How's the quality of the 2012 cMBP? How about some reviews?

[zipur]

I see thread after thread with minor issues or comments on the retina MBP. I may have missed it but what about the classic MacBook pro machines. Speed, screen, impressions wheres that stuff?
Or is it that there is virtually No difference from the 2011 so no need to bring anything up.
Or point my to the correct post, I'm still gong back an forth leaning to the retina.
Be gentle I'm recovering from a win7 machine that is so slow I can make a pot of coffee before it boots to login.

 

[maflynn]

There's been reviews floating around. Basically its the same speed as the retina MBP but better GPU performance since the cMBP doesn't need to push as many pixels as the rMBP.

Its about 15 maybe 20% faster then the 2011 MBPs generally speaking

Here's AnandTech's review

 

[clyde2801]

And to summarize his conclusion, he opined than (despite it's minor flaws and bugs) there was no reason to get the classic over the retina unless you were fundamentally opposed to its SSD and RAM placement, or were heavily dependent upon the DVD or wired ethernet and didn't want to haul around adapters.

He suggested to either get a retina or get a discounted 2011 model if you were opposed to the retina.

 

[dusk007]

Basically the cMBP 2012 is just the same as the 2011 only somewhat faster with USB 3.0.

 

[maflynn]

Basically the cMBP 2012 is just the same as the 2011 only somewhat faster with USB 3.0.

From what I've read the GPU is better on the 2012 MBPs. Since I don't play games I cannot really say how much better, especially since the gpu is pushing a lot of pixels on my rmbp.

 

[wiznet]

Basically the cMBP 2012 is just the same as the 2011 only somewhat faster with USB 3.0.

Assuming 6750m is the GPU in the 2011, there's approximately a 15% difference in performance, graphics-wise.

There is also a difference in CPU performance, as said, which I would assume would be a similar amount.

 

[chibiterasu]

It depends on which cMBP if your looking at the 13inch is faster than last years with a 60% GPU increases over the 2011 with intel HD4000, and has USB 3.0 and the screen is still great quality. The 15inch cMBP has all this and a quad core processor and the nividia 650m dedicated GPU the same one thats used in the rMBP but with 512mb at base config and 1GB at the high end.

 

[Iphone4sinwhite]

If you hurry, you can get a near top spec late 2011 cMBP from Microcenter for $1599 + tax (orig: $2699). It has the hi-res anti glare screen, 2.5ghz i7, radeon 6770 1gb, 750gb HDD, etc.

 

[mjn298]

I have a 2012 cMBP 15.. it's the same near-perfect portable computer w/ usb 3.0

i would have bought a refurb 2011 but i wanted usb 3.0

 

[Romeosc]

I have a 2012 cMBP 15.. it's the same near-perfect portable computer w/ usb 3.0

i would have bought a refurb 2011 but i wanted usb 3.0

I agree USB 3 makes the difference plus I7 with 16GB flies!

 

[ivoruest]

Using the same specs in a game, for example 1440x900 high settings, the rMBP will be noticeable faster than the cMBP because its overclocked. Plus it has an SSD already. CPU performance should be the same.

 

[derbothaus]

Assuming 6750m is the GPU in the 2011, there's approximately a 15% difference in performance, graphics-wise.

There is also a difference in CPU performance, as said, which I would assume would be a similar amount.

Yeah but it is Nvidia now so Adobe Premier mercury will run faster than on a Mac Pro with 5870. There are major benefits to having Nvidia right now until everyone switches over to OpenCL.
Where are you getting your numbers from? Apple? As far as I can see from very in depth looks the 650 is almost twice as fast. Depends on the tests but there are a bunch listed. In OS X you may be SW bound on certain things and Cinebench is not a way to test any GPU these days. Apples GT650m is the DDR5 version not the DDR3.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6750M.43958.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html

----------

Using the same specs in a game, for example 1440x900 high settings, the rMBP will be noticeable faster than the cMBP because its overclocked. Plus it has an SSD already. CPU performance should be the same.

Can you run it at 1440x900? I thought 1920x1200 and 1280x800 or something? I don't have one in front of me right now.

