Are you referring to storage capacity? Because I just looked and 16GB RAM is the max on these still.
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.
New Retina MacBook Pro Models Showing Up in Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you referring to storage capacity? Because I just looked and 16GB RAM is the max on these still.
64bit was for the "pros" at one time too. You can't tell me the retina iPad mini is a "professional" model. Sooner or later we'll have retina Air's, the only thing holding it back is the battery life with the higher resolution screen. There will be no such thing as non-retina.
It shouldn't make a difference really.
Your Mac is fast, until your apps need more memory than it has, and then it will slow down. Sometimes horribly. Memory compression helps when your apps have exceeded that limit. Say you have 4GB RAM. If your apps need 4GB, the Mac is fast with or without compression. If your apps need 5GB or 6GB, your Mac gets slow or really slow - with memory compression it's still Ok. If your apps need 8GB, your Mac without compression is awful, while the Mac with compression is only bad :roll eyes:
Same if you have 8GB. Just multiply all the numbers by 2.
All mobile, Core i5 processors have hyper threading. This is not the case for their desktop counterparts.
yup the 13" only had 8GB max. now there is a BTO with 16gb. much needed if you only plan to refresh every few years.
I did not know this. That's pretty cool!
Ah I see what you're saying. Well more options are always better.
I have to agree with you. I'm on a top model (Feb. 2013) rMBP as well. For the first time, I have absolutely nothing to justify upgrading to the new model. If you don't have a Retina MBP it's a worthy purchase, but if you're already on the early 2013 models, there's really no reason.
Here's the benchmark scores (I ran today) from Geekbench 3 on my Feb. 2013 rMBP. Pretty darn close to the new models:
Attachments
Those benchmarks are abysmal, quite a bit lower than the non-retina MacBook Pros.
The 13" non-retina gets 8,406, and the 15" non-retinas got around 13,000 or more.
The 13" non-retina gets 8,406, and the 15" non-retinas got around 13,000 or more.
As others have previously explained, it's a different version of Geekbench, so the scores can't be compared with those previous scores you are quoting.
I'm familiar with the difference between the two versions, I've ran tests on my iMac. The difference is negligible. Any score in Geekbench 3 will be about 110% of that score in Geekbench 2, so a 6000 would have been 6600.
Agreed. I'm ready to buy but I'm making sure I get a Samsung screen. I hope there is some way to know, whether in the skew or #.
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
If you regularly run applications with concurrent threads, then, yes, by all means get the 2.6 15". In fact that machine will be my next music recording rig
That said, my 13" knockaround portable will be the 2.6 i5 13" as there is just not enough bang for the ($200) buck with the "faster" 2.8 i7 13" machine.
My now almost 3 year old early 2011 MBP will be getting replaced with the 2.6 GHz 15" configuration with the Nvidia 750M
Can't believe my battery is completely shot in my 2011 laptop already.
Image
There must be something wrong with you battery. Heres mine, 2 years older than yours:
stop comparing arbitrary laptop versions and discuss the actual CPU benchmarks instead. that is what truly matters.
Ditto... I'm at 87% of design capacity after 794 cycles and 4yrs.
Attachments
It's been 12 months since they redesigned the MacBook Pro and introduced a retina display. What more do you want?
Honestly, you need a reality check.
Apple doesn't spend that much on R&D. The following list shows the R&D spendings as a percentage of the company's total revenues:
- Google 13%
- Apple 2.5%
Apples success is not the result of high R&D spendings, but their marketing is successful in presenting them as a research intensive company, which they aren't.
Don't forget that Apple's strength is industrial product design and user experience, and their sense for the next big thing. That's where they excel.
The other things that their customers - including the fans in this forum - see are inherited from their vendors (speed increases of CPU, memory, storage, peripherals, display resolutions etc.). They just pick the right things from the market and combine them to convenient and nice looking products, but they're not doing any substiantial and costly frontier research.
Ironically those are both products that Jobs insisted would never exist, if thats not innovation I don't know what is
Something of a Mac novice here looking for advice, this will be my first upgrade since my 2008 MBP. She has served me well but is dying the slow death.
I'm not particularly interested in the 13" Pros because I got the iPadRetina for extreme mobility purposes. It just seems to me that there isn't much reason to buy the $1999 model over the $2599 (presuming $600 price difference is not a major issue). I feel like Apple's pricing model sort of priced-out the $1999 as a logical option. My main issue with it is only 256GB solid state where i know my current MBP is pushing this limit or over it currently. But to upgrade the solid state costs $300!! At that point it seems like I might as well pop for the faster processor, double memory, and dGPU. Just a much better computer for only $300 more.
I want my new rMBP to be "future proof" for at least 3-4 years. Should I just go for broke? Am I missing something on the $1999 model that makes it worth settling for over the top-shelf model? I considered external drives for any extra space needed but that just seems like a pain, I only use one now for time machine.
(Also, I'm not a professional for any "monster apps" such as 3d design or professional photography, I play do some gaming here and there, like to multi-task a lot, and just tend to like getting the best of the best. I don't want to be cursing my laptop for its speed in 3 years.)
Any advice/thoughts are welcome. Thanks.
I'm not particularly interested in the 13" Pros because I got the iPadRetina for extreme mobility purposes. It just seems to me that there isn't much reason to buy the $1999 model over the $2599 (presuming $600 price difference is not a major issue). I feel like Apple's pricing model sort of priced-out the $1999 as a logical option. My main issue with it is only 256GB solid state where i know my current MBP is pushing this limit or over it currently. But to upgrade the solid state costs $300!! At that point it seems like I might as well pop for the faster processor, double memory, and dGPU. Just a much better computer for only $300 more.
I want my new rMBP to be "future proof" for at least 3-4 years. Should I just go for broke? Am I missing something on the $1999 model that makes it worth settling for over the top-shelf model? I considered external drives for any extra space needed but that just seems like a pain, I only use one now for time machine.
(Also, I'm not a professional for any "monster apps" such as 3d design or professional photography, I play do some gaming here and there, like to multi-task a lot, and just tend to like getting the best of the best. I don't want to be cursing my laptop for its speed in 3 years.)
Any advice/thoughts are welcome. Thanks.
your message confused me because you didn't really state which models you were looking at. I can offer this advice, macs tend to hold their usefulness for years. i can still use my 12" PowerBook for general tasks and that unit is a decade old. no, it won't play crysis, but it will surf the web, do word processing and the like. so no matter what model you get you will easily get 3-4 years out of it. even your existing unit is 5 years old and if it weren't dying you'd probably be just fine with it.
anyway. my advice, go for as much as you can afford. prioritizing RAM and storage space over CPU. upgrading RAM on these units is not possible, so get more than you think. some 3rd party vendors come out with SSD upgrades (OWC being one of them) so it might be something you can do down the line. while having more CPU power is nice, the bang-for-your-buck just isn't there. $200 for 200Mhz? that's going to get you what? a web page rendered .5 seconds faster? benchmarks are nice numbers for people to brag about, but consider your real world usage. if you're not folding proteins then do you really need the Ghz?
these new haswell designs will probably last apple a good 3-4 years before they move on, even then you'll be be able to use the laptop long past that.
if plugging in external drives is a pain consider a network solution (assuming you have wireless at home) and get a NAS unit like a Synology or Drobo. no reason to store all your photos, music or videos on your mac itself, offload them to a raided unit for extra security and save space on your laptop. or go with dropbox or the like if you want to store it "in the cloud."
good luck!