Does a 13" retina MacBook Pro makes sense?

[Stetrain]

Hmmm let me revise my prediction of the rMBP 13"


$1699 price

2.1Ghz Quad Core processor (i7-3612QM)
8GB of RAM
128GB SSD (256GB BTO)
GT650M discrete GPU (mated to iGPU HD 4000)
13.3 Sharp IGZO display
Thunderbolt port
USB 3.0 ports
HDMI port
SDXC slot
63 Watt hour battery

I doubt we'll see both quad core and GT650M. That's basically pushing the limits of a 15" laptop already, I don't see how they could do it in a 13". The Sony Vaio Z is a pretty good indication of what sort of specs can be shoehorned into a thin 13" notebook. It maxes out at the 2.1Ghz Quad i7 with no dedicated GPU.

My guess:

$1699:

2.9Ghz Dual-Core i7
8GB RAM
256GB SSD

$2199:

2.1Ghz Quad Core i7
8GB RAM
512GB SSD

 

[Slivortal]

I doubt we'll see both quad core and GT650M. That's basically pushing the limits of a 15" laptop already, I don't see how they could do it in a 13". The Sony Vaio Z is a pretty good indication of what sort of specs can be shoehorned into a thin 13" notebook. It maxes out at the 2.1Ghz Quad i7 with no dedicated GPU.

My guess:

$1699:

2.9Ghz Dual-Core i7
8GB RAM
256GB SSD

$2199:

2.1Ghz Quad Core i7
8GB RAM
512GB SSD

Just to chime in, this is pretty much my guess. Those 2.1GHz QCs won't come cheap.

 

[applerepairs]

It makes sense to me...

 

[Abazigal]

What are the odds that apple might pull some stunt like a custom dual core processor with extra graphic cores for the rmbp 13", like they did with the ipad?

 

[Slivortal]

What are the odds that apple might pull some stunt like a custom dual core processor with extra graphic cores for the rmbp 13", like they did with the ipad?

It would be far worse, because all of Apple's chips are low-end SoCs (like lower-end ARM processors) that were designed as mobile processors and not full-sized processors.

You really don't want Apple pulling away from Intel chips - Apple may be able to make passable SoCs, but not powerful full-size complex processors.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Just to chime in, this is pretty much my guess. Those 2.1GHz QCs won't come cheap.

About a $30 difference between last years larger config CPU & the QC option today

I believe this years model could have been QC but Apple opted for adding 8GB of RAM standard.

Must be saving that QC chip for something else

 

[Slivortal]

About a $30 difference between last years larger config CPU & the QC option today

I believe this years model could have been QC but Apple opted for adding 8GB of RAM standard.

Must be saving that QC chip for something else

Huh. Color me wrong, then. It still would've had to be a quick turn-around time for something planned a while in advance, though. I still think the existence of QC is unlikely because the 10,2 tests showed a 2.9 GHz dual-core. Even if that was the base model, it still means that the base isn't going to have QC.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Huh. Color me wrong, then. It still would've had to be a quick turn-around time for something planned a while in advance, though. I still think the existence of QC is unlikely because the 10,2 tests showed a 2.9 GHz dual-core. Even if that was the base model, it still means that the base isn't going to have QC.

You're not wrong. It could go either way. Apple has some options if they do plan a fall release of a rMBP 13". I'm excited either way.

 

[sth]

IMHO there will definitely be a 13" Retina MacBook Pro to complete the lineup, although the "classic" unibodies will probably still be around for a while.

In terms of hardware, my guess is:

- 2560x1600 display
- DualCore CPU
- Low-end dedicated GPU

Apple has put neither a quad-core nor a dedicated GPU in the 13" uMBP. The new form factor might enable them to put one of those in, but probably not both. And because of the retina display, my guess is that they'll go for a dedicated GPU.

I wouldn't bet on a release date, since there could be several things Apple is waiting for:

- A lower-end version of nVidia's Kepler chip (the lowest-end version right now is the 640M, which is still a 32W chip)
- Cheaper panel prices (the 13" will probably be a much higher volume product than the 15")
or even
- IZGO displays (for lower power consumption)

 

[gentlefury]

Quad Core
Discrete GPU
Retina Display

Makes sense to me.

The current 13" MBP does not have a discrete GPU...what makes you think a retina version will.

I'm guessing they will discontinue the 13" MBP (since it is pretty redundant) and maybe put a slightly beefier CPU into the 13" MBA and maybe allow for 8GB ram (possibly 16) and call it a day. My guess is the 15" will be THE Macbook Pro. 11" and 13" will be MBA but will be available in more "pro" like configs. And they will update the Mac Mini and iMac to be all solid state.

