After spec bump of 15 rMBP: buy now or wait to Haswell?

[timsaxman]

Should I buy one now or wait to Haswell?

It's not like they are going to increase the price once their models with Haswell appears and once they bump the specs it (speaking of the rMBP 15") will probably get better dedicated graphics too so either you buy it now or wait until then and get an even better laptop. Because now, the only thing they did was a small increase in processor speed and lowering the prices for both the laptop and upgrading the specs (like upgrading SSD etc) and these prices won't increase so practically it comes down to this:

You buy it now since you need it now or

You wait and buy an even better laptop once Haswell is released, if time isn't running out.

 

[mrbigglessworth]

I wouldn't buy a rMBP until they



2) Upgrade the GPU in the rMBP to one that can actually drive all those pixels efficiently and effectively.

LOLWUT? What kind of BS statement is this?

 

[msim20]

I would either get it now or wait for Intel's Skylake.

Skylake - just looked it up. Seems it will be there in 2015.

I wonder if waiting that long will make my 2009 MB Pro feel slow - what with software updates etc. Generally complex software make existing machines slow.

Ssd should make the software latency go away and make the machine feel fast enough for me to use for some time. So I guess I need to at least install the ssd and see how it goes.

 

[Ploki]

Uninformed crap? I beg to differ.

I didn't say it was a CPU issue, but it IS a GPU one. When I had an rMBP, there was noticeable lag during OS-level animations and movement. Now, that same GPU on the regular MBP doesn't have that issue, and can actually perform better in games or programs like Motion because it doesn't have to drive 4x the pixels to display the animation.

Even more uninformed crap.

1. I personally tried truckload of animations Integrated vs Discrete GPU (i have the 2.7ghz version) and Framerate is no different using either. It's a software issue. It's scaled by the cpu

2. You can play games @1440*900. And I do. And it looks just as good/crappy as it does on the native screen. I had them side-by-side for three weeks... And you don't need to display the animation at retina level in motion if you're not planning to render it at such resolution

 

[iDutchman]

I kind of feel bad that the high-end top of the line model comes with 16GB standard. It should, but I bought my 2.6Ghz/8GB/512GB top of the line model a few months back and it has 8GB of RAM.

Ah, well. Early adopter issues.

 

[chelch]

Really wasn't much of a bump.

Agreed. When I saw this thread my heart stopped for a bit cause I've had my new rMBP for 2 days! But there's really no change at all to the 15".

The "old" (yesterday's) 2.6GHz processor has a 6MB cache.
The "new" (today's) 2.7GHz processor has a 6MB cache.

It's probably the exact same processor with a minor clock adjustment.

The "old" 2.7GHz has an 8MB cache so you're not getting that processor for the same money.

Marketing. Pure and simple.

 

[Ploki]

I kind of feel bad that the high-end top of the line model comes with 16GB standard. It should, but I bought my 2.6Ghz/8GB/512GB top of the line model a few months back and it has 8GB of RAM.

Ah, well. Early adopter issues.

exactly why i bought the "low end model" but with 2.7 cpu and 16gb ram. 256gb ssd... will get OWC someday soon.

I'm quite content with my purchase. no regrets after the bump, i use at most 50% cpu, 0.1ghz wouldn't made much of a difference (i had it for 3 weeks)

 

[Wayward]

I kind of feel bad that the high-end top of the line model comes with 16GB standard. It should, but I bought my 2.6Ghz/8GB/512GB top of the line model a few months back and it has 8GB of RAM.

Ah, well. Early adopter issues.

High-end model was 2.7/16/768.

 

[demosthenes80]

LOLWUT? What kind of BS statement is this?

"LOL WUT"? Seriously? Did I accidentally post in a gaming forum for 15 year olds? And it comes from a statement based on experience with the Macs in question.

----------

Even more uninformed crap.

1. I personally tried truckload of animations Integrated vs Discrete GPU (i have the 2.7ghz version) and Framerate is no different using either. It's a software issue. It's scaled by the cpu

2. You can play games @1440*900. And I do. And it looks just as good/crappy as it does on the native screen. I had them side-by-side for three weeks... And you don't need to display the animation at retina level in motion if you're not planning to render it at such resolution

You mean that Motion doesn't use the GPU for previewing or on-the-fly rendering or using particle effects or replicators when building animations at 1080P HD? Hmmm, could have sworn that it did. If it did, you'd see that the GPU on the retina compared to the same GPU on the HiRes Classic MBP is taxed more heavily and therefore is burdened more under heavy animations. Or do you just watch animations and not build them? If so, I understand your confusion.

