Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Next-Generation 15-Inch MacBook Pro Shows Up in Benchmarks

CaptHenryMorgan said:
Pretty sure if there were a release date that anyone knew, they would have posted it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why so sarcastic? You know what I meant. I was asking for clues as to when they might release it rather than the actual date.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Have a nice day.
 
koppie644 said:
I would be happy if they release the base model at $1799 without dedicated GPU, at $2199 and $2799 with a much better GPU than GT650M

How about Radeon 8870m? It would be nice
Click to expand...

The performance delta between the Iris Pro 5200 and Radeon 8870m needs to make putting in the latter actually worth it... With Broadwell coming next year and a completely different GPU architecture, I don't see Apple sticking to off-package GPUs from AMD or nVidia for much longer.
 
Ryth said:
Needs to be a 2GB video card. 1GB is a joke in a pro machine.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/notebooks.html

And the 650M is so dated. It really needs to be a GTX, not a GT chip.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. I got an HP machine with a 650GT with 2GB several months BEFORE the current MacBook pros even came out at $1000 cheaper than the closest spec'd MacBook pro. I don't mean to start a comparison war between Mac and PC... I have plenty of Macs at home, so no need to sell me on the value of a Mac. But it was silly of Apple to start at 1GB for the pro at the price point.
 
Ryth said:
Needs to be a 2GB video card. 1GB is a joke in a pro machine.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/notebooks.html

And the 650M is so dated. It really needs to be a GTX, not a GT chip.
Click to expand...

Hmm, arguably. But the heat dissipation will be the real obstacle, therefore I doubt they'll shove a 780M in there, or something with really excellent performance. If they did, I'd take out a loan just to buy one. But they won't.

Apple systems historically have never had awesome GPUs. I wish that could change, yet I doubt it will. That's why I'm always a little confused when people say 'xxxx is a joke in a pro machine', because they've never had the absolute best cutting-edge mobility graphics in any of their MacBook/PowerBook lines.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. I just don't think we'll ever see gamers buying Macs for the graphics card.
 
Dan-- said:
I think we might see Apple do this to the 15" line:
  • drop the non-retina model
  • make the base model use integrated graphics
  • add a good dedicated graphics card (switchable) to the upper end model
Click to expand...

that's just what we have here, an entry level rMBP 15" without dedicated gpu (as i said in past threads, apple already did in the past a 15" with integrated cpu. at the time, if i remember correctly, there were nvidia chipsets with graphic chip).
let's just hope it's somewhere in the 1799 range, though i'd also very welcome a huge drop in the 2199 model..

so now the question is.. when?? :D
 
Xteec said:
Yeah, I wasn't very clear.

I am hoping the new 13 rMBP is using the Iris Pro integrated GPU so it effectively becomes the retina MBA a lot of us really want (i.e. portable, good battery life and great screen with plenty of graphics power). The current 13" rMBP is being pushed a little too close to its graphics limit for my liking and the main reason I held off on it.
Click to expand...

Got it, figured that's what you meant.
 
Not that I was likely to upgrade this cycle anyway, but I'm not going to upgrade my Retina Macbook Pro until the image retention issues get sorted out. My original June 2012 machine had image retention issues that seemed to only get worse over time. I brought it in to Apple and I really had to press the issue to get the Genius Bar guy to send it in for repair. He ran a checkerboard test on it and the pattern was more faint than I had experienced, especially under the lights of the glare-filled Apple Store. I usually work in a dark room not facing any windows or light sources. I fully expected to get a different machine back, but it was my same machine with a new screen. Now the display is pure magic with zero retention. I hope Mavericks decreases some of the lag, especially when switching between desktop spaces. For me battery life isn't a huge issue since it's often docked at home. Mavericks should also bring some battery life improvements.
 
Meh. I don't feel too left out despite being 2 generations behind. Granted i'm running the 64bit test here, but clearly the difference isn't going to be night and day in either case.
 

Attachments

  • Geekbench.png
    Geekbench.png
    137.7 KB · Views: 386
Last edited:
And they will of course still not have a DVD option

I would have bought rMBP back in December when I upgraded, but I decided the convenience of an integrated DVD player (and to a lesser degree the price) outweighed the retina display. I bring my MBP with me when my family travels, and I like the ability to play RedBox rentals on it. Pick up a movie in one town, play it on the mac in the car, drop it off at the next town.

iTunes doesn't compete there. I can either plan ahead and rent the movie on iTunes before I leave (inconvenient and overpriced), or stream them over an unreliable LTE connection (annoying and expensive), or the RedBox app finds a movie for me somewhere along my route and reserves it for $1.29

And a DVD works in my hotel room regards of how crappy the hotel's wifi is.

I love MacOS, but Apple is in a wrongheaded drive for as thin as technically possible, and to hell with everything else. What happened to finding the right balance?

By the way. I have a rMBP for work. I really like the screen and the SSD. I couldn't care less that it is thinner than my personal MBP. Offer a thicker version with a DVD/BlueRay!

