The reason you don't have an answer is most likely because nobody knows yet. Give it a couple of days for people to get their deliveries and do some checks.
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.
2012 Macbook Pro Redesign
- Thread starter Funkymonk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The reason you don't have an answer is most likely because nobody knows yet. Give it a couple of days for people to get their deliveries and do some checks.
Sorry - I don't understand your question. Are you asking whether a dual core Intel i7 matched to an Intel HD4000 is faster (or even as fast) as a quad core Intel i7 running at a faster clock speed and matched to an NVidia GT650?
No.
It will be significantly and absolutely faster in every benchmark that doesn't strictly rely on screen fill rate, and even some that do. Also, it has more ports than the MBA.
And until we know more about how Apple has designed the logic board on the new IB MBA/MBP, we don't know how much RAM you'd be able to put in one. The current Sandy Bridge machines won't accomodate more than 16GB, even if larger sodimms become available. The same might be true of the Ivy Bridge models.
I'd be very surprised if they didn't...
----------
No one knows yet whether the logic board in the Ivy Bridge MBP will be able to accomodate 16GB sodimms, even when they are available. The Sandy Bridge MBP can't.
Last edited:
That's not really true. With games, yes. But remember that a video game is touching graphics memory a hell of a lot more than Final Cut Pro is.
Final Cut Pro doesn't have to worry about overdraw, depth testing, texture uploads, or any other staples of 3d graphics, nevermind more advanced stuff like render-to-texture effects and scene post processing, stencil shadows, deferred rendering lighting, and any other graphical niceties in a typical game that suck up memory bandwidth. GDDR5 has a ridiculous amount of bandwidth. And modern gaming GPUs like NVidia's are built for games. They're complete overkill for any 'pro' application, not because the 'pro' apps aren't demanding in their own way, but because using a gaming GPU to composite the handful of draw buffers that they maintain is almost a sort of category mistake.
Final Cut Pro, Aperture, Photoshop - those will all be just fine at 2880x1800. Relax.
Which isn't actually very hard, unless you're playing a game.
Seriously. Modern discrete GPUs have a crapload of memory bandwidth and horsepower. Desktop applications are no big problem for them. I think the real magic here is that the integrated chip is fast enough to do 2880x1900 for the first time. That's the real enabler. The fact that you'll be able to use Final Cut Pro without the discrete GPU kicking in every time you resize the window is a big deal.
Ah. Ok. You are talking about games. My mistake.
Keep in mind that resolution scaling already happens in just about every console game. Console games very rarely render into a 1080p display buffer - 720p is the norm. If you're viewing that on a 1080p screen, that's suboptimal, I guess.
Anyways, about image quality when rendering at a non-native resolution - have a look at Anand's sample screen shots from the various resolution dpi settings. He's made original-size captures available. I'm going from a 1680x1050 MBP to the new Retina MBP, and non-native 1680x1050 mode looks incredible.
Look at iFixit's teardown of the Sandy Bridge MBP. The sodimm's actually fit into a sort of carriage with the secure-snaps. The carriage cuts through the whole logic board. You can argue that this is a customer-hostile move, but you can't argue that it saved them a lot of space inside the case.
That wouldn't have solved anything at all. Either it's going to make all the bitmap-based UI elements smaller and more difficult to discern, or it's going to require it's own measure of non-native resolution upscaling that you seem to be so opposed to - and with significantly less resolution to work with, the upscaling is going to look a lot worse.
Last edited:
So I bought my macbook pro 13" today, I bought it in store, i was asking the sales rep if i could add more ram to the computer, (long story short I couldn't because they didn't have the new ram for the newer laptops) anyways, how hard would it be to install it myself, and where would i be able to find this ram?
RAM is pretty easy to install. Apple have all the details on how to do it here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1270
I would recommend Crucial when buying RAM. If you go onto their website (http://www.crucial.com) you should be able to select the model of Macbook Pro from the drop down and it will show you all compatible RAM.
