2012 Macbook Pro Redesign

[soundman414]

But that's not quite how it works, you see, if HiDPI was enabled, the resolution would stay the same, only the pixels per inch would quadruple, so what was once a screen with a resolution of 1280x800 containing 1024000 pixels, is now a screen with a resolution of 1280x800 containing 4096000 pixels. So its the same resolution, only much sharper.

Applications not designed with HiDPI in mind would presumably look a little fuzzy compared to the higher resolution graphics, but would be scaled to size, similar to how older application icons look on the iPhone 4.

So what you are saying is, that one black pixel on some web banner or Photoshop tool icon would actually be 4 black pixels.... And what is the distinction for wanting to view in it's actual pixel size vs interpreted.

I mean, I'm a designer and I wouldn't want that, I need the extra screen real-estate, but I also want everything to be scaled so it is a 1:1 pixel interpretation of visual assets

 

[Napelm]

I believe Apple is going to launch a redesign together with the retina for at least one reason: screen size. This is the opportunity for Apple to adopt the 16:9 format (which is widely used by everybody else, including Apple in its iMac line) instead of the current 16:10 format. If Apple adopts retina display first, and then redesigns the MBP, it may have to reduce the display resolution (from 1280x800 to 1280x720, from 1680x1050 to 1600x900, or from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080, for instance) - something it NEVER does.

Really hope so. I cant believe Apple still use the middle age 16:10.

2560x1440 16:9 would be absolutely perfect as it would be the same as my Apple Cinema Display!

 

[Xcallibur]

So what you are saying is, that one black pixel on some web banner or Photoshop tool icon would actually be 4 black pixels.... And what is the distinction for wanting to view in it's actual pixel size vs interpreted.

I mean, I'm a designer and I wouldn't want that, I need the extra screen real-estate, but I also want everything to be scaled so it is a 1:1 pixel interpretation of visual assets

Indeed I am saying that, look at it this way, every graphic in the future will be of a 'retina' standard DPI, so although you will currently be working with higher DPI graphics at a 4:1 pixel ratio, soon the majority will be working with these higher pixel densities, therefore making what was typically 4:1 into visually 1:1 for the majority of viewers.

 

[PeterJP]

17" out ?

Hi,

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/23/apple-predicted-to-discontinue-17-inch-macbook-pro/

This kind of changes things. Particularly the numbers: 3M macbooks sold, estimated split up is 1,5M MBP 13", 500K for MBA 11", 13" and MBP 15" and then only 50K for 17". That estimated figure for the MBP 13" is far higher than I expected. So I'm going to update my prediction. Which is fun, because it's probably bogus because I guess we're still 2-3 months away from an announcement.

MBAs would get a spec update:
- Ivy Bridge
- 4-8GB RAM
- 128-512GB SSD
- Retina display

MBPs: drop ODD, slimmer design, 17" dropped. Specs:
- discrete graphics in both 13" and 15"
- single HDD/SSD area (user upgradeable 2.5" SATA 6G)
- up to 16GB BTO (32GB user upgradeable but not documented, like 16GB now)
- Retina display

Voila

I frankly hope that Apple keeps the screens as a 16:10, at least. The world is 3D, screens are 2D already, let's not reduce them to 1D (16:9-16:8-16:7...). I don't like it that movies are so wide, but I can imagine that some movie directors would prefer their laptops to have the same aspect ratio. For all others, it's much more common to work on documents that are a PC's equivalent of paper (PDF, web sites, ...) and a taller screen just means less scrolling. For a pro notebook, that makes sense. For the 11" MBA, which is meant to be ultra portable and for quick media consumption, I don't mind 16:9 (though I'd still prefer a taller screen).


Peter.

 

[MadMitch89]

This week just makes sense to me. Everything is ready, especially my credit card.

 

[Napelm]

Who is surprised by the weak sales when they use a strange 16:10 resolution!

2560x1440 or 1920x1080 16:9 FTW!

