This is gonna sound funny but I don't actually feel that bad about having the low-end 15 inch old generation rmbp now since the new low-end macbook pro 15 inch is purported to only have an extra hour of battery life (which you could probably achieve if you upgrade to mavericks for free), no discrete graphics card for the low-end version, and slower processor speed. Even the 802.11ac, faster flash and thunderbolt 2 doesn't seem to make up for it imo.
This is gonna sound funny but I don't actually feel that bad about having the low-end 15 inch old generation rmbp now since the new low-end macbook pro 15 inch is purported to only have an extra hour of battery life (which you could probably achieve if you upgrade to mavericks for free), no discrete graphics card for the low-end version, and slower processor speed. Even the 802.11ac, faster flash and thunderbolt 2 doesn't seem to make up for it imo.
It's funny how they say they reduced the price of MBP, but you get much less for what you pay for, like loosing the discrete graphics...
I think they screwed up the specs page. The other explanation doesn't make any sense. Currently:
Base model without dGPU ($1999) + 2,3Ghz + 16GB Ram + 512GB flash = $2599
Top-end model with dGPU [and 2,3Ghz, 16GB, 512GB] = $2599
In addition, we had those leaks from that chinese website which turned out to be spot on. Those only spoke of three versions: 2,0Ghz without dGPU and 2,3Ghz/2,6Ghz with dGPU.
Take it with a grain of salt but I think that the 2,3Ghz and 2,6Ghz implicitly give you the 750m as well. Reason: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/18191789/
Or does anyone have a better explanation?
This is gonna sound funny but I don't actually feel that bad about having the low-end 15 inch old generation rmbp now since the new low-end macbook pro 15 inch is purported to only have an extra hour of battery life (which you could probably achieve if you upgrade to mavericks for free), no discrete graphics card for the low-end version, and slower processor speed. Even the 802.11ac, faster flash and thunderbolt 2 doesn't seem to make up for it imo.
It does seem odd that they have a hyphen where the dGPU would go. Maybe they miscoded? If so i'll be a lot happier.
how does my classic macbook have a graphics card but the 15 inch retina that cost 1999 doesn't. wtf ? i was thinking about upgrading too
Nope, sorry, two models for 15" with the one that comes with 16GB of Ram as standard having Iris Pro + 750 while the one that comes with 8 standard only has Iris, regardless of what you upgrade the processor to.
Need some help here. I am reading this info about no discrete graphics on lower end new MacBooks Pro. I only use my computer for web surfing, emails, iMovie, iPhoto, Skype, etc... Should I care about discrete graphics? I just ordered the new 13" with 16mb so I think I will be good for couple years. Right?
Need some help here. I am reading this info about no discrete graphics on lower end new MacBooks Pro. I only use my computer for web surfing, emails, iMovie, iPhoto, Skype, etc... Should I care about discrete graphics? I just ordered the new 13" with 16mb so I think I will be good for couple years. Right?
It does seem odd that they have a hyphen where the dGPU would go. Maybe they miscoded? If so i'll be a lot happier.
I'm checking the refurbished, and at least where 15 inches are concerned the 650M graphic is identical in performance to the Iris Pro, but more battery draining I suspect. It comes down to whether I'm willing to go from 15 inch to 13 inch, and being a photo enthusiast who uses Aperture, not convinced if I can be comfortable with 2 inches less screen space.