 

[nuckinfutz]

The current 13" MBP does not have a discrete GPU...what makes you think a retina version will.

I'm guessing they will discontinue the 13" MBP (since it is pretty redundant) and maybe put a slightly beefier CPU into the 13" MBA and maybe allow for 8GB ram (possibly 16) and call it a day. My guess is the 15" will be THE Macbook Pro. 11" and 13" will be MBA but will be available in more "pro" like configs. And they will update the Mac Mini and iMac to be all solid state.

The current 13" MBP simple. There's no room for it.

The ODD is taking up so much space it cramps the motherboard. All Apple can do within this space is to squeeze in what they can.

Now the two most important ingredients to slimming down the notebooks is

A. Remove the ODD...it takes up way too much space.
B. Move to solid state storage in a blade configuration

Both are space saving moves what should bring back enough space to insert a dGPU if Apple chooses.

I think we're looking at the last generation of HDD/ODD based notebooks from Apple. If you need user serviceability then grab them because we're going to move to very thin Retina models with SSD as the future.

 

[gentlefury]

The current 13" MBP simple. There's no room for it.

The ODD is taking up so much space it cramps the motherboard. All Apple can do within this space is to squeeze in what they can.

Now the two most important ingredients to slimming down the notebooks is

A. Remove the ODD...it takes up way too much space.
B. Move to solid state storage in a blade configuration

Both are space saving moves what should bring back enough space to insert a dGPU if Apple chooses.

I think we're looking at the last generation of HDD/ODD based notebooks from Apple. If you need user serviceability then grab them because we're going to move to very thin Retina models with SSD as the future.

They will more than likely choose to go with more battery tho, like they did with the rMBP...since the additional battery keeps the more powerful, and more hungry display based model in line with life of previous models. I would love to see a true 13" pro model...but I don't see it happening.

 

[pgiguere1]

My guess:

$1699:

2.9Ghz Dual-Core i7
8GB RAM
256GB SSD

$2199:

2.1Ghz Quad Core i7
8GB RAM
512GB SSD

The price difference between the Core i7-3520M in the current high end 13" MBP and the Core i7-3612QM it could have had is only 32$.

For comparison, the price difference between the Core i5-3210M in this year's entry model and the Core i7-3520M in the high-end is 153$

It may be worth putting the quad in both 13" rMBP models or keeping the i5 in the entry model, since the price difference between the dual-core i7 and quad-core i7 is negligible. I think putting a quad in both makes more sense since the 13" rMBP needs to stand apart from the 13" MBA.

It wouldn't be crazy to have the same CPU in both configurations since that's already what both MBA models do. I think that just like for the MBA, it's only storage that will determine the price of each configuration.

My guess:

1599$:
2.1Ghz Quad Core i7
8GB RAM
128GB Flash Storage
Intel HD 4000 graphics
BTO option for 16GB RAM

1799$:
2.1Ghz Quad Core i7
8GB RAM
256GB Flash Storage
Intel HD 4000 graphics
BTO options for 16GB RAM, 512GB and 768GB Flash Storage


Basically for 400$ more than the 13" MBA you get the base 13" rMBP with a considerably faster CPU, same GPU and storage, twice the RAM and a much better display.

For another 400$ more than the high-end 13" rMBP you get the 15" rMBP with slightly faster CPU, much better GPU, same RAM and storage, and a bigger display with a higher resolution, which also requires a bigger battery.

 

[Slivortal]

The price difference between the Core i7-3520M in the current high end 13" MBP and the Core i7-3612QM it could have had is only 32$.

For comparison, the price difference between the Core i5-3210M in this year's entry model and the Core i7-3520M in the high-end is 153$

It may be worth putting the quad in both 13" rMBP models or keeping the i5 in the entry model, since the price difference between the dual-core i7 and quad-core i7 is negligible. I think putting a quad in both makes more sense since the 13" rMBP needs to stand apart from the 13" MBA.

It wouldn't be crazy to have the same CPU in both configurations since that's already what both MBA models do. I think that just like for the MBA, it's only storage that will determine the price.

My guess:

1599$:
2.1Ghz Quad Core i7
8GB RAM
128GB Flash Storage
Intel HD 4000 graphics
BTO option for 16GB RAM

1799$:
2.1Ghz Quad Core i7
8GB RAM
256GB Flash Storage
Intel HD 4000 graphics
BTO options for 16GB RAM, 512GB and 768GB Flash Storage

No, the issue is not the hard drive, but the FLASH STORAGE. Apple requires you to pay to upgrade from a 500GB hard drive to a 128GB SSD.

And I feel it would be crazy for both the models to have the same processor, as Apple may have already demo'd a 2.9GHz model, and Apple also likes to put processor upgrades with SSD upgrades to increase their sales. Not to mention Apple would have started designing the 13" RMBP far before the release of the 35W QCs.