 

[mykelala01]

I have cMBP hi res and it was perfect computer. And it does not get that hot. Running Parallel 8, Air Video and playing games on boot camp is amazing. I am using it on a 95 F Los Angeles weather. But the temp of the macbook pro is stable.

 

[nizmoz]

Using the same specs in a game, for example 1440x900 high settings, the rMBP will be noticeable faster than the cMBP because its overclocked. Plus it has an SSD already. CPU performance should be the same.

No. A mbp classic will be faster especially if it has an ssd.

 

[JesterJJZ]

I really wish they stuck it out with the 17" for one last round. Would've been great to have a MPB with TB and USB3 to last a bit while the retina stuff gets the bugs worked out.

 

[icewing]

I really wish they stuck it out with the 17" for one last round. Would've been great to have a MPB with TB and USB3 to last a bit while the retina stuff gets the bugs worked out.

I was going back and forth between 15 and 17, finally bought the 15.4 in my sig. VERY happy with it, next year or so I plan on replacing the HD with a big SSD.

 

[zipur]

So as I see it the cMBP is stable/proven, screen is snappier, its upgradable so you can get in cheap for now (relatively speaking) and you get additional ports!

No negative comment so far, all you lack is a few extra ounces, a bit slimmer and the Retina bugs which Some have reported.

But with the cMBP you can update the SSD and Ram later with no I'll effect.

Bottom line cMBP would be the wise way to go, many reports say they don't notice the retina unless they get real close. is this a correct summary?

 

[monkeybagel]

I looked at the retina model a few days after it was release, but was not happy with the graphics performance of it. I purchased a 15" 2012 model and I am very happy with it. Very very smooth operation. Performance is great, and battery life is great. I got the 1680 screen, SSD, and 2.7.

 

[mykelala01]

So as I see it the cMBP is stable/proven, screen is snappier, its upgradable so you can get in cheap for now (relatively speaking) and you get additional ports!

No negative comment so far, all you lack is a few extra ounces, a bit slimmer and the Retina bugs which Some have reported.

But with the cMBP you can update the SSD and Ram later with no I'll effect.

Bottom line cMBP would be the wise way to go, many reports say they don't notice the retina unless they get real close. is this a correct summary?

Yes it is true that when you look close enough. You will notice how sharp the icon and the font is. On normal looking distance, you will only notice the retina when you are reading articles. But compare to my hi-res glossy display, it is not night and day. It is more like day and mid afternoon.

 

[twietee]

I was going back and forth between 15 and 17, finally bought the 15.4 in my sig. VERY happy with it, next year or so I plan on replacing the HD with a big SSD.

That's the one I'm considering too..which HDD did you take? SSD?

 

[Handsome Bacon]

Bought a base cMBP last Monday, IMMEDIATELY ripped out the 500GB HDD and replaced with a 240GB Intel 520 Series SSD, an Optibay with a 7,200RPM 750GB HDD and 16GB of RAM. The screen seems pretty darned good to me. I saw no real reason to buy a retina model...with the exception of the screen (and even that benefit is questionable), the rest of the machine had too many liabilities (not upgradable at all). Just my 2 cents.

But the thing flies - almost as fast as my PC tower which is pretty amazing IMO.

 

[icewing]

That's the one I'm considering too..which HDD did you take? SSD?

I got the 750 gig, 5400 rpm - my iMac has a 5400 rpm drive, and I never found myself saying "dang this thing is slow", so I figured that I'd be pretty happy with it for awhile. Other posts I read seemed to imply there wouldn't be much difference between that and a 7200 rpm drive FOR MY USES, so i figured I'd save the drive upgrade difference for later.

As for an SSD, I'm not even close to pulling the trigger yet, I'm going to wait a year or more for the prices to drop. Planning on avoiding Samsung because I don't like their business practices.

 

[twietee]

I got the 750 gig, 5400 rpm - my iMac has a 5400 rpm drive, and I never found myself saying "dang this thing is slow", so I figured that I'd be pretty happy with it for awhile. Other posts I read seemed to imply there wouldn't be much difference between that and a 7200 rpm drive FOR MY USES, so i figured I'd save the drive upgrade difference for later.

