Initial Impressions - 13" rMBP

[Mr MM]

My Mrs has the z, good laptop, but I've noticed light bleed on the bottom and top and a not so good viewing angle, but straight on the screen is very nice. This is a 2011 model so not sure about the latest. Although last I heard is that Sony is discontinuing the Z, not sure if true though.

it is, and that was really the only competitor to the RMBP. Sony is having problems to put win 8 in it with the PMD. They are going to axe the Z and focus on a more popular S line, it makes sense for the company, but we are losing the sony cutting edge.

I had the 2011 model, its the same as 2012 without the cpu off course. You should have send the model back, there wasnt any light bleed on mine, but the viewing angles is due to the TN panel, its still extremely rich in terms of color accuracy and reproduction.

 

[dragonev]

Uh, that was quick. Sure gave it the college try. How many seconds did you use it?

I do not need hours to realise the hard truth, especially, when I can put both laptops side by side.

----------

Does it actually feel / perform slower or are you just disappointed because you can't brag with some 10k+ points to your friends? It has the same freaking CPU the cMBP 13" has and same GPU... why on Earth do you people expect it to score twice the points suddenly? Jesus...

It is actually performs slower than cMBP'11 (i7, 4Gb, SSD). And you can see it for yourself if you put two laptops side by side.

I loved the size, but not ready to sacrifice the performance in the most simple applications.

 

[Maczor]

It is actually performs slower than cMBP'11 (i7, 4Gb, SSD). And you can see it for yourself if you put two laptops side by side.

I loved the size, but not ready to sacrifice the performance in the most simple applications.

I'm assuming you were referring to the cMBP 13".
I dare you to post some "proper" results... everyone can talk into the wind.
I would love to see how much slower it actually is ( if it really is ).

 

[golf1410]

I am waiting intel Haswell. Its GPU will make rMBP line up just right what ability it should be. Intel HD 4000 is just ok ok.

 

[dragonev]

I'm assuming you were referring to the cMBP 13".
I dare you to post some "proper" results... everyone can talk into the wind.
I would love to see how much slower it actually is ( if it really is ).

I am referring to cMBP 13" (early 2011) =)))

I am not sure what kind of results are you looking for. I will try to shot a video over the weekend, but will not promise (if my wife will find it out that I spent money on another toy she will dismember me )

 

[tillsbury]

Am I missing something with the Sony Z? I looked at one at the Sony store last week, equipped with 8Gb RAM and 256Gb SSD (a raid of 2x128). The screen was ok, not retina but otherwise very good for an ordinary screen. The touchpad was awful and tiny. But the price!! In NZ this spec is $4800, which is coincidentally exactly the same price as the rMBP 13" with the same RAM and SSD size, but with a free 27" Thunderbolt display thrown in!

So either Sony has gone mad in NZ, or Apple is suddenly dirt cheap. Free retina display and free 27" monitor with all rMBP13s...

 

[GrandPhrase]

How's the weight of the 13" rMBP?

 

[dragonev]

How's the weight of the 13" rMBP?

The weight is quite good. Although it is a bit heavier than I thought it would be.

 

[Maczor]

I am referring to cMBP 13" (early 2011) =)))

I am not sure what kind of results are you looking for. I will try to shot a video over the weekend, but will not promise (if my wife will find it out that I spent money on another toy she will dismember me )

I am expecting to see numbers and not opinions...
Just because "you feel it's slower" doesn't actually make it slower.
Do measure how long it takes to encode stuff on the cMBP compared to the rMBP and so on.
Once we have some proper numbers, we can start drawing lines too.

PS: Let's not exclude the possibility of your model being faulty. Maybe you were unlucky...

 

[0x000000]

I love 13" size wise, but rMBP performed below my expectations. It works actually slower both in Safari and iWork than my MBP 13" early'11. Geekbench for mine cMBP is 6601 which is almost similar to the rMBP mentioned earlier in the thread. That is why I would strongly recommend everyone who switch from the regular MBP to retina to think twice before going for 13" instead of 15". For £1.7k it is not what I expected.

More important than Geekbench performance is, in this case, UI performance. The HD4000 does in fact deliver less fps in osx animations and claims that even Keynote stutters are very believable and on par with what you can see in every apple store.

