Apple Launches Retina MacBook Pros with Faster Haswell Processors, More RAM Standard

[MacSince1990]

And with a firmware update, current 4-slot laptops should support upto 64GiB, assuming it would be similar for the mobile chips as for the top ASUS desktop motherboards, some of which support upto 128GiB RAM now with the latest BIOS revision (oops, Mac Pro).

Eh... the old Mac Pros supported 128 GB for a long time. But 32 GB is really the upper end of what 99% of anyone needs, maybe more. And certainly anyone who owns a non-workstation ordinary PC.

How many 4-slot laptops are there? They tend to be desktop replacements.. I'm not sure laptop chipsets necessarily support 64GB though.

 

[Flight Plan]

Lack of a new CPU "Intel's fault?" Fault? Really? It takes time, resources, braintrust, and a lot of labor effort to produce a whole new class of CPU that is reliable.

I would say that Intel not having a viable competitor in the marketplace removes some level of competition and urgency, but I wouldn't go so far as to lay "fault" at Intel's doorstep.

Lack of excitement over the new rMBP specs still lies in Apple's control.

If you can't announce a new CPU because it's not yet available, then you have to do more; you have to do OTHER THINGS.

16GB RAM is nice, sure. But my 2010 Asus still has 12 GB and is upgradable to 16, so 16 in a 5-year-newer design just isn't "all that". 32 GB would be more exciting to me. Don't worry, I can use it (see below).

Bigger SSDs might be another thing Apple could do. But anything less than 2TB of internal storage won't excite people like me who have large music production sample libraries. My Asus has 2TB internal space with room in the DVD bay for another big drive. No, they're not SSD, but they are SATA 7200 RPM models, so they're pretty quick and they give me (just barely) enough room for said sample libraries. So any new laptop with less disk storage will (for me) be a big step backward, even if it is an SSD.

My Asus is a 17" model, so any Apple offering with a smaller screen would be seen by me as a downgrade too. Yeah, "even if" it's a Retina screen. I need bigger size, I want bigger size. And in a laptop, this alleviates other chassis related constraints by giving more internal space for more hard drives or a bigger battery.

I get it that CPU improvements aren't there. But CPU isn't EVERYTHING and there's lots more that Apple could do if they actually tried. Intel only makes the CPUs, but Apple makes the machine.

In my opinion, Tim Cook's leadership has passed up on some big opportunities for the rMBP line, so I hold him and Apple 100% responsible for my "meh" attitude about the latest crop. Too bad he won't meet Steve Jobs in an elevator this week...

 

[cube]

Eh... the old Mac Pros supported 128 GB for a long time. But 32 GB is really the upper end of what 99% of anyone needs, maybe more. And certainly anyone who owns a non-workstation ordinary PC.

How many 4-slot laptops are there? They tend to be desktop replacements.. I'm not sure laptop chipsets necessarily support 64GB though.

I'm talking about the nMP.

32GiB maximum in a laptop was reasonable last year. Now one has to look at 64 (to avoid being perhaps limited again at 32).

It is normal for tower workstations to take upto 512GiB RAM, you see there that 128 is desktop-level.

 

[MacSince1990]

I'm talking about the nMP.

32GiB maximum in a laptop was reasonable last year. Now one has to look at 64 (to avoid being perhaps limited again at 32).

It is normal for tower workstations to take upto 512GiB RAM, you see there that 128 is desktop-level.

Yeah, the new Mac Pros are a bit sad.

You know, memory capacity doesn't usually double every year >_>

128 GB is definitely not desktop-level... most desktops have at most four slots. And I don't know of many workstations that take up to 512 GB? Wouldn't that be like 32 mem slots?

 

[cube]

Yeah, the new Mac Pros are a bit sad.

You know, memory capacity doesn't usually double every year >_>

128 GB is definitely not desktop-level... most desktops have at most four slots. And I don't know of many workstations that take up to 512 GB? Wouldn't that be like 32 mem slots?

No, there are already workstation motherboards supporting 1TB RAM with 16 slots.

 

[MacSince1990]

Lack of excitement over the new rMBP specs still lies in Apple's control.

If you can't announce a new CPU because it's not yet available, then you have to do more; you have to do OTHER THINGS.

16GB RAM is nice, sure. But my 2010 Asus still has 12 GB and is upgradable to 16, so 16 in a 5-year-newer design just isn't "all that". 32 GB would be more exciting to me. Don't worry, I can use it (see below).

I get it that CPU improvements aren't there. But CPU isn't EVERYTHING and there's lots more that Apple could do if they actually tried. Intel only makes the CPUs, but Apple makes the machine.