And SSDs are still too expensive. A thicker body would be really beneficial if it allowed them to put a fusion drive inside a MBP. Or they could always put in a hybrid drive. The only time my slow HDD bothers me on my MBP is when booting or waking. A fusion drive should take care of that nicely.
 
One thing I that really puzzled me is why the rMBP 13" had the Intel HD 4000 graphics card. Here is why the rMBP 13" has a resolution of 2560x1600 then it's scaled down to look like 1280x800 but everything is rendered at 4x all of this being done with a Intel HD 4000 graphics card. So I decided to put this resolution on my iMac late 2012 with a Nvidia 640M, although it was smooth for a while but after having a good amount of apps opened and multitasking and mission control It was lagging. To put this into perspective the current Macbook Air has a Intel HD 5000 graphics card. Apple will mostly have a retina version of the Macbook Air in 2014. What I am saying is why apple decided to power so much pixels on graphics card such as the Intel HD 4000? :confused:
 
dagamer34 said:
The performance delta between the Iris Pro 5200 and Radeon 8870m needs to make putting in the latter actually worth it... With Broadwell coming next year and a completely different GPU architecture, I don't see Apple sticking to off-package GPUs from AMD or nVidia for much longer.
Click to expand...

Well, 8870m is well well well ahead of Iris Pro. With its TDP, it won't fit in the rMBP, maybe iMac
 
LoggerMN said:
I would have bought rMBP back in December when I upgraded, but I decided the convenience of an integrated DVD player (and to a lesser degree the price) outweighed the retina display. I bring my MBP with me when my family travels, and I like the ability to play RedBox rentals on it. Pick up a movie in one town, play it on the mac in the car, drop it off at the next town.

iTunes doesn't compete there. I can either plan ahead and rent the movie on iTunes before I leave (inconvenient and overpriced), or stream them over an unreliable LTE connection (annoying and expensive), or the RedBox app finds a movie for me somewhere along my route and reserves it for $1.29

And a DVD works in my hotel room regards of how crappy the hotel's wifi is.

I love MacOS, but Apple is in a wrongheaded drive for as thin as technically possible, and to hell with everything else. What happened to finding the right balance?

By the way. I have a rMBP for work. I really like the screen and the SSD. I couldn't care less that it is thinner than my personal MBP. Offer a thicker version with a DVD/BlueRay!

And SSDs are still too expensive. A thicker body would be really beneficial if it allowed them to put a fusion drive inside a MBP. Or they could always put in a hybrid drive. The only time my slow HDD bothers me on my MBP is when booting or waking. A fusion drive should take care of that nicely.
Click to expand...
If I were you I would have bought the rMBP, I don't ever have to use the super drive. Also you don't have to buy apples expensive USB Superdrive. Here is a least expensive Samsung on for 30 bucks. But then again it's everyone is different :cool:

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Portable-External-SE-218BB-RSBS/dp/B008AJLPYS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1373381408&sr=8-2&keywords=apple+usb+superdrive
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
DavidBlack said:
One thing I that really puzzled me is why the rMBP 13" had the Intel HD 4000 graphics card. Here is why the rMBP 13" has a resolution of 2560x1600 then it's scaled down to look like 1280x800 but everything is rendered at 4x all of this being done with a Intel HD 4000 graphics card. So I decided to put this resolution on my iMac late 2012 with a Nvidia 640M, although it was smooth for a while but after having a good amount of apps opened and multitasking and mission control It was lagging. To put this into perspective the current Macbook Air has a Intel HD 5000 graphics card. Apple will mostly have a retina version of the Macbook Air in 2014. What I am saying is why apple decided to power so much pixels on graphics card such as the Intel HD 4000? :confused:
Click to expand...

Those Intel integrated graphics ten years ago, such as 845G and 865G, can power 2048*1536 without any difficulty. 2D display is never a problem

The lag you have is because you use too much CPU and memory
 
keysofanxiety said:
Apple systems historically have never had awesome GPUs. I wish that could change, yet I doubt it will. That's why I'm always a little confused when people say 'xxxx is a joke in a pro machine', because they've never had the absolute best cutting-edge mobility graphics in any of their MacBook/PowerBook lines.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. I just don't think we'll ever see gamers buying Macs for the graphics card.
Click to expand...

Because when a Pro machine is just making the minimum GPU requirement (1GB) for Adobe apps, then that isn't really making yourself sound 'pro'. That just gets by and for many of us, it's just not enough GPU power to be considered a pro machine.
 
Ok this basically means that the next generation will be intel only
No more nvidia/ati graphics in apple's notebook line.

Now if it were a 4750hq then maybe an extra expensive model with a dedicated gpu could have been an option.

But since it's the 4950 the chance is zero % that we will see a dedicated graphics card in any of apple's notebooks.

Brave move, but it's the right move to make looking forward!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back