Its freaking criminal that none of them even asked about the IR. Consumer Journalism is dead, long live talking points and double speak......
Theres IR still ?
*waits for the " "Ghosting" on the 13-inch Retina" posts to appear in the coming weeks.
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.
Hands On with Apple's New 13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Theres IR still ?
*waits for the " "Ghosting" on the 13-inch Retina" posts to appear in the coming weeks.
I'd suggest the base MBP with RAM upgraded to either 8 GB or 16 GB from an aftermarket source like Crucial. If you can qualify, you can get the computer for $1099 and the extra RAM for something $40-$85 depending on quantity and source.
The retina display, while nice, is not something I'd go for in a first generation product - in fact, I'd wait until at least the next product cycle of the retina so Apple can work out the bugs - and drop the price, which strikes me as just this side of obscene.
Hope that helps!
So i was ready to pick up a 13" Rmbp but after reading all the hate on the intel 4000 i don't know what to do. I am not to familiar with computer internals so my question is this, Will the 13" with intel 4000 and 8gig ram be enough for me to run adobe photoshop and final cut/Hd video editing for the next few years. i really dont want a 15" but if it has wayy better performance i will get that instead.
Thanks
Thanks
But, really, Retina has existed in 15" form, so it's not like the 13" is brand-new and buggy in the way a brand-new car may be.
Anyway, I've learned a lot here in a subculture that I don't understand - gots me lots of thinkin' to do - thanks!
Unless you are planning to run demanding video games or perform extensive graphics editing, that setup will be more than adequate for the next few years.
I'm glad I didn't wait for the 13" version. I like that there's no discrete graphics (not having to deal with graphics switching), but the lack of 16 GB option and the absurd price makes the 15" the better choice for me. Plus, graphics switching isn't so bad anymore with Chrome no longer triggering the dGPU, and the dGPU itself being frugal enough.
The problem is the resolution. It has a 2560x1600 screen, so it will take four times the graphics power to render stuff, plus the scaling which probably takes some extra power too. When even the 15" rMBP is slow sometimes with a dedicated graphics card, how slow do you think this will be?
For games, it's a non-issue. Don't play at Retina resolutions, switch to 1280x800.
The GPU is not the source of the 15" rMBP's slowness. The GPU is plenty capable of doing all the work required. Something else is amiss in Apple's HiDPI implementation, but people have been reporting much better performance under 10.8.2.
The fact is, we've been running 2560x1600 monitors off of integrated graphics chipsets since 2008 on MacBooks (the Unibodies introduced with Mini Display Port granting them the option of running dual-link DVI).
Apart from the retina gimmick (yes, I think it's nothing but a glorified 1280x800), how is this 13" rMBP fundamentally different to the MBA in any way? They're overlapping each other on like 95% of features.
I dont see the reason to have the 13" rMBP and the 13" to coexist. Apple should blend them into one single product.
I dont see the reason to have the 13" rMBP and the 13" to coexist. Apple should blend them into one single product.
My first hand impressions of the rMBP 15 was that there is nothing like a retina display. That will be the greatest difference between the MBA 13 and rMBP 13. After I spent a few days working on a rMBP 15, everything else that looked good to me before looked washed out and fuzzy instead.
I think Apple is betting that if you love the retina display, you will be willing to give up a lot of money and maybe some other features and performance to have it.
Looking forward to the refinements of the second and third versions, but staying with my MBA for now.
I think Apple is betting that if you love the retina display, you will be willing to give up a lot of money and maybe some other features and performance to have it.
Looking forward to the refinements of the second and third versions, but staying with my MBA for now.
I can't seem to grasp the MacBook Pro 13 vs 15.
The base model 13 and 15 has a $600 price difference. You get better cpu and dedicated graphics.*
Now the retina models only have a $200 difference. Differences being better cpu, extra 128GB storage, and dedicated graphics.*
So as a consumer, the retina option seems more feasible with going the 15" route whereas the non-retina seems to lean towards the 13".
To me I would've guessed the gap between models would've remained the same with price and spec. Not just spec.
The base model 13 and 15 has a $600 price difference. You get better cpu and dedicated graphics.*
Now the retina models only have a $200 difference. Differences being better cpu, extra 128GB storage, and dedicated graphics.*
So as a consumer, the retina option seems more feasible with going the 15" route whereas the non-retina seems to lean towards the 13".
To me I would've guessed the gap between models would've remained the same with price and spec. Not just spec.
If you are not a fan of retina display, why bother considering this machine?
This machine is all about the PANEL, nothing else.
----------
it is market segmentation by "price" combined with "product attribute". Obviously apple is trying to squeeze every dime its customers have.
----------
Obviously Apple did research and found size does matter. Some people who are fan of 13' will buy it anyway, even though it may not be a good buy.
dGPU?
How does this thing not have dedicated GPU? Amazing. Good luck with dropped frames, which the 15" rMBP already suffers from (see Anandtech review).
I say wait for Haswell for a more powerful IGP.
How does this thing not have dedicated GPU? Amazing. Good luck with dropped frames, which the 15" rMBP already suffers from (see Anandtech review).
I say wait for Haswell for a more powerful IGP.
Sure, mine lags too when I peg the CPU usage at 100% using Bash fork bombs and other stuff.
Still not the GPU that's responsible. Your 2009 MacBook doesn't lag on your 1920x1200 monitor, it lags on Final Cut/After Effects. Those are quite a bit more taxing than "scrolling", which is what the poster you agreed with claimed. Are you seriously claiming you can't scroll a simple window smoothly on your 1920x1200 monitor ? Because my old 2008 Unibody could... Something is wrong with yours if it can't.
Such a hard concept for people...
Well, it's like how a flat screen 1080p HDTV is fundamentally different than a 640x480 CRT.
Oh, but aside from, this is completely the same as the MacBook Air.
I was comparing it to the macbook air. I agree with you, the premium for the 13" rMBP is not worth it over the 13" cMBP. I think they should drop the price of the 11" air to $899, put the classic at $999, and do the retina at 1299 or 1399.
If you upgrade the rMBP 13" to an i7 processor and 256GB Flash, it is actually more expensive than the equivalent spec rMBP 15" (based on UK web site).
(though the rMBP 15" actually has a quad core i7 and a GeForce graphics card)
Why would I bother with the 13"?
Exactly.
This is why I would wait for the second-gen. This one is just crazy overpriced and Haswell should enable some great performance gains.
For me, the answer is yes. VMware or Parallels running Windows can be very uncomfortable with only 8GB of RAM. Especially if you're doing development on both platforms. Then again, I probably wouldn't get the 13" anyway. 8GB seems pretty limiting for a laptop that's not upgradeable, though.