 

[Lukewarmwinner]

More important than Geekbench performance is, in this case, UI performance. The HD4000 does in fact deliver less fps in osx animations and claims that even Keynote stutters are very believable and on par with what you can see in every apple store.

It's funny how no reviewing articles has pointed this problem. They all fell for the media hype, and forgot to be critics. But it sound really disappointing. What's the point of having a beautiful screen without the ability to use visual programs..

 

[DavidQ]

Well,

I'am not a gamer, even if it happens to me to play sometimes (Torchlight, Age of Empire ...).
My MBA 11 (Jan 2012) with i7 and HD3000 is capable of performing all the work I ask him including games.

That's what I am expecting from the rMBP, not more.

Now you are saying that rMBP is slowered by its retina display and the cMBP is doing better ?

I'd appreciate to have it confirmed...

 

[Lukewarmwinner]

Well,

I'am not a gamer, even if it happens to me to play sometimes (Torchlight, Age of Empire ...).
My MBA 11 (Jan 2012) with i7 and HD3000 is capable of performing all the work I ask him including games.

That's what I am expecting from the rMBP, not more.

Now you are saying that rMBP is slowered by its retina display and the cMBP is doing better ?

I'd appreciate to have it confirmed...

He just did?

 

[0x000000]

Well,

I'am not a gamer, even if it happens to me to play sometimes (Torchlight, Age of Empire ...).
My MBA 11 (Jan 2012) with i7 and HD3000 is capable of performing all the work I ask him including games.

That's what I am expecting from the rMBP, not more.

Now you are saying that rMBP is slowered by its retina display and the cMBP is doing better ?

I'd appreciate to have it confirmed...

Go to the store and see for yourself. I've done so on numerous 15" retinas and those fullscreen transitions from keynote and mission control have a lower framerate than non retinas, even compared to MBAs. Its visibly less fluid, whether scaled or not. It doesn't reduce productivity, but it still isnt nice.

 

[DavidQ]

Go to the store and see for yourself. I've done so on numerous 15" retinas and those fullscreen transitions from keynote and mission control have a lower framerate than non retinas, even compared to MBAs. Its visibly less fluid, whether scaled or not. It doesn't reduce productivity, but it still isnt nice.

I did !

The guy did not even know that retina display were now released on 13 MBP...

 

[scarred]

Would you mind telling why you went with i7 rather than i5. I did the same too (ETA Nov 2) but I am second guessing myself. It was $280 more expensive for the i7 for me because I could buy the i5 tax free right across the border in Delaware.

The i7 should 'process' stuff faster: compiling software, encoding movies/photo/music, compressing/decompressing files, etc.

I'm also scared to bring it up, but the faster CPU will help with casual gaming (yaya, no discrete GPU, not a gaming rig, but my 2011 air doesn't have one either and I've been able to play some decent games on it...hd4000 is no slouch). Example: games like civilization, world of warcraft, simcity, will benefit.

 

[clyde2801]

Slightly confused after visiting the Apple Store.

I was in the Apple store yesterday afternoon to replace a dead iPhone. Look over the 13 inch retina models, and the screen DOES look gorgeous.

I just opened up the main page of Mac daily news, and it seemed that scrolling in even that was a bit laggy.

I then went and opened the same page on the sole classic MacBook Pro antiglare that they had along the wall. The darndest thing is that it seemed to be almost as laggy on it too!

Just to make sure I wasn't losing my frakkin' mind, I went home and my late 2011 17 inch still scrolled the same page as smooth as silk.

Not scientific, and certainly not detailed, I admit. Not a clue if the lag on this simple task is software or hardware related. I can see the screen delighting a whole bunch of folks doing basic stuff that have the money to pay for it, and the lagginess bothering a minority of them assuming it isn't fixed with a software update.

I wonder if the retina is Apple's attempt to stay ahead on increasingly nice displays on premium windows laptops (Sony Z and Asus Zenbook Prime) without going them in a race to the bottom.

I'm also hoping some pundits will be right in their predictions that within a few years retina type displays will be commonplace, and prices will drop. I.E., that the current retinas are the 2008 Macbook Airs of 2012.

