7 looks like in retina mode.....

    (if you ask me why do i run Adobe in Windows 7 via Boot Camp, my answer is....I only have the license for the windows copy of Adobe CS5!!!)
     
  5. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #5
    Anandtech's preliminary look at the screen is pretty promising:

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

    Basically, besides the benefits of the higher pixel density, you're also getting a higher quality IPS display. That means better viewing angles, contrast, and black levels.

    I'm sure that they will test actual color accuracy in their final review of the Retina MBP.


    As far as cooling goes, I actually think it should be better than the previous gen Macbook Pro. The non-retina MBP has both the intake and the exhaust in the same rear vent area. The Retina MBP introduces intake vents under the sides so that air flows in the front and out the back.
     
  6. unixperience macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    #6
    like you said the cost is the same. At that point you just have to think about a few key issues

    - is having separate audio in jack useful to you?
    - what about having an ethernet plug (read reviews on tb-ethernet... not too comforting)?
    - do you ever use firewire??
    - do you ever use cd, or do you have an external way of doing this?
    - will you ever need more than 256gb? this can be addressed with external options or with a new internal (presumably for both given enough time, but the rmbp will cost a ton more money if and when it comes out from places like owc)

    this is of course completely ignoring the screen, i feel like those i/o ports make a huge diff ignoring screen completely.

    and just a last opinion, buy ssd on your own, apple is WAY too much money
     
  7. F1 Fan macrumors regular

    F1 Fan

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Has anyone got any more thoughts on this now that a few months have passed?

    Is there a speed difference between SSD-equiped-cMBPs and rMBPs (assuming the same processor and RAM)?
     
  8. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #8
    I would say the retina model is definitely more practical. It is significantly lighter, has better thermal management (despite being thinner) and quieter fans, has a better display (IPS) and a more convenient port layout (usb ports on both sides/dual thunderbolt). Of course, it all depends on whether you require an optical drive for your daily work, in which case the classic model makes more sense.

    ----------

    The rMBP is slightly faster in benchmarks because the soldered RAM allows to optimise the memory interface to the max. I doubt it would make any difference for everyday tasks though. Also, the rMBP has a faster GPU (only relevant for gaming).


    Edit: now I fell for a resurrected thread as well... I read 'Jun' as 'Jan' ^^
     
  9. F1 Fan macrumors regular

    F1 Fan

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    Sorry about that but I'm struggling to find this info and I thought this made more sense than starting a new one.

    So the retina is slightly faster but not gonna make much difference. Thought as much. Thanks :)

    I'd still be interested to hear from anyone who has used both these machines a fair bit, though I realise that there won't be many who have!
     
  10. bill-p macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #10
    I've used both.

    The screen is much better on the Retina.

    Speed-wise, there isn't much difference. But where 3D applications are concerned (CAD, gaming), the Retina does have that extra power to drive high resolution external displays smoothly. Also it runs a lot cooler than the classic machine.

    UI performance under Mac OSX is a different matter. Apple's scaling algorithm does take a heavy toll on the Retina MacBook, and it doesn't feel as smooth. Hopefully 10.8.3 will help remedy this.
     
  11. shoppy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Location:
    Hants
    #11
    I owned both and side by side the retina wins hands down, it is a power horse. Sold the non retina and now have a 15 and 13" retina for my uses.
     
  12. Spink10 macrumors 601

    Spink10

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    #12
    I returned my rMBP and went with a highly spec'd cMBP - price was the best decision. I was able to secure a cMBP for 1/2 of retail price. Retina was beautiful - but would cost me a lot more $$.
     
  13. F1 Fan macrumors regular

    F1 Fan

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Awesome. Thanks for that folks. Gonna be weighing up the pros and cons of this one for a while yet methinks... If I can't decide before the next refresh then I'll have a whole new headache!
     
  14. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #14
    As an owner of the classic 2011 model....


    The cooling system in the retina is a lot quieter. That alone would be worth the switch for me. The classic chassis is old and the noise the fans make, quite often shows.

    More expandable though... so its a tradeoff...
     
  15. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #15
    It depends where you need the speed. The retina has an overclocked GPU but needs to do more to get the job done. It has the soldered RAM that is slightly faster but in real world is no real difference. The retina has a much touted cooling system that is said to throttle less during heavy work. If you need storage speed the classic can be made to be quite a bit faster than the retina as you can choose any latest and greatest on the market. My MBP has a new Samsung 840 Pro in it which is a good measure faster than the 830 the retina is stuck with. I lucked out but my Samsung 1440x900 15" screen actually has better accuracy out of the box than the retina screen measured via i1 pro. The LG ones not so much. I personally don't like the retina chicklet feeling keyboard. It is cheaper feeling than the cMBP.
     

Share This Page