The cost difference between a 2.3 GHz and a 2.6 GHz is small; why doesn't apple put a 2.6 on both? The cost difference between a 2.6 GHz and a 2.7 GHz is like $30 tops; why does Apple charge $100? I could go on, but I won't.

 

[melterx12]

Quad Core
Discrete GPU
Retina Display

Makes sense to me.

the current cMBP 13" only has dual core and no discrete GPU. I highly doubt they would add this in while at the same time trying to reduce weight/thickness and increasing battery size to compensate for the retina display.

 

[pgiguere1]

No, the issue is not the hard drive, but the FLASH STORAGE. Apple requires you to pay to upgrade from a 500GB hard drive to a 128GB SSD.

And I feel it would be crazy for both the models to have the same processor, as Apple may have already demo'd a 2.9GHz model, and Apple also likes to put processor upgrades with SSD upgrades to increase their sales. Not to mention Apple would have started designing the 13" RMBP far before the release of the 35W QCs.

The cost difference between a 2.3 GHz and a 2.6 GHz is small; why doesn't apple put a 2.6 on both? The cost difference between a 2.6 GHz and a 2.7 GHz is like $30 tops; why does Apple charge $100? I could go on, but I won't.

Of course Apple overcharge in their current SSD BTO options for the cMBP but how does it have anything to do with a 13" rMBP that would Flash storage standard? Apple almost always overcharge with their BTO options, but for the models that have integrated Flash storage standard the prices are pretty decent. The price of 128GB of SSD is also getting pretty close to a 5400RPM 2.5" 500GB HD (about 90$ vs 65$) and we can assume it will only get better by the time this 13" rMBP is launched.

As for the CPU prices, I suggest checking your facts again. The price difference between a 2.6GHz quad i7 and the 2.7GHz is 190$, not "30$ tops".

It's true that the price difference between the 2.3 and 2.6 GHz is small and that Apple could have offered the 2.6 on both models but they only put it on the high-end model to push you towards getting 512GB. Either that, or they don't want to have to keep a ton of configurations in stock, or likely a mix of both.

They could do the same and put a dual-core i7 in the base model of the 13rMBP to push sales towards the higher-end model which has more SSD (or the other way around, force you to get the big CPU even if all you want is more storage), I was just pointing out that it wouldn't be crazy like you claim since they don't do that with their MBA lines. They could have forced you to take the i7 processor when you get the high-end MBA model with more storage but they didn't, both models of each size (11" and 13") come with the exact same CPU.

 

[mohsy90]

The price difference between the Core i7-3520M in the current high end 13" MBP and the Core i7-3612QM it could have had is only 32$.

For comparison, the price difference between the Core i5-3210M in this year's entry model and the Core i7-3520M in the high-end is 153$

It may be worth putting the quad in both 13" rMBP models or keeping the i5 in the entry model, since the price difference between the dual-core i7 and quad-core i7 is negligible. I think putting a quad in both makes more sense since the 13" rMBP needs to stand apart from the 13" MBA.

It wouldn't be crazy to have the same CPU in both configurations since that's already what both MBA models do. I think that just like for the MBA, it's only storage that will determine the price of each configuration.

My guess:

1599$:
2.1Ghz Quad Core i7
8GB RAM
128GB Flash Storage
Intel HD 4000 graphics
BTO option for 16GB RAM

1799$:
2.1Ghz Quad Core i7
8GB RAM
256GB Flash Storage
Intel HD 4000 graphics
BTO options for 16GB RAM, 512GB and 768GB Flash Storage


Basically for 400$ more than the 13" MBA you get the base 13" rMBP with a considerably faster CPU, same GPU and storage, twice the RAM and a much better display.

For another 400$ more than the high-end 13" rMBP you get the 15" rMBP with slightly faster CPU, much better GPU, same RAM and storage, and a bigger display with a higher resolution, which also requires a bigger battery.

I would be really upset if the base model only came with 128GB flash storage.

 

[pgiguere1]

I would be really upset if the base model only came with 128GB flash storage.

I doubt you'd get both a quad-core CPU and 256GB of storage for 1599$.

Would you rather have a dual-core CPU with 256GB of storage for the same price? Even that would be very generous considering the price of the MBA.

For reference, a 13" MBA 256GB is 1499$ and would have a much worse display, smaller battery, half the RAM and fewer connectivity options.

More realistically a rMBP with dual-core i7 and 256GB of flash storage would have to be maybe 1699$, like Slivortal estimated previously.

EDIT: As another reference, the current i7 13" MBP is 1499$.