 

[jgz]

Who is surprised by the weak sales when they use a strange 16:10 resolution!

2560x1440 or 1920x1080 16:9 FTW!

16:10 >all, when doing CAD......

 

[lionmanpt]

No more 17'' ?

Droping the 17'' model ? On a user comunity wich has lots of web and creative design ? That would be the most stupid thing to do..............

 

[Keniutek]

iGadgets era in full effect :-(

 

[Napelm]

16:10 >all, when doing CAD......

And how many users are doing that?

All users do the stuff where you need 16:9. Games, TV, Movies etc

 

[Pyromonkey83]

Droping the 17'' model ? On a user comunity wich has lots of web and creative design ? That would be the most stupid thing to do..............

You say that but look at the sales numbers. Apparently the web and creative design folks are going more for the 15" now or a MBA. Or maybe even just scrapping it totally and going for a Mac Pro or iMac. 50k unit sales is PATHETIC. Besides theres always the Apple Display if you want more real estate...

Everyone keeps saying that it would be a terrible idea and alienate the pro people, but the truth is, if no one is buying them, then the product needs to go. And even more so, people who do use them for that purpose use them not for the fact that it has a 17" screen, they use it because its a mac. The OS is 50 times more important than any other feature a mac has going for it, so even though the screen size may drop and it may make some people upset, they will still buy a mac regardless because buying a Windows PC wold just be stupid. Apple will alienate no one.

 

[kiritoc]

And how many users are doing that?

All users do the stuff where you need 16:9. Games, TV, Movies etc

You forgot a word : MacBook Pro
I hope Apple will not do the same mistake

----

My predictions :

MacBook Pro 13" & MacBook Air 13" merge
released this summer with Mountain Lion

MacBook Pro 15" & 17" design doesnt change
with a standard configuration :
drop ODD to have HDD + SSD (128GB) + 8GB RAM + USB3 + 1920*1200 (15")
released tomorrow with HOOOPE but probably in 2weeks

 

[cmChimera]

You forgot a word : MacBook Pro
I hope Apple will not do the same mistake

----

My predictions :

MacBook Pro 13" & MacBook Air 13" merge
released this summer with Mountain Lion

MacBook Pro 15" & 17" design doesnt change
with a standard configuration :
drop ODD to have HDD + SSD (128GB) + 8GB RAM + USB3 + 1920*1080 (15")
released tomorrow with HOOOPE but probably in 2weeks

I'm so sick of this. Pro what? Pro is short for professional, but that term can be used for MANY things. Professional Student, Professional gamer, professional lawyer, professional writer, professional web designer, professional technician. Stop turning Pro into a graphics-only word.

 

[Stetrain]

And how many users are doing that?

All users do the stuff where you need 16:9. Games, TV, Movies etc

Why do those things 'need' 16:9? Most games do just fine at 16:10, most movies aren't 16:9 anyway, and 16:9 TV shows play just fine on a 16:10 monitor, you just get small black bars on the top and bottom. Seems better than chopping off that screen area permanently.

 

[kiritoc]

I'm so sick of this. Pro what? Pro is short for professional, but that term can be used for MANY things. Professional Student, Professional gamer, professional lawyer, professional writer, professional web designer, professional technician. Stop turning Pro into a graphics-only word.

Im not turning Pro into graphics-only. But in my opinion you cant say students & gamers was(/are) the (main) target for "Pro".
MacBook was here for students then now we have MacBook Air. Most of students cant buy a MacBook Pro 15" then I think MacBook Pro 13" merge with MacBook Air.
2nd category - Pro gamers, on Mac ? Yes Gamers are coming but now the most of "Pro" Gamers want (in my opinion) a windows.


Therefore yes (always in my opinion ) it would be a mistake to have a 16:9 screen on MacBook Pro. 16:9 are "hipe" but I think Apple doesnt care about this. And the average of Pro users (as I think if Apple forget Students & Gamers) need a 16:10 (in my opinion & im not god) some people need 16:9, 16:10, 4:3.