Hope this helps you out.
Don't worry, you made the best call in the end by going for the 16gb of ram. Would rather that than one now with 8gb
Is it PhotoShop being used with the iceburgs at the start and then the Northern Lights at the end?
----------
But won't Apple staff know the answer to your question meaning it's either a quick call or e-mail away, if you're in dire need.
Ok, the following question no one knows for sure, but I'm gonna ask it anyway.
Probably has been asked before, but unable to find.
What are the chances the new MBP look will come to the 'less' pro machines next year (or earlier)? I'm looking for a new 15" (wanted an iMac but I can keep waiting for ages). But I have a feeling they'll keep the disc drive for a few more years.
I can't be bothered by the Retina display, but I do like the look.
Buying one now and selling that one if the new ones come is only a loss of 300-400 euros, so it's doable, but then again...
Thanks!
Probably has been asked before, but unable to find.
What are the chances the new MBP look will come to the 'less' pro machines next year (or earlier)? I'm looking for a new 15" (wanted an iMac but I can keep waiting for ages). But I have a feeling they'll keep the disc drive for a few more years.
I can't be bothered by the Retina display, but I do like the look.
Buying one now and selling that one if the new ones come is only a loss of 300-400 euros, so it's doable, but then again...
Thanks!
Just in apparently the 'Retina Display' is made by Samsung (No real surprise there!)
http://www.chip.de/news/MacBook-Pro-Livetest-Retina-Ivy-Kepler-im-Check_56253648.html
http://www.chip.de/news/MacBook-Pro-Livetest-Retina-Ivy-Kepler-im-Check_56253648.html
Samsung 9 15,9-16,3mm irregular shape like MBA. Of course it does not have dGPU Kepler and second fan, but on the other hand includes additional PCB module with USB 3.0 chip. Do not tell me that Apple can not put DIMM sockets into 18mm chassis with constans regular shape. They could make a battery a little bit smaller to achieve still about 6,5-7 hours (MBP next gen battery time is about 7,5h according to LaptopReviews) or just to leave unibody chassis unchanged with Ethernet and optional FW port.
MagSafe2 - T-shape power connector design is a big mistake - no lessons learned. Still much more mechanical stress on cable than in L-shape power connector. We have a chance to see the same story with broken cables.
MagSafe2 - T-shape power connector design is a big mistake - no lessons learned. Still much more mechanical stress on cable than in L-shape power connector. We have a chance to see the same story with broken cables.
Last edited:
I still can't help the feeling of trading real-estate for quality when going from 1680x1050 to "2880x1800 physical but 1440x900 logical". Also because the 13" Air has 1440x900... Perhaps the high density will just make it irrelevant by rendering the logical 1680x1050 so well that it doesn't matter (except for the performance impact, it's more the knowing than the measuring), or will make it possible two work at 1440x900 with smaller fonts because they'll be cleaner, in Pages and hopefully in Emacs.
Btw, what's this business with the fonts, on iOS devices with Retina display even non-Retina-ready software benefits from the Retina display with the OS font/text rendering (at 2x2x resolution), but everything that I read indicates that this is NOT the case on Mac OS, why? Is it possible that this feature will come in Mountain Lion?
The one example that I heard of where the type doesn't just automagically render sharp is Chrome. Apparently Chrome does use the native text rendering, but it renders into an internal buffer, probably to apply a text filter? This would subvert the Retina optimizations in OSX because Chrome is essentially doing an end-run around the revised pt-to-pixel conversion that would otherwise go on behind the scenes and instead forcing their own transform.
Are there other programs you've heard of?
If you look at pics, you can see how big the battery is. It's 95 watt-hours, which is more than the other MBP's at 63.5 watt-hours for the 13" and 77.5 watt-hours for the 15". The 17" MBP also used a 95 watt-hour battery.