 

[tmanto02]

Just finished setting mine up the way I like - loving it! Replaced the first 13 inch unibody macbook pro. So fast!

 

[GrandPhrase]

The weight is quite good. Although it is a bit heavier than I thought it would be.

Oh lol. Do you mind making any comparisons (if you have or experienced the devices)

Weight similar to the Air? Feel like iPhone 4 to iPhone 5 weight from cMBP to rMBP? Etc. anything that comes to mind.

Thanks.

----------

Just finished setting mine up the way I like - loving it! Replaced the first 13 inch unibody macbook pro. So fast!

Is the highest scaling option 1680x1050 easily readible (cause of really small size) or is it more suitable for 1440x900?

 

[DavidQ]

I finally found a store that has received his demo rMBP.

I could play about an hour with both 13" and 15" side by side.
As we can guess, the screen is simply as Clyde2801 said, the kind of screen we (nearly) all wish to have.

I brought some 1080p videos and played them on both screens, two videos at the same time on each.
On the 13", first video is correct with some very brief laggy part, the second one is REALLY laggy.

Even the Apple "iddle" demo videos is not as fluid as it is on the cMBP that was behind me :-/

One of the staff member was discovering the rMBP like me and he cought the opportunity to make some test. That was nice as we could download some software and free games.
I would not have dared to do it on my own...

I was not really pleased with the results, I even think that somehow my MBA is doing better.

As Clyde2801 said, the surf part is awesome with all those bright colors but the scrolling needs to be improved.

I knew it was not a powerfull laptop, even when I decided to place the order.
But after having played with it an hour, I must admit that it does not really worth the price.
I am now going to on line apple store to cancel my order...

I do not take the risk of beeing disappointed.

 

[steffi]

Blank as well

Just ask him to post his output without the grep

 

[dragonev]

Oh lol. Do you mind making any comparisons (if you have or experienced the devices)

Weight similar to the Air? Feel like iPhone 4 to iPhone 5 weight from cMBP to rMBP? Etc. anything that comes to mind.

Thanks.

----------



Is the highest scaling option 1680x1050 easily readible (cause of really small size) or is it more suitable for 1440x900?

I thought it will be much lighter than my current MacBook Pro 13" (early'11). However, it is not. And yes, it is heavier than Air, noticeably. I don't have any appropriate comparison in mind actually.

 

[steffi]

Blank as well

Just ask him to post his output without the grep

 

[Anonymous Freak]

To me the odd thing is that Apple only offers it with a dual-core CPU.

Some quick spec lookups finds that the stock CPU is a Core i5-3210M, and the upgrade CPU is a Core i7-3520M. Both are 35W parts. Intel offers two quad-core 35W parts, the i7-3612QM and 3632QM.

Intel ARK Compare The lower-end quad-core part only costs slightly more than the upgrade dual-core i7 (i5: $225, i7-dual: $346, i7-quad: $378,) and has the same Turbo Boost frequency as the stock i5. So for single and dual-threaded workloads, the quad-core would be identical in performance, but for >2 threads, it would kick even the upgrade i7-dual's @$$.

Yes, Intel's wattage ratings are maximums, and presumably the quads draw more power on average, so the battery life would be reduced slightly, but it would be nice to be able to make that tradeoff if I so choose.

 

[JCT]

I don't regret getting the 15" rMBP, but certainly I believe that 13" is the best notebook form factor. If only it had dedicated graphics...

I actually agree 100% - I wish that they had gone with discrete graphics on the 13". It is not enough, however to make me eliminate the rMBP from my list. It was hard not to go with the 15".

In my case I ordered the rMBP for a very specific reason. I want to move back to a 13" screen from the 11" MBA and I need the machine to be portable. I travel a ton and while the 15" is clearly a better choice with regards to "bang for the buck", I have owned a 15" in the past and traveling with it is a royal pain. I have no problem paying extra for the retina screen and more powerful CPU (comparing the 13" MBA vs rMBP 13") as the screen, in particular, will change my computing experience for the better. End of story.

All of the blanket comments around here regarding what a terrible ripoff this laptop is are hilarious.