As for an SSD, I'm not even close to pulling the trigger yet, I'm going to wait a year or more for the prices to drop. Planning on avoiding Samsung because I don't like their business practices.

Thanks for the answer icewing. You did experience an SSD before i believe? Coming from the MBA I fear the 5400 rpm a little. Think I'll take the mid one because of the graphics-card though. SSD probably later on too, right like you said.

 

[bill-p]

So as I see it the cMBP is stable/proven, screen is snappier, its upgradable so you can get in cheap for now (relatively speaking) and you get additional ports!

No negative comment so far, all you lack is a few extra ounces, a bit slimmer and the Retina bugs which Some have reported.

But with the cMBP you can update the SSD and Ram later with no I'll effect.

Bottom line cMBP would be the wise way to go, many reports say they don't notice the retina unless they get real close. is this a correct summary?

I think the cMBP 2012 is good to go IF you don't try to compare it with Retina.

I had a 2011 cMBP and I moved on to 2012 rMBP...

Differences are actually a lot more pronounced than stated:

1) At 1680 x 1050 screen resolution, yeah, there is virtually no difference between screens from what I can see... but at 1440 x 900? You'll see the difference between Retina and cMBP plain as day. Retina can display an effective 1920 x 1200 desktop so the difference in real estate and size is even more noticeable at that setting. Also Retina has wider viewing angle, too. No comment on contrast/colors since Retina "cheats" with a wider viewing angle.

2) Retina is noticeably thinner. Even if it's just by 1/3 thinner, Retina feels like it's literally half the thickness and weight of the cMBP I had. It's even lighter than my MBP 13".

3) Retina has a perceivably smaller bezel around the screen.

4) Retina's profile is less rounded and a bit more squarish.

But you are right on the following:

1) Retina feels buggier. The graphics drivers under Mac OS X still needs a few updates before the interface is comparably smooth to cMBP. cMBP is a lot smoother than Retina still.

2) Retina lacks a dedicated mic input port (quite a big deal if you ask me) and no Firewire or Ethernet. Some legacy network devices still require an Ethernet connection for configuration, so the omission is at a bad time.

3) MagSafe 2 is incompatible with older models, and it's an annoyance because it yanks off easier than the last 2 models (being that it's thinner) and the connection overall is just... not strong.

So there are still benefits to cMBP, but honestly, don't compare cMBP to Retina. You'll feel bad for many reasons other than the screen.

 

[nontroppo]

1) Retina feels buggier. The graphics drivers under Mac OS X still needs a few updates before the interface is comparably smooth to cMBP. cMBP is a lot smoother than Retina still.

That is contended. My 2012 rMBP handles work visually as smooth as my 2010MBP, the issues I've (rarely) seen are dependent on web browser and page visited, or a non-deterministic stutter in spaces animation (gesture not keyboard switch). None of these affect my daily work.

2) Retina lacks a dedicated mic input port (quite a big deal if you ask me) and no Firewire or Ethernet. Some legacy network devices still require an Ethernet connection for configuration, so the omission is at a bad time.

I vaguely agree with dedicated mic input, though if you were serious about recording you wouldn't be using the mic in, but a dedicated audio interface. I absolutely disagree about ethernet and firewire. Both the RJ45 and FW800 plug are taller than the side wall of the rMBP!, and making the rMBP thicker just so one doesn't have to buy a cheap tiny adaptor is to my mind insanity.
I have *lots* of firewire drives and regularly connect via RJ45 to manage network devices, but the use of the adaptor is simply a far more elegant solution than a thick weighty laptop. This is a win win for me.

3) MagSafe 2 is incompatible with older models, and it's an annoyance because it yanks off easier than the last 2 models (being that it's thinner) and the connection overall is just... not strong.

Agree and I preferred both the aesthetics/usability of the L-connector too, although again this is a worthwhile trade for the wonderful size and weight this workstation-class laptop carries.

I would add one really pet peeve of mine that does annoy me and didn't need to be removed: the infra-red sensor. I love being able to control my laptop via the Apple Remote (3rd party apps give super control) and this is simply not possible on the rMBP