It's the same thing with the iPad 3, where they kept the same battery life by making it a lot bigger.
I just wonder how many of you,on this forum are professional photographer and video editors who working on the field and need retina resolution for preview tabs and editing track.MacBook Pro Retina is specifically build for that kind of people. I think maybe 2 or 3 here,and all rest are dumbass which will be using it for playing diablo III and surfing the net,and brag all the time how it's expensive jadajadajada. It's expensive for you because u can't afford it and most important u don't need it,especially if u not making any money from it,so cut the crap.
Why all the hate? I'm an engineer and I want a thin quad core laptop with a nice screen. It's a great laptop and I completely believe that Apple made all the right compromises to bring it to us. And while I'm not a photographer, I have a lot of photos in Aperture which are going to look great on this screen.
Why don't you get off your high-horse and take your head out your arse.
Who cares if someone buys a computer for £10k and only uses it for the Internet? It's their choice and affects you in no way, unless you're a bit bitter because you'd love one yourself. I know I'd love one and would buy it if I could afford it, but I don't have a problem with people who do buy one - whatever they need it for.
It's funny as I just read this a few minutes ago:
"The Retina display itself is glorious. The resolution is 2,880 by 1,800, which sounds like a lot, but text is scaled so it doesn't look too small. Instead of making the letters smaller like on the iPhone 4 or 4S (to see this effect, use one to visit a non-mobile-optomized Website), Apple kept the font sizes consistent with what you'd expect in the real world and just made them smoother. In contrast, text on a MacBook Air looks smooth from your seat, but the individual letters are still jaggy close up. Text on the new MacBook Pro looks smooth from both far away and close up, as if it were laser printed on paper.
The real magic is when you view photos (and high-res video). You can view images straight from your camera and they will look more like printed images than electronic ones. Look at a geometric form, like a picket fence in front of a yellow wall, and the lines look smooth, not jaggy. Likewise, a 1,920-by-1,080 HD video takes up a relatively small portion of the screen at full resolution, leaving the video editor with lots of space for timelines, toolbars, and other interface items. It's almost like having a dual 20-inch-screen setup in a 15-inch diagonal space. When playing back 1080p video full screen, the improved IPS display exhibits rich colors, deep blacks, and a generally pleasant viewing experience. It really is like having a large-screen HDTV you can rest on your lap."
The last paragraph, to me, sounds like this retina MBP would be great for those who love watching high-res films and viewing photos, whether they're a Pro or Amateur photographer.
Edit: I could just imagine if you worked for Apple..
The NEW Retina MacBook Pro.
Only for people who can make money using it,
If you are caught gaming or surfing the net you will have it removed from your possession and given a Dell.
Ask Apple engineers. They follow MBA philosophy I believe where RAM is soldered on PCB. They could make it in different way without loosing advantages of classic MBP line.
Asus UX32V (18mm) with GF620M, classic 7mm HDD+SSD 24GB cache:
...LAN & VGA adapters included!!!
Actually,u are quite wrong.Because they have financing plan for people who want it,and can't afford it. Basically everybody are covered. Personaly,i can afford it anytime,but no marketing and personal opinion can't change my mind what i need and my desire for something. And i have no desire for MPB Retina because i find it totally irrelevant for my needs.
You installed an SSD in your current MBP and use a $1k Thunderbolt display, but the MBPR is totally irrelevant for your needs with its SSD and new hi-res display???
You installed an SSD in your current MBP and use a $1k Thunderbolt display, but the MBPR is totally irrelevant for your needs with its SSD and new hi-res display???
Exactly.Because when i'm on the move i dont need so much desktop because im working with 2 desktops and 2 applications. When i'm home MPB is connected with display. How to explain you this ? 27" with 2540 x 1440 or 15" 2880 x 1800 ? Which one is more pleasant to use? OFC i installed SSD in macbook pro.Why do u think i'm some kind of masohist ? SSD for OSX and HDD for storage.