I would definitely buy a new 17-inch MacBook Pro. In a heartbeat. I wish they'd bring it back. I'm writing this on my 17-inch MacBook Pro that I bought in April 2009.
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.
Dreaming of a 17" 4K Retina MacBook Pro.
- Thread starter pedrofan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your wish has been granted, an igzo 4K 30" is out by sharp, already shipping in the us too, albeit unofficially (it will officially ship in a couple of weeks). It will set you back about $4200-$4500 though and I am not sure how well the retina mbp gfx card will be able to run it. Maybe it will be a pipe dream to expect it to run it at anything over 30hz with a single dp cable. Even the best gfx cards have reportedly a hard time with it.
And also forget about running it in any scaled, ie. non best for retina, mode, at best you can just run it as 1080p as pixel doubled.
What would be real fun, as in seeing your rmbp choke fun, is if you tried to run both internal and external monitors in scaled custom hidpi modes...lol, that would be fun, spending about a ten minutes trying to move a window from one screen to the other.
Having said that I am with you in dreaming about a future time with an rmbp with a gfx decent enough to run a 4k external monitor, and a 4k external monitor around the $2000-$2500 price mark. But I guess we won't be seeing any of that until late 2014, early 2015.
That's a pretty nice monitor, but 3840x2160 is not really "retina" -- that's only double HD each direction , rather than double a normal high resolution like 2560x1600. I'm sure the rMBP won't even blink serving the Sharp, as it has no problem serving two 2560x1600 monitors at the same time as its own 2880x1800.
What would be nice would be double resolution, nearer 5000x3000.
What would be nice would be double resolution, nearer 5000x3000.
Retina for any Apple device is double the regular resolution on either measurement. For the 17" rMBP that would be double 1920x1080, so 3840x2160, not near 5000x3000.
I think they were referring to the 30" sharp monitor mentioned above. 4K would definitely be qualify for 'retina' on a 17" display, but not on a 30".
According to apple's formula to calculate viewing distance and retina-ness it is retina. Trust me it the rmbp will choke to run this monitor at the normal @60hz, the best in class gpus are struggling too, it's one thing to "support" 4k, and another thing to actually support 4k.
As far as 5000x3000 goes, of course I d' love it too, but we are a long, long, long way from there. It's been more than 10 years after the over 180 ppi t221 and the best anyone's come up with is sharp with just barely over 135ppi on a desktop monitor. The resolution you mentioned is astronomical in comparison.
How do you figure that, given that the rMBP runs two 2560x1600 displays and a 2880x1800 happily? 3840x2160 is about the same as that pair. Admittedly 5000x3000 is pretty meaty, but is not a lot more pixels than a fully connected rMBP (and you could always switch off the laptop's screen).
"Retina" being adjusted depending on viewing distance can be misleading -- sometimes Apple call viewing distances to suit their calculations. A good 30" monitor can be viewed at 12" quite comfortably, and pixels are clear.
Also, for 1920x1200 HiDPI the MBP has to render 3840x2400 and then scale it down to 2880x1800... and it does this without breaking a sweat
on the integrated GPU.
I don't see it having a problem doing the same on an external display.
I don't see it having a problem doing the same on an external display.
Indeed. And a 17" MBP @ 3840x2400 would perform even better than an otherwise identical 15" MBP when rendering at 1920x1200 HiDPI as it would not require the downsampling interpolation step that Apple seems to be having so much trouble doing efficiently right now.
Also, it would be nice if Apple could convince GPU manufacturers to add the ability to map the 1440x900/1920x1200 low resolution directly onto the high res display by direct pixel doubling, without linear interpolation. That would be the best option for displaying graphically intensive games without any scaling overhead, and most likely could be done with just a small tweak of the drivers.
Extending that idea, you could even run at the even lower, but still common gaming resolution of 1280x800 by direct mapping of 3x3 pixel blocks onto a 17" retina screen. However, for the 15", that would be 960x600, which is probably a bit low for most people.
Last edited:
That's your opinion about it not breaking any sweat, others disagree with this assessment though.
Reports from others running the sharp monitor are saying that even some of the best desktop class gpus struggle with it, and we are not talking about scrolling through some graphic intensive site (which the rmbp has been known to sweat quite a lot with) we are talking about fps rates.
I do know that the rmbp can run the T221 though. But that's a very low hz monitor, maxing at 30 or so.
Very well put!
Thank you, it was too premium pricing and boutique item pricing. Those of us who paid the premium are totally satisfied and still producing a lot of work on our 17" MacBook Pros. Bring them back already Apple
Thank you, it was too premium pricing and boutique item pricing. Those of us who paid the premium are totally satisfied and still producing a lot of work on our 17" MacBook Pros. Bring them back already Apple
Yes, it is my opinion. I mean, I'm using it and have yet to notice stuttering (stuttering that is unrelated to having to load more elements of a website over a slow internet connection). And even if the integrated gpu would NOT suffice - the 650M is MUCH faster and should have NO problems whatsoever.
3D gaming at full res is another topic, though...
I think it would make sense to have a 17" again if they can pull the 15" down to the sub-$2,000 price range, leaving the 17" as the gaming/video editing powerhouse over $2 grand.
