Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I was waiting for this one. AMD slapped support in back when Llano launched under the A75. Intel rolled it out with the Pather Point (Intel 7 Series) chipset. That still does not mean that every motherboard vendor did not want to slap in a $10 controller, in addition to that SATA 6 Gbps, the PLX switching for try to avoid bottlenecking the DMI bandwidth available, and juggle dual GPUs back on P55 in 2010. DMI 2.0 resolved the bandwidth issue for USB 3.0 and SATA 6 Gbps on Cougar Point (Intel 6 Series).

USB 3.0 traction is amazing compared to Thunderbolt, even before you had it supported on a PCH/FCH. Some magic there. USB 3.0 dead, without Intel support? Alright...

Apple could have definitely added it if they wanted to. I just think it's strange to paint them as bad guys for not doing so. I never said USB 3.0 was dead.
 
Apple could have definitely added it if they wanted to. I just think it's strange to paint them as bad guys for not doing so.
They made the space on the logicboard for Thunderbolt but not USB 3.0. You are better off selling your Sandy Bridge hardware for the Ivy Bridge stuff just for USB 3.0.
 
They made the space on the logicboard for Thunderbolt but not USB 3.0. You are better off selling your Sandy Bridge hardware for the Ivy Bridge stuff just for USB 3.0.

Yes they did. I'm not sure I would sell my current computer for a new one just to get USB 3, but I definitely wouldn't spend money on a new computer without it.

I wasn't trying to start a debate where I defend all of Apple's decisions, because I don't. The start of this whole thing was the fact that every single new rumor on the front page is met with people who complain because it isn't a rumor about [insert their favorite device here].

"New Rumor about next gen iPhone!"
First page of comments: "Who cares about the iPhone, what about the iPad?!"

"New Rumor about next gen iPad!"
First page of comments: "Who cares about the iPad, what about the iPod touch?!"

"New Rumor about next gen iPod touch!"
First page of comments: "Who cares about the iPod touch, what about the iMac?!"

etc. etc.

Yes the iMacs are pretty late (and a pretty lousy deal to buy now at full price), but the whining like people are entitled to get a constant stream of announcements from Apple that satisfy their every desire is a bit tiring.

If you like what they offer for the price they offer it at, buy it. If you don't, don't buy it. If you like Dells or Lenovos better, buy those.
 
MBA: 2.96

MBP: 4.5

Split the difference and you won't be far off at 3.75 lb

Very possible. I did the math to see by what percentage the 15" MBP dropped when it went Retina. Following the same ratio, the 13 MPB would end up closer to 3.5 lbs. Weight is a big issue for me, as I'm used to my 13 MBA. We shall see...
 
My prediction for 13" rMBP pricing:

Base model $2099
2.9 GHz i7 dual core
8GB RAM
512 GB SDD
HD 4000 graphics

Optional configurations
750 GB SDD +$900
16 GB RAM +200

One or both of these options may not be available.

No way... Given that the 15" rMBP base only has 256GB SSD, I don't think the 13" will have 512. Otherwise, I agree with your specs. But I think Apple will realize that there is no integrated GPU and price accordingly. Kuo claims an aggressive base price of $1300. I find that hard to believe, but I'm thinking the 13" rMBP base will be $1499 (just as the base 15" rMBP is the same price as the upper cMBP) and an upper 13" rMBP price of $1899 (same 27% price differential as the 15" rMBP models).
 
Are you saying you could possibly tell the difference between 2560x1600 and 2880x1800 on a 13" screen?

Seriously?

Yes, because the point is not the sheer resolution but the actual screen real state (how many apps/windows you can fit in your screen(.:

2560x1600 = 1280x800 actual screen real state, whereas 2880x1800 = 1440x900 actual real state. And YES, you can totally tell the difference between them two in that regard.
 
Yes, because the point is not the sheer resolution but the actual screen real state (how many apps/windows you can fit in your screen(.:

2560x1600 = 1280x800 actual screen real state, whereas 2880x1800 = 1440x900 actual real state. And YES, you can totally tell the difference between them two in that regard.

I completely agree with this...I like/need to work at a resolution of 1440x900 which means that the 13" rMBP is a non-starter for me which is too bad because the 15" rMBP is too big for my liking..I am therefore left with a MBA as my best option which is too bad because I would like an IPS, retina or other high pixel density screen..
 
Yes, because the point is not the sheer resolution but the actual screen real state (how many apps/windows you can fit in your screen(.:

2560x1600 = 1280x800 actual screen real state, whereas 2880x1800 = 1440x900 actual real state. And YES, you can totally tell the difference between them two in that regard.

I imagine a lot of people with the 13 inch MBPr would scale their screen to 1440x900 or higher rather than stick with 1280x800.
 
