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.
Apple Updates Retina MacBook Pros With New Processors and Faster PCIe Flash Storage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So is what you're suggesting that 4GB is plenty and anything above that overkill? Im not very tech savvy but only having 4GB would make me possibly over cautious of my different processes that were running. Having a bit more RAM must have some noticeable effect, right?
I missed that, thanks for pointing it out. That's a petty thing for Apple to do to save a few dollars. 8GB should be the minimum for non upgradeable RAM just as 32GB should be the minimum storage for the iPads.
Free memory has no effect. It just sits there waiting to be filled. Inactive memory has no effect. Its just waits to become active again or be written back to disk. Thats why Mavericks introduced Compressed Memory. It is obviously faster to compress and decompress inactive memory in CPU, than writing and reading it back from SSD. You still want to avoid that, so you still would prefer to have more memory. For normal computing: 4 GB is enough, 8 GB is plenty, more is overkill. But would you note the difference between enough and plenty? I doubt it. There is no more spinning disk that needs to speed up and no reading head that needs to drive into position. Accessing random data is much faster with SSDs. If something isn't in the RAM, it will get there in mere split seconds. There used to be a big penalty of not having enough RAM. And now I feel you can risk living on the edge and settle with enough.
As a current Early 2011 MBP owner (the loaded, high res version), yes I upgraded it. But I did it all right when I got it. Yanked the Optical drive & moved the HDD there & slapped in an SSD. Then added more RAM. I haven't done a thing to it since. I did the same thing with my previous MBP & PowerBook before that. But it was almost always in the first few months of ownership, and only because Apple's upgrade prices were a bit exorbitant.
So, I am perfectly ok with the new rMBPs being "non-upgradeable." Especially since their prices aren't really that bad on upgrades anymore. A 512GB SSD starts at $380 or so. Yes, that's $120 less than Apple charges to go from 512GB to 1TB, but Apple's is faster. & a 1TB SSD drive is in the $600-1100 range. So, I'll buy it loaded & replace it when something compelling comes out.
That said, I'm not ordering until close to the end of the year, at the earliest.
----------
Actually, they aren't. Considering inflation, these rMBPs are probably cheaper than toilet seat iBooks of days gone by.
So, I am perfectly ok with the new rMBPs being "non-upgradeable." Especially since their prices aren't really that bad on upgrades anymore. A 512GB SSD starts at $380 or so. Yes, that's $120 less than Apple charges to go from 512GB to 1TB, but Apple's is faster. & a 1TB SSD drive is in the $600-1100 range. So, I'll buy it loaded & replace it when something compelling comes out.
That said, I'm not ordering until close to the end of the year, at the earliest.
----------
Actually, they aren't. Considering inflation, these rMBPs are probably cheaper than toilet seat iBooks of days gone by.
Looks like Dell will be besting Apple with their new XPS line. 3200 x 1800 display in the 15" and 2560 x 1440 in an 11" display. Those should look very sweet!
Have to see what other goodies Dell includes when they release them. I'm sure I'll be able to pick one up for less than $2600.
Have to see what other goodies Dell includes when they release them. I'm sure I'll be able to pick one up for less than $2600.
I really don't like Apple's pricing, it's scammy to me. They want people to think it's cheaper when they've taken the GPU out of a $2000 "pro" laptop and put in a slower CPU. So if you're anything other than a light user (who would likely look at the 13"our air anyway), you're sort of forced to choose the higher end configuration.
The whole "no dedicated GPU till the $2599, then we give you a GPU that comes in $899 PCs" is a bit ridiculous.
THIS. I really didn't think Apple would stoop that low... I know they always overprice things because of their exclusivity but damn. This is like another iPhone 5C fiasco basically. Tim cook must be seeing the world through dollar signs instead of pleasing his customers...
It is like a 5c! I realize that after the success and without a strong leader or foresight, Apple doesn't know exactly how to proceed from here. However, clever (scammy) pricing and gimmicks haven't ever been the things to put big money in the bank. This strategy basically says "we think you're too stupid to notice," and indeed the press is focused more on the list price than what's missing.
Apple forgot they called it MacBook PRO!
Why the 13" is still behind? because it's smaller???
Why can't I have the 13" with the same processor (including Iris PRO)?
Ok, I get it, there is not enough room for additional GPU, but the quad cpu takes the same space!
Why do I need to carry 2Kg laptop when I can have 1.5Kg laptop with the same configuration?
Either you call it Macbook Pro or keep it as Macbook! not having quad option in 2013 (almost 2014) is embarrassing.
Why the 13" is still behind? because it's smaller???
Why can't I have the 13" with the same processor (including Iris PRO)?
Ok, I get it, there is not enough room for additional GPU, but the quad cpu takes the same space!
Why do I need to carry 2Kg laptop when I can have 1.5Kg laptop with the same configuration?
Either you call it Macbook Pro or keep it as Macbook! not having quad option in 2013 (almost 2014) is embarrassing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, that's why it's still a $100 cheaper even when you count in the RAM, they made iWork and mavericks free... They lower prices and still everyone complains. Wow.
You mean that one of the previous 4-5 generations of the 13" MBP had a dedicated GPU? Remind me, which one was it?