 

[walkie]

I hate that kind of uninformed crap. The CPU and GPU are more than capable to drive all those pixels

I approve this message.

 

[demosthenes80]

I approve this message.

They're capable alright. But try working in a GPU-accelerated app and see that potential power being forced to run extra pixels that you don't need.

 

[moxxey]

I hate that kind of uninformed crap. The CPU and GPU are more than capable to drive all those pixels

Completely correct. I have no issues apart from a few sites in Chrome. Move to Safari and there are almost zero issues.

I'd keep this superb screen over a little bit of lag here and there, anytime.

 

[demosthenes80]

Completely correct. I have no issues apart from a few sites in Chrome. Move to Safari and there are almost zero issues.

I'd keep this superb screen over a little bit of lag here and there, anytime.

That's adorable, but I'm talking about using it for productivity in GPU-accelerated apps such as Motion. It's like having a V8 engine in a Mustang and then making that same engine drive a semi.

 

[Ploki]

"LOL WUT"? Seriously? Did I accidentally post in a gaming forum for 15 year olds? And it comes from a statement based on experience with the Macs in question.

----------



You mean that Motion doesn't use the GPU for previewing or on-the-fly rendering or using particle effects or replicators when building animations at 1080P HD? Hmmm, could have sworn that it did. If it did, you'd see that the GPU on the retina compared to the same GPU on the HiRes Classic MBP is taxed more heavily and therefore is burdened more under heavy animations. Or do you just watch animations and not build them? If so, I understand your confusion.

Bypassing the whole UI Lag now when proved wrong? I'm saying that the OS UI uses CPU for scaling. You had presented two issues not one.

I don't understand what are you getting at. That 1080p is magically more pixels on the retina?
The exact same amount of pixels gets rendered. Anything else is shoddy programming...

 

[robvas]

Bypassing the whole UI Lag now when proved wrong? I'm saying that the OS UI uses CPU for scaling. You had presented two issues not one.

I don't understand what are you getting at. That 1080p is magically more pixels on the retina?
The exact same amount of pixels gets rendered. Anything else is shoddy programming...

It renders double the resolution so you get lower performance at higher resolutions than you do at 'Best For Retina'

 

[demosthenes80]

It renders double the resolution so you get lower performance at higher resolutions than you do at 'Best For Retina'

This. And the fact that GPU power is being diverted to simply drive 2880x1800 whatever stupid number of pixels it has to drive just for displaying my workspace and animation window. That power would be more useful to run my GPU-aware behaviors and particle simulators instead of being wasted on quadruple the pixels on vs. a smaller workspace. It's just like gaming my friend. Games run at a higher framerate when the computer doesn't have to figure out as many pixels than at a higher resolution.

And the OS doesn't just use the CPU for UI, it uses CoreGraphics which utilizes GPU.

 

[cirus]

Its kinda funny to see everyone talking like this was a massive bump. The thing is apple never reduces their price so its seems odd, however, every other pc manufacturer does this.

The cpu bump is nothing special, intel released those never chips in november to replace the first batch of ivy brideg (refresh), every other OEM is now using them, apple is last to the table.

Frankly, considering how much the rmbp 13 cost to begin with, its now the price it should have been at launch. They still need an option for more SSD space.

 

[mrbigglessworth]

This. And the fact that GPU power is being diverted to simply drive 2880x1800 whatever stupid number of pixels it has to drive just for displaying my workspace and animation window. That power would be more useful to run my GPU-aware behaviors and particle simulators instead of being wasted on quadruple the pixels on vs. a smaller workspace. It's just like gaming my friend. Games run at a higher framerate when the computer doesn't have to figure out as many pixels than at a higher resolution.

And the OS doesn't just use the CPU for UI, it uses CoreGraphics which utilizes GPU.

You sound upset. Sorry you got a defective or have used a defective Apple product. Mine seems to work great.

 

[Asuriyan]

My 2.6/16/256 is still in the box. After this news I'm thinking of taking it to the store and swapping for a stock 2.7/16/512.

What was a $500 upgrade (256 to 512) became a $300 upgrade, nothing to sneeze at.

...anyone care to convince me to go out and spend ANOTHER $300?

 

[Djlild7hina]

They released a spec bump last year and still released the new cMBP and rMBP at WWDC so feel that this year will be the same. Unless Haswell is delayed of course. Personally I'm waiting for the Haswell revision to see what else Apple is going to add. Maybe even a price drop

 

[Ploki]

It renders double the resolution so you get lower performance at higher resolutions than you do at 'Best For Retina'

...
Shoddy programming then. It renders "2160p" for previews if you render for 1080p? That's just idiotic.

