Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

For those on the fence -- early vs. late 2011 vs. 2012 MBP

S

swartzfeger

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 9, 2012
43
6
Been seeing quite a few posts here and elsewhere on people trying to decide between buying a MBP now, or waiting for the Ivy Bridge 2012 MBPs, which may or may not be redesigned, may or may not be retina display, may/may not drop the ODD etc etc.

I'm in the same boat -- running a late 2006 17" MBP w/ ATI X1600 (which, btw, is being dropped from ML 10.8). I'd love to have a retina display, could care less about having an ODD and think an MBA-inspired MBP would be great as long as it keeps the battery life and discrete GPU.

Sounds like Ivy Bridge shipments have been delayed and we may not be seeing new MBPs until WWDC. And I'm fed up with waiting.

Macmall has deep discounts on the early 2011s, and they just dropped in price *again* (just received a new email from them).

An early 2011 17" 2.2 glossy is going for $1814 by using that other rumor site's promo discount. The early 2011 17" 2.3 matte is $2033.

A brand new 17" just a hair over $1800 is pretty hard to pass up. Looks like I'm ordering an early 2011 17" this Wednesday.
 
I shall be getting a (summer) 2012 MacBook, because that's when I'm off to university. It's tempting to get the current models, but I know I'll regret it when the 2012s come out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you need a computer now, no reason to wait, the options available today are great and will last for years.

However, if you can wait a few more months, why not? It's very likely that new MBP's will be released around the same time as Mountain Lion. It won't be more than a few months, so if you current laptop is still working, I would wait it out. Worst case scenario, you don't like the new MBP's, and the older 2011 models will be discounted even further.

IMO, no sense in upgrading until you either have to, or your money is burning a hole in your pocket.
 
Squashy said:
I shall be getting a (summer) 2012 MacBook, because that's when I'm off to university. It's tempting to get the current models, but I know I'll regret it when the 2012s come out.
Click to expand...

Eh, I hear ya. Given the CPU bump though it's not worth waiting for it (for me). I would/will be kicking myself if the retinas hit the MBP line as rumored.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
swartzfeger said:
Eh, I hear ya. Given the CPU bump though it's not worth waiting for it (for me). I would/will be kicking myself if the retinas hit the MBP line as rumored.
Click to expand...

Ivy Bridge also will have USB 3.0 built into it, and variable TDP so battery life should be even better then today's models. The integrated GPU is reported to be better as well. With the MBP we still expect a discreet GPU but with a better integrated one, its still an improvement when running on the integrated one.

The bottom line is Ivy Bridge does not just represent a faster cpu but other refinements. Whether they're worth it to you is a matter of opinion and personal preference.
 
maflynn said:
Ivy Bridge also will have USB 3.0 built into it, and variable TDP so battery life should be even better then today's models. The integrated GPU is reported to be better as well. With the MBP we still expect a discreet GPU but with a better integrated one, its still an improvement when running on the integrated one.

The bottom line is Ivy Bridge does not just represent a faster cpu but other refinements. Whether they're worth it to you is a matter of opinion and personal preference.
Click to expand...
I may just build a hackintosh or get an osx Lion virtual machine or somethingg and use it under VMWare. That way I'll still have access to Lion in a laptop. But this is illegal and it wouldn't be the same. :( Hmmmm...
 
Liquinn said:
. But this is illegal and it wouldn't be the same. :( Hmmmm...
Click to expand...

Its not illegal unless you don't buy a license. Its against the EULA if you install it on non apple hardware but that doesn't equate to illegal
 
maflynn said:
Its not illegal unless you don't buy a license. Its against the EULA if you install it on non apple hardware but that doesn't equate to illegal
Click to expand...
Ahh I see. Thanks for clearing that up. :p A virtual mac won't be the same though or a hackintosh. But it's better than spending 2k+ to find out the 2012 mbps get updated with lots of new features.

I'm getting sick of waiting now. :(
 
Last edited:
I bought my system now as I need it now. Unless you need it now, don't buy it...merely because that phrase can cover not just this topic but pretty much any topic in life! The 2012 MBPs probably won't be around until June or July time, so that is a hell of a wait...it'll be a great upgrade, but it isn't exactly what I would personally describe as "round the corner". A good amount of time away is fair to say.
 
this post reminds me of the post i saw in june 2011. should i wait to upgrade to 2012 macbook pro. holy hell that was 8 months ago and people were asking the same question then.
 
Acorn said:
this post reminds me of the post i saw in june 2011. should i wait to upgrade to 2012 macbook pro. holy hell that was 8 months ago and people were asking the same question then.
Click to expand...

And before that, the prior revision. This is a common question, that keeps popping up as we get closer to an expected refresh.

The biggest difference is that we know intel's roadmap. Back in the PPC days any updates to the chipset (which were few and far apart) was more hush hush
 
If the 2012 MacBook Pro is anything less than the second coming of the messiah, MR is likely to explode and the Samaritans phone lines will melt.

Me? I'm very happy with the current model.
 
swartzfeger said:
Eh, I hear ya. Given the CPU bump though it's not worth waiting for it (for me). I would/will be kicking myself if the retinas hit the MBP line as rumored.
Click to expand...

Lol?

Retina on a Macbook Pro? Do you guys even know the maximum resolution of current GPUs today?

Where do you come up with this garbage?
 
Adamantoise said:
Lol?

Retina on a Macbook Pro? Do you guys even know the maximum resolution of current GPUs today?

Where do you come up with this garbage?
Click to expand...