In my opinion, Tim Cook's leadership has passed up on some big opportunities for the rMBP line, so I hold him and Apple 100% responsible for my "meh" attitude about the latest crop. Too bad he won't meet Steve Jobs in an elevator this week...

Apple has always updated their laptop lines with incremental updates occasionally punctuated with major ones (PowerBook --> PowerBook G3 --- PowerBook G4 ---> MBP --> Unibody -->Quad Core --> Retina).

Take a look at the late PowerBook era especially, talk about piddling updates.

This is an incremental update, the same as it's always been. I'm not sure why you'd expect more.

----------

No, there are already workstation motherboards supporting 1TB RAM with 16 slots.

Didn't know they had 64 GB dimms. Whatever though, it's really the # of slots that's important, as it isn't exactly difficult to equip a machine with a chipset/CPU that supports a ton of RAM.

 

[Flight Plan]

This is an incremental update, the same as it's always been. I'm not sure why you'd expect more.

Then you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my post very well.

Times change. MBP has been lightweight for some years now, when compared to some of the powerful gaming laptops (which are often the best ones for media creation) from other manufacturers. I am looking for parity from Apple, and that should have been obvious from my post.

 

[tmoerel]

I paid £50 to upgrade my MBP to a 1.1 TB Fusion Drive.
What are you paying for a 1TB SSD Drive?

Don't really care what i pay. I want speed and can afford it

 

[MacSince1990]

Then you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my post very well.

Times change. MBP has been lightweight for some years now, when compared to some of the powerful gaming laptops (which are often the best ones for media creation) from other manufacturers. I am looking for parity from Apple, and that should have been obvious from my post.

The only "powerful gaming laptops" that eclipse the MBP in power are--- well, Gaming Laptops. They tend to weigh about 7 lbs, and be 2 inches think. They've had those for a long time. They're desktop replacements, and the MBP isn't seeking to do what they do.

Never has. The original MBP wasn't in the same league (nope, never used 55W GPUs, much less 65W, 85W and 100W dual-GPU configs, with 4 memory slots and 2+ HDD bays, nor will they ever). The PowerBook wasn't, either. I've seen people like you whining about how Apple never uses "high-end GPUs" in their laptop line, and how "maybe, this time they'll use the Radeon X800/Radeon X1900/GeForce 8800/GeForce 280M/Radeon 79xx model in their lineup", never realizing that Apple uses 45W parts, and isn't going to change that. The "times change" comment is cute, though. As if there's never been a demand for as much power as you can possibly pack into a laptop. There's always been, and Apple's never sought to fill that very small niche. You think now that the PC market is getting smaller than ever that *NOW* might be the time they're going to start?

It is obvious you are looking for parity, however it's also obvious you're comparing Apples and Alienwares. A completely fruitless and stupid comparison. You might as well be expecting parity from Subaru with their Forrester compared to a Land Rover. Not meant for the same things.

As far as processing power goes, though, you'd be wrong. With the exception of the one or two Extreme versions of their mobile Core i7 line, Apple actually puts the most powerful laptop CPUs in their laptops, and they cost $400-500 less than their "X"-labeled brethren, with very little performance increase.

It sounds like you look at specs on paper and grumble because they don't quite match up, not realizing that real world performance differences are about nil.

Next.

Don't really care what i pay. I want speed and can afford it

His point though was that not everyone needs speed. His comment was about size, which for many trumps speed.

 

[skllzdatklls]

Sad that this is the exact model I was holding out for, a fairly irrelevant upgrade, for the last couple years. But I bought the best 2.5k MBP available and hope it can last me another 5-10 years.

So long to my 2008 17'' beauty. Curse you mac for discontinuing these, I would buy a 19'' or bigger if you sold them but perhaps I'm the only one.

 

[MacSince1990]

Sad that this is the exact model I was holding out for, a fairly irrelevant upgrade, for the last couple years. But I bought the best 2.5k MBP available and hope it can last me another 5-10 years.

So long to my 2008 17'' beauty. Curse you mac for discontinuing these, I would buy a 19'' or bigger if you sold them but perhaps I'm the only one.

You're certainly not the only one who'd like a 17" (but I think they were only selling about 50,000 per year.. or perhaps it was per quarter), but as far as 19".. yeah you might be almost alone there lol

 

[out-climbing]

Hi guys,

Part-time lurker, first time caller. I have a question for your more adept minds:

I'm long overdue for a new laptop. I'm currently writing to you on a 2007 (!!) MacBook Pro. Yeah, it's old. It's slow. It has problems.

