come on.... quad core, 16gb ram, and decent graphics power!
Dream on, if they couldn't fit it in the non-retina 13" MacBook Pro, what makes you think they'll fit it in the retina model? And before you give me the "removal of gigabit ethernet, FireWire 800, hard drives (in favor of mSATA blades), and optical drive nonsense" reasoning, let me remind you that doing so on the 15" MacBook Pro only afforded them a thinner computer for the exact same innards inside. Expect the same processors and graphics options from the current 13" MacBook Pro to be on an Ivy Bridge 13" Retina model. Any more than that is just fantasy.
Integrated graphics...hmm but it's 2560 x 1600 so hopefully the performance will still be good, especially if it launches after Haswell.
The Intel HD 4000 as it stands today can drive the 13" MacBook Pro's 1280x800 display as well as two 2560x1400 thunderbolt displays. I think that if it is the sole player in a 13" rMBP, it will be JUST fine.
If this article pans out it look like that in 2013 the MacBook Family will comprise of 4 machines:
11"Retina MacBook Air
13" Retina MacBook Air
13" Retina Macbook Pro
15" Retina MacBook Pro
With all 4 only haviing SSD only and all with no optical drive and Ethernet.
Personally, I'm ok with that since I own the Retina 15" Macbook Pro. But I've read a lot of people prefer the legacy stuff still and find having the choice of Classic and Retina a good thing.
What's gonna happen when that choice is eliminated next year?
Unfortunately, we'll just have to suck it up, buy the USB SuperDrive or some better priced and more durable alternative and press on. Gotta love Apple!
will the components be maxed out like the 15 inch version (lag etc..)...might wait to buy the haswell version?
The components aren't maxed out. You are experiencing lag because Apple's software team did a poor job coding for HiDPI; the GPUs both have no problem outputting the pixels, Apple just has problems telling them how to draw the image on the screen.
Nice. Though I already have my new 13" Air it'll be just great next year when the Rev. B comes out. Can't wait to see its specs though. Hopefully it's a dedicated GPU as well as the integrated one. Or if not, at least let it be fast enough to not be laggy.
Also hopefully it has the same options as the 15" including the 16GB RAM option and 256GB SSD baseline.
Again, the lag is a software problem, not a hardware problem. The current GPUs are both more than powerful enough.
I hope it has a dedicated graphics..
I tested the 15 inch retina for a week. The integrated graphics would give u headache while scrolling as it is so slow and sluggish, everything drags especially on Facebook. When integrated was off for better performance, using the dedicated graphics was much better but not as fast as my last yr 13 inch mbp... so unfortunate.
Does anybody know if the current Graphics card in the retina MBP the most powerful one?
Again, software problem, not hardware problem. Those integrated graphics are more than sufficient for outputting that many pixels. The graphics card in any MacBook Pro is never the most powerful that you'll find in a laptop. They are, however, the most powerful that you can put in a laptop that thin. You guys all wanted thinner notebooks, well, that's the price you pay for them.
I highly doubt that this will get quad core.
Most likely integrated nvida + dual core top of the line i7.
Sadly, Intel pretty much kicked NVIDIA out of doing integrated graphics for their machines. It stopped after Core 2 did. Still though, Intel's IGPs are getting better, albeit slowly, but still surely.
I'm very desperate for a new laptop (running a once-beautiful, now-salvaged 15'' santa rosa) and I've been waiting so patiently to pull the trigger on a 13'' retina of any kind.
Would it be foolish of me to go with Ivy Bridge?
The more I read, the more I feel I NEED to wait for Haswell.
But then again, when Haswell arrives, I'm sure I'll convince myself I need to wait for what's next.
As for most Apple users, this is quite an investment for me, and I def plan on keeping my next laptop for a minimum of 2 years.
So is it really worth waiting for Haswell? Would I be making a big mistake by going with Ivy B?
Is there anyone who can explain the real difference to me "for dummies"? What noticeable differences will I encounter?
Intel publishes their roadmaps way ahead of time; Ivy Bridge was well known about before Sandy Bridge hit the market. There's always something better ahead. As for whether to wait for Haswell before buying a retina machine, I think that debate has little to do with Haswell itself and more to do with how long it takes Apple to fully optimize their software for retina; if that coincides with the release of Haswell rMBPs, then that is just coincidence. Otherwise, think of them as incremental speed bumps. Ivy Bridge didn't bring that much more to the table than Sandy, save for native USB 3 support.
Please stick in a discrete graphics card and allow scaling to 1680x1050...please...
Then it will literally be the laptop I have been waiting for apple to make since forever. Super portable (13"), excellent screen, super powerful (i5, 8GB RAM, SSD, discrete graphics.)
If they don't have room for the discrete graphics now, what makes you think that they'll have room for it when they make the machine even thinner? And no, removing the optical drive and replacing it with thinness almost cancels out whatever effort you could chalk up to "allowing for discrete graphics".
GT 650m is possible with the removal of optical drive. Still kinda silly how Apple isn't pushing for Thunderbolt graphics given they are the first to use it.
No, it's not. Removing the optical drive allows you to do only one thing; either give it graphics, or make it thinner. Case in point, when they removed the optical drive on the 15" for the retina model, the innards were identical to the non-retina model; not faster. So, if you want a thin and light retina 13" MBP, you won't be getting it with a discrete GPU. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
and the HD4K will run this insane res on the 13inch?
Yes. The HD 4000 can power a current 13" MacBook Pro and two Thunderbolt displays (1280x800 + 2[2560x1400]) which is way more than that panel would be on its own.
That's because yours is on 2.6 i7 and 16GB of RAM
. I got the same spec on the non-Retina as well and 70 FPS in standard resolution gaming is not difficult, although it struggles a bit on HD gaming.
It seems to me the CPU is more important than the GPU that the machine has. That 2.6 i7 is a nuclear weapon, while the 2.3 i7 may struggle to keep up with the high res display.
300 MHz doesn't make that large of a difference, I'm sorry. It's not 1999 anymore.
The only thing I really want to see is an (even more) simplified product line. I'd like to see something like this as the end goal:
Retina displays across the board.
11" MBA
-dual core processor
-integrated graphics
13" MBA
-step up dual core processor
-step up integrated graphics
13" MBP
-quad core processor
-dedicated graphics
15" MBP
-step up quad core processor
-step up dedicated graphics
The MBA and MBP lines need to be distinguished from each other, otherwise there's too much overlap in the 13" models. IMO this would be the best way to do it.
You won't see quad-core CPUs and dedicated graphics in the 13" rMBP. You might see quad-core CPUs down the line, but dedicated graphics, you won't. As for your thing to keep the 13" rMBP separate from the 13' MBA, you'll have much faster non-ULV processors in the rMBP whereas you will only have ULV in the MBA.
Ya, I really hope the new MBP13's have a replaceable battery.
Anyone know what CPU is expected in the next MBP13? I'm really hoping that if they stick with integrated graphics we can get at least the Intel HD 4000 graphics instead of the crappy 3000.
Intel HD 4000 is built into the Ivy Bridge CPUs in the same way that the Intel HD 3000 is built into the Sandy Bridge CPUs. You've got nothing to worry about there. HD 3000 is history.