--

Sry for my poor english :/

 

[cmChimera]

Im not turning Pro into graphics-only. But in my opinion you cant say students & gamers was(/are) the (main) target for "Pro".
MacBook was here for students then now we have MacBook Air. Most of students cant buy a MacBook Pro 15" then I think MacBook Pro 13" merge with MacBook Air.
2nd category - Pro gamers, on Mac ? Yes Gamers are coming but now the most of "Pro" Gamers want (in my opinion) a windows.


Therefore yes (always in my opinion ) it would be a mistake to have a 16:9 screen on MacBook Pro. 16:9 are "hipe" but I think Apple doesnt care about this. And the average of Pro users (as I think if Apple forget Students & Gamers) need a 16:10 (in my opinion & im not god) some people need 16:9, 16:10, 4:3.


--

Sry for my poor english :/

I think students are well within the main targets of the pro, considering they are EXTREMELY popular with higher education students. It would be asinine for Apple not to target them. The macbook and the macbook air aren't at all equal to the macbook pro, so it's a little pretentious to say that students should get a macbook air because their needs are not as great. I am a student and have bought two high end 15" Macbook pros and there are plenty of them around my law school. It's simply illogical to say that they aren't aimed at students. ALL of Apple's Mac line is aimed at students.

 

[kiritoc]

I think students are well within the main targets of the pro, considering they are EXTREMELY popular with higher education students. It would be asinine for Apple not to target them. The macbook and the macbook air aren't at all equal to the macbook pro, so it's a little pretentious to say that students should get a macbook air because their needs are not as great. I am a student and have bought two high end 15" Macbook pros and there are plenty of them around my law school. It's simply illogical to say that they aren't aimed at students. ALL of Apple's Mac line is aimed at students.

I didnt want to seem pretentious, Im a student & I will buy my MacBook Pro 15" soon . . ^^

BUT as I say & as I think (talking about Mac portable line) 15" & 17" are extremely expensive then I know only 4-5 students with 15-17" MacBook Pro, the most (of my campus & friends havent Mac ^^ but for the others ) have MacBook Pro & Air 13".

I agree with you about students & Apple but Im always thinking this year MacBook Pro 13" merge with Air & 16:10 for Pro ^^

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Let's talk specifics...

The new CPUs should be quite easy to predict.

It looks like the new MacBook Pros will use the 3610QM (2.3 GHz), 3720QM (2.6 GHz), and the 3820QM (2.7 GHz) Ivy Bridge CPUs. These appear to be the replacements for the 2675QM, 2760QM, and 2860QM CPUs used in the present range. This is a welcome 8% clock-rate increase.

But what about GPU?

The current AMD 6770M has just under 700 gigaFLOPS of processing power in a thermal envelope (TDP) of somewhere between 30 and 35 watts.

According to Semi-accurate, Apple are moving - back - to Nvidia for their 2012 MacBook Pros. Slightly worryingly, Nvidia's new mobile architecture (Kepler - GK107) is a 'gaming' orientated GPU, which has been GPGPU crippled.

Of the new range, the potential Nvidia replacements (for the AMD 6770M) are the GeForce GT 635M, GT 640M, GT 650M, and GTX 660M.

The GT 635M is actually a low-end re-badged last-generation GT 555 (Fermi), and whilst it has the correct TDP for use in a MacBook Pro, it only has 300 gigaFLOPS of performance. This would be a massive downgrade over the 6770M.

The GT 640M uses the newer Kepler architecture, but only churns-out 480 gigaFLOPS. I can't find any specific TDPs for the new Kepler based GPUs, but I'd guess the GT 640M is in the high 20s or low 30s, which makes it a possible candidate for use in the MacBook Pro.

The GT 650 (using GDDR5) produces 560 gigaFLOPS, and probably has a TDP in the mid-to-high 30s.