The 13" uses components that have lower power consumption, like a dual-core CPU, and eliminates unnecessary (for the target audience) components like a dedicated GPU. Most 13" notebook users are light users who just want the most portable solution with the longest battery life. This is in essence what the 13" MBP is. Anyway, who wants to game on a 13" screen?
I would have thought a dGPU makes sense in the lower 15" but I am sure Apple has data that the majority of the people wanting the dGPU go for the higher end version anyways. There will always be some people left behind. It sucks for those I am sure but they exist for profit after all.
I need to take a desition... what do you think?
Opc 1:
Refurbished (Feb 2013) 15.4-inch MacBook Pro 2.7GHz Quad-core Intel i7 16GB RAM - 512SSD with Retina Display u$s 2169
Opc 2:
New! 15.4-inch 2.0GHz 16GB RAM - 256GB PCIe-based flash with Retina display U$s 2199
Which one is a best/faster combination inter components?
Help!
Opc 1:
Refurbished (Feb 2013) 15.4-inch MacBook Pro 2.7GHz Quad-core Intel i7 16GB RAM - 512SSD with Retina Display u$s 2169
Opc 2:
New! 15.4-inch 2.0GHz 16GB RAM - 256GB PCIe-based flash with Retina display U$s 2199
Which one is a best/faster combination inter components?
Help!
Umm, no? You seem to have misread or something. I said that the 15" rMBP until now had a dGPU, as it should, given the price, positioning and "Pro" label.
Now, the 15" rMBP base model no longer has that, and has a crappier CPU as well. If that is aimed at a casual user (which I'd argue, is), I think that said casual user would probably be looking at a 13" MBP or Air... why would they want to spend $800+ extra?
Apple is forcing those who want a dGPU to spend a lot more, and not for a super high-end GPU either. And for me (and a lot of other Mac users), I want the GPU for video editing, not gaming.
I don't like that they call the 13" "Pro" with a dual-core CPU and no dGPU, but at least it's relatively cheap compared to this stripper 15" rMBP.
----------
Option one is better in many ways.
i) much faster CPU
ii) you have a dGPU for video/photo work or gamign
iii) 512GB SSD! Nice!
The new one will have slightly better battery life and slightly faster SSD.
Now, the 15" rMBP base model no longer has that, and has a crappier CPU as well. If that is aimed at a casual user (which I'd argue, is), I think that said casual user would probably be looking at a 13" MBP or Air... why would they want to spend $800+ extra?
Apple is forcing those who want a dGPU to spend a lot more, and not for a super high-end GPU either. And for me (and a lot of other Mac users), I want the GPU for video editing, not gaming.
I don't like that they call the 13" "Pro" with a dual-core CPU and no dGPU, but at least it's relatively cheap compared to this stripper 15" rMBP.
----------
Option one is better in many ways.
i) much faster CPU
ii) you have a dGPU for video/photo work or gamign
iii) 512GB SSD! Nice!
The new one will have slightly better battery life and slightly faster SSD.
OMG apple, whyyyy? I was in market for notebook in the summer and hoped for new retina mb pro... but only airs were updated so I went for MB air, 13incher 256 ssd and 8gigs and yesterday, new mb pro with the same specs costs identically.. great update, but late for me
Or it's a pricing strategy geared towards getting people to spend more, so Apple makes more money. Someone could have gotten away with the base 15" rMBP, but now has to go to the $2600 option. Cheaper products usually sell in higher numbers than more expensive ones, so I doubt that the higher-end configuration was outselling the base model.
I guess we will never know. See I am in the other camp. I just really need the HD space so for me only the high end makes sense. Do I like having to pay over three grand for a notebook that I can't even upgrade when higher capacity drives come out? No, but currently that's what it is. Apple is being aggressive in making tech obsolete. Integrated graphics will soon be good enough so that only few people will need a dGPU and they think that with their cloud services they can survive until the SSDs come down in price. For me personally it is a shame because the increase in space for SSDs is going too slow and will hit an inevitable wall at some point in the not too distant future. So I am in the screwed camp as I will have to pay $3000 for a laptop that will need to be replaced in 2 years while I was on a 4 year cycle up till now.
Apple lowered the price by lowering the CPU speed.
Notice on the 15" base model has gone from 2.5 mhz to 2.0 mhz. I have a late 2011 MBP quad core 2.2 mhz i7 with 16 gigs of ram and a hybrid 750GB drive. I'm sure that the new machines are faster, but I'd love to compare my machine to the base model. To get the same ram and hard drive capacity I'd have to spend over 3 grand! Not cool!
Notice on the 15" base model has gone from 2.5 mhz to 2.0 mhz. I have a late 2011 MBP quad core 2.2 mhz i7 with 16 gigs of ram and a hybrid 750GB drive. I'm sure that the new machines are faster, but I'd love to compare my machine to the base model. To get the same ram and hard drive capacity I'd have to spend over 3 grand! Not cool!
I believe Iris Pro (5200) has 128 mb VRAM embedded just for its use. On top of this it uses the machine RAM up to 1gb...
----------
why shout? Surely Apple isn't holding you at knife end to buy their machines. There is plenty of choice out there in the wild.
There are at least a handful of reasons why there is no Qoad on the 13"...battery, internal space, heating, differentiate from 15", price...