Very possible. I did the math to see by what percentage the 15" MBP dropped when it went Retina. Following the same ratio, the 13 MPB would end up closer to 3.5 lbs. Weight is a big issue for me, as I'm used to my 13 MBA. We shall see...

So if you're right I can carry one *AND* a quarter-pounder from McD. :p
 
No way... Given that the 15" rMBP base only has 256GB SSD, I don't think the 13" will have 512. Otherwise, I agree with your specs. But I think Apple will realize that there is no integrated GPU and price accordingly. Kuo claims an aggressive base price of $1300. I find that hard to believe, but I'm thinking the 13" rMBP base will be $1499 (just as the base 15" rMBP is the same price as the upper cMBP) and an upper 13" rMBP price of $1899 (same 27% price differential as the 15" rMBP models).

The more I think about it, the more I think you may be right.

Revised prediction for 13" rMBP pricing:

Base model $1499
2.3 GHz i7 dual core
8GB RAM
256GB SDD
HD 4000 graphics

Upgrade model $2099
2.9 GHz i7 dual core
8GB RAM
512 GB SDD
HD 4000 graphics

Optional configurations
750 GB SDD +$500
16 GB RAM +200

One or both of these options may not be available.
 
If it is $1499 what are they going to do with the 13"MBP that resides at that price point? Would they put that at $1199 and the lower end 13" at $999? Be nice to get something besides the 11 inch air at 1k.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If it is $1499 what are they going to do with the 13"MBP that resides at that price point? Would they put that at $1199 and the lower end 13" at $999? Be nice to get something besides the 11 inch air at 1k.

Ha I wish but no. The upper 15" cMBP is $2199, as is the base 15" rMBP. Apple clearly doesn't think that pricing strategy is a problem.

EDIT: OK, thought about it a little more, maybe! See below....



----------

The more I think about it, the more I think you may be right.

Revised prediction for 13" rMBP pricing:

Base model $1499
2.3 GHz i7 dual core
8GB RAM
256GB SDD
HD 4000 graphics

Upgrade model $2099
2.9 GHz i7 dual core
8GB RAM
512 GB SDD
HD 4000 graphics

Optional configurations
750 GB SDD +$500
16 GB RAM +200

One or both of these options may not be available.

Generally agree, but this is what I think:

Base model $1499
2.5 GHz i5 dual core
8GB RAM
256GB SDD
HD 4000 graphics

Upgrade model $1999
2.9 GHz i7 dual core
8GB RAM
512 GB SDD
HD 4000 graphics

The weird thing for me is that there will be a 13" MBP priced more than a 15" MBP.

What would be awesome - and in line with Kuo's claims - is that if Apple dropped 13" pricing across the board so that we get something like
Base 13" cMBP: $999
Upper 13" cMBP: $1299
Base 13" rMBP: $1299
Upper 13" rMBP: $1799

This leaves the base 15" cMBP the same price as the highest 13" MBP. From a marketing standpoint, this makes a ton of sense to me. But it's probably too good to be true. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
9to5mac said..

"Based on wholesale prices we’ve received, we believe the entry model 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro will cost roughly $1699 at launch while the higher specc’ed model will cost $300 more making the $2000 price point likely."

"It sounds like the 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro will have a 2560×1600 pixel display (the same as a 30-inch Cinema Display) with the effective area being the same as the 1280×800 screens as the current MacBook Pros when used in pixel-doubled Retina mode."
 
It isn't that much different from when they offered the polycarb MacBook alongside the Air and Pro. My guess is that the non-Retina Pros will be mostly neglected until demand drops and they drop the line (sort of like what happened with the polycarb MacBook). It might get a spec bump next year, but it won't see anything radical and won't get a Retina Display.

To be honest I preferred the polycarbonate design of the white (and even more, the black!) macbook.
I now have an air, but if it was between a 13" pro and a 13" white macbook, I'd take the macbook.

Too bad they removed it :(
 
Very possible. I did the math to see by what percentage the 15" MBP dropped when it went Retina. Following the same ratio, the 13 MPB would end up closer to 3.5 lbs. Weight is a big issue for me, as I'm used to my 13 MBA. We shall see...


So it ended up 3.57, so you win. Congrats.
 
So it ended up 3.57, so you win. Congrats.

Ha, thanks! Small victory though... the 3.5+ weight, lack of dedicated GPU, fact that it can't scale to 1920x1200 (to match my Cinema Display), and fact that it's actually THICKER than the 15" rMPB all mean I'll be waiting for next summer's Air update. Hoping for retina (not likely), 16GB RAM option (not likely?) and a decent graphics boost (more likely?).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.