I could see:
11" MBA - $799
13" MBA - $999
13" rMBP - $1,299, $1,499
15" rMBP - $1,799, $1,999
17" rMBP - $2,299, $2,799
I would love to see one, only I fear Apple will stick to the same old recipe, larger display with higher resolution little else. Personally I would prefer Apple designed the 17" to be more of a mobile workstation offering many options similar to the ThinkPad 530`s. The lack of differentiation always put me off the 17".
I recently came across a new unused Late 2011 17" MBP and although it`s heavily discounted and was tempted, I rather felt I was buying into yesteryear`s tech and barring the display the 17" offers little over my Late 2011 15" let alone my 15" Retina.
Realistically Apple dropped the 17" due to poor sales, nor are they shy of asking a premium prices. So for me the chances are slight of a comeback, as too few are in need of such a large portable...
I recently came across a new unused Late 2011 17" MBP and although it`s heavily discounted and was tempted, I rather felt I was buying into yesteryear`s tech and barring the display the 17" offers little over my Late 2011 15" let alone my 15" Retina.
Realistically Apple dropped the 17" due to poor sales, nor are they shy of asking a premium prices. So for me the chances are slight of a comeback, as too few are in need of such a large portable...
I'm not sure about a 4k screen but I think a 17 MBPr is a possibility. I was talking to a manager at an Apple store and they said that the 17" MBP outsold the Mac Pros. Apple is still making the Mac Pros so I think Apple will bring back the 17" at some point.
I do think a 17" MBPr would be a very nice machine. I think when the 17" retina displays are available, reliable, and cost effective, I think Apple will release such a machine.
-P
I do think a 17" MBPr would be a very nice machine. I think when the 17" retina displays are available, reliable, and cost effective, I think Apple will release such a machine.
-P
A retina 17" would be double the resolution on both dimensions of the regular 17", so double 1920x1080 or 3840x2160, also known as 4K.
1920x1200, so 3840x2160. Which is more than 4K.
16:10 AR, not 16:9. Although many people seem to want Apple to go to 16:9 AR, I think the majority recognise that 16:10 is better for everything except watching movies or new TV shows, which a normal TV is better at anyway.
And I'm sure that the fraction of people who want to buy a 17" MBP at 16:9 over 16:10 is much smaller than the other sizes as well, as it is predominantly a work notebook.
If by dual you mean SLI/Xfire, doubt that would ever happen, that there is a super battery drainer
I actually wouldn't be surprised if a future 17" rMBP had a 16:9 display.
Since Apple keeps the keyboards and trackpads the same size on all of their notebooks, I think it would work well to have the 17" model be not much deeper than the 15".
A 16:9 4k display is still a ton of resolution. The default mode would be 'looks like 1920x1080' but like other retina models it would have higher scaled resolution modes as well.
Since Apple keeps the keyboards and trackpads the same size on all of their notebooks, I think it would work well to have the 17" model be not much deeper than the 15".
A 16:9 4k display is still a ton of resolution. The default mode would be 'looks like 1920x1080' but like other retina models it would have higher scaled resolution modes as well.
Later, maybe if UHD 4K video edition becomes "popular" you will see a 4K display on a Retina Mac Pro, iMac / MacBook. not earlier.
Now Apple has programmed 4K displays for it iMac (pro?) but to support 4K on Thunderbolt you must wait until next year, new Mac Pro may support 4K UHD by using HDMI 1.4 port on the video Card, but no on Thunderbolt this year, and next year you wont see this on a laptop, most because the new Thunderbolt that supports 4K UHD will not be available until 2014 Maybe on Late 2014 models as the rest of the line.
BTW UHD will not have market presence anyway until well into the next year.
Now Apple has programmed 4K displays for it iMac (pro?) but to support 4K on Thunderbolt you must wait until next year, new Mac Pro may support 4K UHD by using HDMI 1.4 port on the video Card, but no on Thunderbolt this year, and next year you wont see this on a laptop, most because the new Thunderbolt that supports 4K UHD will not be available until 2014 Maybe on Late 2014 models as the rest of the line.
BTW UHD will not have market presence anyway until well into the next year.
I would argue that the reason the 17" MBP didn't sell well is due to them not understanding it correctly.
They treated the 17" MacBook Pro like a larger 15". Apart from the extra screen size there is very little else different. An extra USB port. That's about it.
If I was designing a 17" Retina MBP the first thing I'd do is include a 2nd SSD. Two sticks instead of one. That would take storage to 2x256GB / 2x512GB or 2x768GB. RAID0 and RAID1 support to boost performance or reliability.
I would also offer it with Mobile Quadro / FireGL graphics as a BTO option. These are the kinds of features that professionals looking to purchase a 17" notebook want otherwise there is no point paying the price premium over the 15" because all the features are the same.
Now as a creative professional I love large screens as my signature can attest with the 3x30" 2560x1600 displays and my 17" Unibody MBP. I would kill to have a 4K resolution rMBP 17" - I'd be willing to spend £2,800 one of those. Apple just needs to understand the market they are selling to. They killed the 17" because it wasn't selling but it wasn't selling because they didn't make it an attractive proposition.