The GTX 660 is widely theorised to have a TDP of between 40 and 45 watts. This is more than that of the outgoing 6770M, but is the only card which, with it's 640 gigaFLOPS, comes close to the GPGPU performance of the 6770M.

I dearly hope that Apple uses the GTX 660M in the top-end 15" MacBook Pro (and the 17" if it survives), but I fear the best that can be hoped for is the GT 650M, and possibly only the GT640M. Whilst the gaming crowd will welcome this, this will be a horrible downgrade for those who use anything that utilises the processing power of the GPU.

N.B. I have no interest in the fact that Kepler has good 'fps' in KillyKillyDeathFace 7, I just don't care.

 

[jgz]

Im not turning Pro into graphics-only. But in my opinion you cant say students & gamers was(/are) the (main) target for "Pro".
MacBook was here for students then now we have MacBook Air. Most of students cant buy a MacBook Pro 15" then I think MacBook Pro 13" merge with MacBook Air.
2nd category - Pro gamers, on Mac ? Yes Gamers are coming but now the most of "Pro" Gamers want (in my opinion) a windows.

Therefore yes (always in my opinion ) it would be a mistake to have a 16:9 screen on MacBook Pro. 16:9 are "hipe" but I think Apple doesnt care about this. And the average of Pro users (as I think if Apple forget Students & Gamers) need a 16:10 (in my opinion & im not god) some people need 16:9, 16:10, 4:3.
--

Sry for my poor english :/

totally agree

"Pro" = everyone, who needs pure power and strength.... everyone else will be fine with a MBA... We should call those people "Air's"

 

[slumpey326]

Read this on a finance website possible regarding tomorrow's Earnings Announcment...

"It's not going to be about the new iPad and it's not going to be about the the iPhone 4S, it's going to about Mac sales and the outlook going forward."

Ah, yes, the Mac. Lost in the storm surrounding the "Newest Biggest Thing" is that there hasn't been a refresh on Mac products in over a year. Mac accounts for roughly 15% of Apple revenues; not enough to really sink the ship on the margin, but certainly a factor to be considered in light of the moribund growth of the traditional computer industry as a whole.

A slimmer form factor, new chip set, or a refresh in general for the Mac would be more than welcome news to analysts and investors.

 

[skaertus]

The new CPUs should be quite easy to predict.

It looks like the new MacBook Pros will use the 3610QM (2.3 GHz), 3720QM (2.6 GHz), and the 3820QM (2.7 GHz) Ivy Bridge CPUs. These appear to be the replacements for the 2675QM, 2760QM, and 2860QM CPUs used in the present range. This is a welcome 8% clock-rate increase.

But what about GPU?

The current AMD 6770M has just under 700 gigaFLOPS of processing power in a thermal envelope (TDP) of somewhere between 30 and 35 watts.

According to Semi-accurate, Apple are moving - back - to Nvidia for their 2012 MacBook Pros. Slightly worryingly, Nvidia's new mobile architecture (Kepler - GK107) is a 'gaming' orientated GPU, which has been GPGPU crippled.

Of the new range, the potential Nvidia replacements (for the AMD 6770M) are the GeForce GT 635M, GT 640M, GT 650M, and GTX 660M.

The GT 635M is actually a low-end re-badged last-generation GT 555 (Fermi), and whilst it has the correct TDP for use in a MacBook Pro, it only has 300 gigaFLOPS of performance. This would be a massive downgrade over the 6770M.

The GT 640M uses the newer Kepler architecture, but only churns-out 480 gigaFLOPS. I can't find any specific TDPs for the new Kepler based GPUs, but I'd guess the GT 640M is in the high 20s or low 30s, which makes it a possible candidate for use in the MacBook Pro.

The GT 650 (using GDDR5) produces 560 gigaFLOPS, and probably has a TDP in the mid-to-high 30s.