Cutting-edge integrated display support
Dual-link DVI with HDCP
Max resolution: 2560x16001

This is for the 7500/7600m HD radeon cards. I couldn't find information for the intel HD graphics, but the current 13'' MBP can display stuff on the internal + two external displays. I remember reading that the Ivy Bridge iGPU will support retina resolutions.

If an iPad can drive a 2048 x 1536 display, then a MBP should be able to handle a retina display.
 
I wish MacMall would offer a deal on the 2.3 13" MBP. I'll check to see if it has been added but so far the i7 is the only 13" MBP on the list...
 
thundersteele said:
Cutting-edge integrated display support
Dual-link DVI with HDCP
Max resolution: 2560x16001

This is for the 7500/7600m HD radeon cards. I couldn't find information for the intel HD graphics, but the current 13'' MBP can display stuff on the internal + two external displays. I remember reading that the Ivy Bridge iGPU will support retina resolutions.

If an iPad can drive a 2048 x 1536 display, then a MBP should be able to handle a retina display.
Click to expand...

Let's take a step back and define "Retina Display" cause it seems people are just using the term to mean anything above normal.

Retina Display on the iPhone is 960x640 (326 ppi) ... Let's extrapolate and maintain a 326 ppi display on a 13" Macbook Pro ... Is that what you'll consider Retina?
 
Around $4300 (£2700) here in the UK for me to build a late 2011 15inch MBP. The 17 inch which I would like is even more expensive, but the price gets scary when I mock it up on the Apple store.

The reason being the SSD. I want a 256 SSD but the price is still too high. I'm hoping the next MBPs come with 256 as standard, or at least 128 and then you can upgrade the second bay with another 128. Something like that.

That should take the price down to a more reasonable level. 8GB RAM and 256 SSD shouldn't be too much to ask for from a 2012 laptop..

Anyway, that's the main justification for me to wait. I do have several others, such as wanting to see the new design if there is one, and to see if it runs cooler.
 
The next MBP I get will be a 17" (if, hopefully, they still have it maybe early 2013). I just bought mine in july 2011, and its the 15" 2.2 16gb ram and 2 120 gb ssd's. I think I can resist the urge to get the next best thing for a while for the downpayment I put on this thing.
 
Adamantoise said:
Let's take a step back and define "Retina Display" cause it seems people are just using the term to mean anything above normal.

Retina Display on the iPhone is 960x640 (326 ppi) ... Let's extrapolate and maintain a 326 ppi display on a 13" Macbook Pro ... Is that what you'll consider Retina?
Click to expand...
Retina is defined as the number of ppi needed for the pixels to be indistinguishable to the human eye at "normal" viewing distances. Obviously there are a lot of variables in there for it to be an exact equation in determining if a display is retina or not. A person with worse vision is going to need less ppi to achieve "retina"

Also the "normal" viewing distance of the device. An iPhone is likely to be ~12" away from your face, so it needs a higher ppi. Something like an iPad is likely to be used at arms distance or maybe on your lap, so since it's further away, you don't need as many ppi as the iPhone to achieve retina. Same will apply to a laptop, since it's likely to be further away, you won't need 300+ ppi to achieve retina. (obviously you have to understand everyone is different, some people might hold their ipad right up to their face when using it, some people might keep their iPhone at arms distance and not raise it closer to their face. All of these variables change what is "retina" from one person to another, so to define the term we have to apply "normal use situations")
 
xxBURT0Nxx said:
Retina is defined as the number of ppi needed for the pixels to be indistinguishable to the human eye at "normal" viewing distances. Obviously there are a lot of variables in there for it to be an exact equation in determining if a display is retina or not. A person with worse vision is going to need less ppi to achieve "retina"

Also the "normal" viewing distance of the device. An iPhone is likely to be ~12" away from your face, so it needs a higher ppi. Something like an iPad is likely to be used at arms distance or maybe on your lap, so since it's further away, you don't need as many ppi as the iPhone to achieve retina. Same will apply to a laptop, since it's likely to be further away, you won't need 300+ ppi to achieve retina. (obviously you have to understand everyone is different, some people might hold their ipad right up to their face when using it, some people might keep their iPhone at arms distance and not raise it closer to their face. All of these variables change what is "retina" from one person to another, so to define the term we have to apply "normal use situations")
Click to expand...

Lol, in that case one can consider 1080p on a 13.3" screen to be Retina ... Heck even on my current Macbook Pro (1280 x 800), I cannot distinguish between pixels at normal viewing distance.

I dare someone on here to tell me that they can, they're just talking out of their rear if they believe they do.
 
Adamantoise said:
Let's take a step back and define "Retina Display" cause it seems people are just using the term to mean anything above normal.

Retina Display on the iPhone is 960x640 (326 ppi) ... Let's extrapolate and maintain a 326 ppi display on a 13" Macbook Pro ... Is that what you'll consider Retina?
Click to expand...

xxBurtonxx's post has all relevant information. I think for a laptop 200-250 ppi could be considered retina, since the normal viewing distance is higher than on the iPhone.

As far as I am concerned, I would consider a doubling of the resolution from the current MBPs as "retina", even if this would be more of a marketing term. My point is that compared to a normal bump in the resolution, e.g. when going from 1440x900 to 1680x1050, a doubling of the resolution would require new technology to keep applications and fonts at a reasonable size. This is exactly what Apple implemented in iOS.
It is different from just selling a screen with a higher resolution where everything appears smaller.
 
I went ahead and ordered a late 2011 MBP instead of waiting. It is my first Mac and I can't wait to get it. I ordered the 15" upgraded everything as much as possible except the HDD. I only upgraded it to the 7200 rpm instead of the SSD. I should be getting it within the next two weeks. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back