This. And the fact that GPU power is being diverted to simply drive 2880x1800 whatever stupid number of pixels it has to drive just for displaying my workspace and animation window. That power would be more useful to run my GPU-aware behaviors and particle simulators instead of being wasted on quadruple the pixels on vs. a smaller workspace. It's just like gaming my friend. Games run at a higher framerate when the computer doesn't have to figure out as many pixels than at a higher resolution.

And the OS doesn't just use the CPU for UI, it uses CoreGraphics which utilizes GPU.

If that were the case discrete GPU would fire up if integrated wasn't up for the task. Unfortunately thats not the case.

It's not a simple matter of "driving more pixels"... It's the fact that whatever 3D models are need to be rendered at quadrupled resolution. For a 3D models, that's doubling in every dimension. 2*2*2 >> octupling resolution... if you will.
And rendering a 3D object with lightening, texture mapping ETC isn't nearly comparable to rendering a 2D limited portion of screen (i am sure you are well aware that only the pixels that are changed are re-rendered...

God damn it misconceptions here are killing me...

 

[demosthenes80]

God damn it misconceptions here are killing me...

Not fast enough it would seem.

 

[adjeff8]

So, this will be the first of 756 threads about this topic.

Should I buy one now or wait to Haswell?

I don't really need one now but I would really love to have one now

As there is a spec bump update in Februar, does this mean that the Haswell update could wait until really late in 2013 (and not in June/July as was generally expected)? Why would they update now if they plan to update with Haswell in June??

Argument againt buying: there are many reported problems with the current rMBP. They don't simply go away after this spec bump update, right? Better wait for the "real" 2nd gen rMBP?

One argument for buying on now is that there is a promotion at our university right now where I can get a somewhat cheaper rMBP and cheaper AppleCare. Next promotion time is in Sept-Oct, I don't know if I can wait so long.

Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks

At first I was worried that this means there will be a delay with the 2nd Generation/Haswell 15" rMBP. But now I see it for what it is. They're just trying to get more of these 1st generation half baked machines out the door because the new ones are coming. Nice try Apple, but I'm not biting. See you in June/July/August/September

 

[bill-p]

I have Amazon delivering a 512GB ssd for my 2009 2.8GHz Core2Duo Macbook Pro. I have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for 16GB RAM and 512GB ssd prices to come down some. The prices have come down now.

Since The ssd is still to arrive at my door and I have not yet installed it, the decision as to whether to use the ssd for to wait for new MBPro has become urgent.

If it appears that MB Pro is unlikely to see much of an upgrade in the next year or so, then perhaps I should buy now.
- As I see it, retina display is already there. I care for the display.
- Ssd is already there - at best can become 10-20% cheaper.
- CPU series can be upgraded to Haswell - more battery life but I am not sure how much of a performance bump it will be.
Agree?

Also, I hope to buy a 27" retina display monitor when it becomes available. Will the current rMBP drive that?

All-in-all, it appears that the time to upgrade may be now.

Oh one more reason to wait - back-to-school sale that apple runs every year.

Thoughts? Thanks for the discussion on this timely topic!

As I see it, if you can afford the computer (sorry to sound like a broken record, but this seems to be is a big deal for some people), then go for it now.

And here's how the current rMBP work with a 3840 x 2400 display:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfBd5q_OZ7Q

If a 27" Retina display comes out, I suspect it'll run at about the same resolution. In which case, the current rMBP should handle it just fine.

 

[Woodcrest64]

Skylake - just looked it up. Seems it will be there in 2015.

I wonder if waiting that long will make my 2009 MB Pro feel slow - what with software updates etc. Generally complex software make existing machines slow.

Ssd should make the software latency go away and make the machine feel fast enough for me to use for some time. So I guess I need to at least install the ssd and see how it goes.

Yeah Skylake is still a couple of years away but I think will be a much better upgrade for you than Haswell. I have a SSD in my old Sony VAIO laptop with a core 2 duo 2.2ghz processor. For browsing the net and checking email it feels just as fast as my retina macbook pro. The only difference is doing things like video editing where I actually see a difference.

If you upgrade your 2009 Macbook Pro with an SSD you will see a huge increase in your computer's overall performance. Its amazing how much of a difference it makes. That should hold you off until 2015 unless there is something you can't do with your current machine now of course.