The GTX 660 is widely theorised to have a TDP of between 40 and 45 watts. This is more than that of the outgoing 6770M, but is the only card which, with it's 640 gigaFLOPS, comes close to the GPGPU performance of the 6770M.

I dearly hope that Apple uses the GTX 660M in the top-end 15" MacBook Pro (and the 17" if it survives), but I fear the best that can be hoped for is the GT 650M, and possibly only the GT640M. Whilst the gaming crowd will welcome this, this will be a horrible downgrade for those who use anything that utilises the processing power of the GPU.

N.B. I have no interest in the fact that Kepler has good 'fps' in KillyKillyDeathFace 7, I just don't care.

I don't think those NVIDIA GPUs would support retina displays...

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Quad-core 13" MAcBook Pro

i7-3612QM (Ivy Bridge) = 35W quad-core = quad-core 13" MacBook Pro?

Intel have just released and OEM 35-Watt quad-core CPU. Is that a quad-core 13" MacBook Pro I hear calling?

 

[deaglecat]

i7-3612QM (Ivy Bridge) = 35W quad-core = quad-core 13" MacBook Pro?

Intel have just released and OEM 35-Watt quad-core CPU. Is that a quad-core 13" MacBook Pro I hear calling?

Nope.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

retina != arbitrary quadrupling of resolution.

I don't think those NVIDIA GPUs would support retina displays...

To be classed as 'Retina', the 15" MBP would need a resolution of about 1920x1200. The Nvidia GPUs listed can all drive 2560x1600; so, yes, they do support retina-displays.

 

[zgwortz]

Hi,

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/23/apple-predicted-to-discontinue-17-inch-macbook-pro/

This kind of changes things. Particularly the numbers: 3M macbooks sold, estimated split up is 1,5M MBP 13", 500K for MBA 11", 13" and MBP 15" and then only 50K for 17". That estimated figure for the MBP 13" is far higher than I expected. So I'm going to update my prediction. Which is fun, because it's probably bogus because I guess we're still 2-3 months away from an announcement.

MBAs would get a spec update:
- Ivy Bridge
- 4-8GB RAM
- 128-512GB SSD
- Retina display

MBPs: drop ODD, slimmer design, 17" dropped. Specs:
- discrete graphics in both 13" and 15"
- single HDD/SSD area (user upgradeable 2.5" SATA 6G)
- up to 16GB BTO (32GB user upgradeable but not documented, like 16GB now)
- Retina display

Voila

I frankly hope that Apple keeps the screens as a 16:10, at least. The world is 3D, screens are 2D already, let's not reduce them to 1D (16:9-16:8-16:7...). I don't like it that movies are so wide, but I can imagine that some movie directors would prefer their laptops to have the same aspect ratio. For all others, it's much more common to work on documents that are a PC's equivalent of paper (PDF, web sites, ...) and a taller screen just means less scrolling. For a pro notebook, that makes sense. For the 11" MBA, which is meant to be ultra portable and for quick media consumption, I don't mind 16:9 (though I'd still prefer a taller screen).


Peter.

I kind of agree that this changes things. What I found particularly interesting was the comment about a new line of Macbooks in-between the Air and the Pro sometime in the 3rd quarter. So here's what I suspect:

MBA updated by late summer: Retina display, Ivy Bridge, generally higher specs.

MBP update sometime in the next few months: Ivy Bridge and spec updates, including possibly a discrete GPU for the 13", but with an ODD and all ports and features still intact. No retina yet - I think that's still a year off for MBPs. Possibly BTO option to replace the ODD with an SSD. 17" model maybe still supported in this refresh, but it may be the last one. No format redesign.

The new line in the fall - THIS is where they'll drop the ODD and do a new redesign. Think along the lines of the 13" MBA with a hard drive or SSD, expandable RAM, and GPUs. Maybe no Ethernet. Might be retina display if large retina display prices are cheap enough by then. Probably the machine some of you have been wishing for with the MBP - at a lower cost.