Having to pay only 200$ more to have a much better display, 256GB of storage instead of the HDD, bigger battery, a second thunderbolt port and HMDI seems like a pretty good deal.

 

[nuckinfutz]

the current cMBP 13" only has dual core and no discrete GPU. I highly doubt they would add this in while at the same time trying to reduce weight/thickness and increasing battery size to compensate for the retina display.

Doubt is a feeling it's not logic. There are technical reasons why the current MBP 13 doesn't have discrete graphics. Apple could have added a Quad Core processor to the high end unit (i7-3612QM) but they opted to put in another 4GB of RAM and stay with a Dual Core.

Discrete GPU aren't going to happen until the space offenders (HDD, ODD) are replaced/removed with more space efficient product.

We don't know if there needs to be a a larger battery until we know the display type. If it's IGZO then the consumption of the backplane is significantly lower than the current amorphous silicon which means a larger battery will not necessarily.

The real question is "would this be a feasible product?"

I think the signs point to yes.

There is a Quad Core Ivy Bridge CPU that fits (35 Watts)

Sharp is mass producing IGZO based LCD and have done so for a few months now.

Apple does have a new design in their Retina MBP that leverages SSD and display efficiencies in building to shrink the form factor.

As much as I love my MBA 13" I'd seriously consider a 3.5lb Quad Core MBP 13" as a replacement.

My only question at this point is "would they add discrete GPU?" They'd have enough space to since the ODD is gone.

 

[Stetrain]

My only question at this point is "would they add discrete GPU?" They'd have enough space to since the ODD is gone.

Physical space is one thing, another is thermal dissipation. The 15" RMBP is pushing the limits with a quad core CPU and a GT650M, I doubt they could pack the same kind of performance into a 13" chassis and keep it as cool.

The Sony Vaio Z (I know I keep bringing it up, but bear with me ) is a pretty good reference point. It's a recently updated slim high-performance 13" notebook with some models costing nearly $3000. The highest end configurations have a 35W quad core CPU and no dedicated GPU except in the form of an external dock.

I think that by the time you make the laptop thinner and increase the size of the battery, squeezing in a dedicated GPU is going to be tough both in physical space and in thermal envelope. It would be pretty awesome though if they could pull it off.

 

[Meever]

Wouldnt having a 1920x1200 or whatever resolution on a 13" make it dense enough for retina moniker?

I wonder how this will all even out though? Are they going to keep the Air as the entry unit? Will they drop the 13" air when the new 13" rMBP comes out? Questions questions questions.

 

[Stetrain]

Wouldnt having a 1920x1200 or whatever resolution on a 13" make it dense enough for retina moniker?

I wonder how this will all even out though? Are they going to keep the Air as the entry unit? Will they drop the 13" air when the new 13" rMBP comes out? Questions questions questions.

The most likely resolution is 2560x1600. That's a common resolution that has been used on 30" monitors for years, including Apple's own cinema displays. At 13.3" it gives roughly 220ppi, same as the 15" RMBP.

My guess is that they would discontinue the old 13" MBP before they would discontinue the 13" Air. The Air is the new mainstream consumer Macbook.

 

[Slivortal]

Doubt is a feeling it's not logic. There are technical reasons why the current MBP 13 doesn't have discrete graphics. Apple could have added a Quad Core processor to the high end unit (i7-3612QM) but they opted to put in another 4GB of RAM and stay with a Dual Core.

Discrete GPU aren't going to happen until the space offenders (HDD, ODD) are replaced/removed with more space efficient product.

We don't know if there needs to be a a larger battery until we know the display type. If it's IGZO then the consumption of the backplane is significantly lower than the current amorphous silicon which means a larger battery will not necessarily.

The real question is "would this be a feasible product?"

I think the signs point to yes.

There is a Quad Core Ivy Bridge CPU that fits (35 Watts)

Sharp is mass producing IGZO based LCD and have done so for a few months now.

Apple does have a new design in their Retina MBP that leverages SSD and display efficiencies in building to shrink the form factor.

As much as I love my MBA 13" I'd seriously consider a 3.5lb Quad Core MBP 13" as a replacement.

My only question at this point is "would they add discrete GPU?" They'd have enough space to since the ODD is gone.

While you seem to not like the word "doubt", I really doubt we'll see IGZO displays. The 13 RMBP was supposed to be launched with the 15", and I feel if we didn't see IGZO screens in July, we're not going to see IGZO screens in October.

 

[nuckinfutz]

There is nothing wrong with doubt but in the end if the day we have to look at the technical aspect to ascertain feasibility.

I can't rely on doubt as much as I can rely on hardware in short

 

[DHagan4755]

A 13 inch MacBook Pro with a retina display is as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow — it's just a matter of when this year it will be released. They're going to sell tons of them!