Which should I go for?
An Apple Refurbished MacBook Pro (Oct 13) -
2.6GHz Quad-core Intel i7 with Retina Display
15.4-inch (diagonal) Retina display; 2880-by-1800 resolution at 220 pixels per inch
16GB of 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
1TB Flash Storage1
720p FaceTime HD camera
Intel Iris Pro Graphics and NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M
$2629

OR

The newest one that was released a few days ago?
2.8GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4.0GHz
16GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
1TB PCIe-based Flash Storage
Intel Iris Pro Graphics and NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M with 2GB of GDDR5 memory
$2,929 (Alumni Educational Discount)


What I do:
-Designer (mostly graphics 80% print, 20% web design, increasing amount of Industrial Design work, career change soon)
-Artist (photography, lots of processor intense work, large files, etc:.)

Is it worth the extra $300 to get the latest & greatest?

 

[MagicBoy]

It's the same machine with a slightly faster CPU and in a shiny retail box. Is the extra 0.2GHz (around 7%) of CPU speed worth $300 to you?

 

[out-climbing]

Good question, and probably not. I've been making due with this thing since 07, even the older Oct 13 model will blow me away in terms of speed increase... Going from HDD startups to flash based alone will leave me grinning.

Is there any difference in the chips themselves, or is it just a speed bump?

 

[MagicBoy]

The model ID is the same, therefore it's just a speed bumped CPU on the 2013 logic board. Same chipset, same Haswell series CPU, same nVidia GT 750M GPU.

It's a stop-gap until the next-gen Broadwell processors and chipsets arrive in the first half of 2015.

 

[out-climbing]

Thanks, I appreciate the help. I'll go for the refurb.

 

[chatin]

New "wifi" is ridiculous

Picked up a new 2.8 with 512GB SSD but the thing needs to go back. The screen is darker than previous retinas and nearly impossible to connect to wifi. Keep getting the exclamation mark in the middle of connected airport now just called "wifi" in the pref panel.

Seems like a very light and solid build but definitely do not recommend it as mine has never connected to "wifi"!

I tried putting in static numbers and google DNS but everything else works on my DSL company modem / router but this finicky bird.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk
my real complaint is still -- no matte display.

As someone who does graphics work all day long, I don't understand this argument. The diffuse glow you get on matte screens is much worse than the crystal clear image and gorgeous blacks you get from a screen behind glass. I've used both, for a long time, and I would never go back to matte screens. If reflection is an issue, just don't sit with bright lights behind you, or tilt your screen slightly.

I guess our incomprehension is mutual. For serious work, I use a large stand-alone display whenever I can anyway. Laptops, as laptops, I use in meetings and on the go. Usually, the lighting conditions are designed for reading comfort etc. and not controllable by me.

 

[Botron2014]

Please help: I need a new computer pretty bad. MBP retina is my top choice. I currently have an ipad thats been doing the job but it's just not the same as a lap top. I was under the assumption that we would be seeing a new 15in MBP with broadwell chip but instead we get a slightly upgraded 2013 model.

1) should I hold out until 2015? Will the changes be significantly different than the new 2014 model?

Or

2) should I just get a damn computer ... (2014 MBP retina 15in)

 

[MagicBoy]

If you need it now, buy it now.

 

[Konrad9]

Definitely counts as a reduction.

Praise Apple!

 

[a.phoenicis]

Please help: I need a new computer pretty bad. MBP retina is my top choice. I currently have an ipad thats been doing the job but it's just not the same as a lap top. I was under the assumption that we would be seeing a new 15in MBP with broadwell chip but instead we get a slightly upgraded 2013 model.

1) should I hold out until 2015? Will the changes be significantly different than the new 2014 model?

Or

2) should I just get a damn computer ... (2014 MBP retina 15in)

Just out of curiosity, if an iPad has been doing the job, why not consider a MacBook Air?

 

[fpsBeaTt]

Hi guys,
Is it worth the extra $300 to get the latest & greatest?

Nope.

 

[Gallion]

17" anti-glare display.
Apple please.

----------

Please help: I need a new computer pretty bad. MBP retina is my top choice. I currently have an ipad thats been doing the job but it's just not the same as a lap top. I was under the assumption that we would be seeing a new 15in MBP with broadwell chip but instead we get a slightly upgraded 2013 model.

1) should I hold out until 2015? Will the changes be significantly different than the new 2014 model?

Or

2) should I just get a damn computer ... (2014 MBP retina 15in)

DDR4 memory will be out next year. DDR3 is veeeeery old tech in terms of how fast technology usually evolves. If you can wait, you should. Although I don't know how fast Apple will use it in their computers...

If an iPad was doing the job, maybe you'd be fine with a refurb in the mean time?