In the 2012 13" rMBP, it was limited to only 8GB of RAM and was 3.57 lbs and 0.75 inches thick, whereas the 2013 version managed to be thinner, lighter, and accommodate 16GB of RAM, while the 15" version was the same dimension wise both years. What prevented the 2012 13" one from being as thin as it could be? Looking back at it, it kinda looked like a 90% finished product.
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.
So what prevented 2012 13" rMBP from being as thin as 2013 13"
- Thread starter bniu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hieveryone
macrumors 603
It was a pretty groundbreaking laptop at the time. I image it was to do with improvements in production, refinements in design etc. Haswell is more power efficient so maybe a more refined and thus smaller cooling solution helped? I imagine Apple was trying to make it as thin and just had to settle as a compromise. Still an amazing product.
DeltaMac
macrumors G5
No one here can do anything more than guess about why technology is not fully incorporated when new models are released. Maybe it has something to do with time. I'm sure there's always a cutoff point when additional product design stops, so a product can be released for sale.
The 13-inch is significantly smaller inside than the 15-inch. The challenges of putting everything inside gets more difficult when there's less space to use.
I think there will ALWAYS be complaints that the engineers could have provided more features (such as thinness, if that's a goal) in every new generation of technology. It's related to the belief that you can't please everyone.
TechZeke
macrumors 68020
This always happens in first generation products.
You could argue why they didn't make the first iPad like the iPad 2, only year later.
As whats already been stated, engineering wise it's difficult to put that much power into the size of the 13" rMBP. I actually wasn't surprised when they said it was thicker. Every year as the technology gets more refined, they were able to make it thinner.
Well, the tradeoffs, right? I mean you can no longer user-upgrade RAM: that made it thinner. You can't user-replace the battery: that made it thinner.
The only thing you can theoretically replace is the HDD, IF you could find PCIe SSD's in the open market, which you can't at the moment.
I wonder how long it'll take apple to start using Carbotanium or another composite material in order to make the laptops even lighter, not just super thin.
The 2013 model only has one fan whereas (correct me if I'm wrong) the 2012 model has two just like the 15". The removal of one fan is probably possible because of the power efficiency of Haswell and made room to spread out some components and thus being able to make it thinner.
Barney63
macrumors 6502a
FuNGi
macrumors 65816
Except the 2010 MBA which has remained identical in its dimensions.
According to ifixit.com the late 2013 model did go down to just one fan. I think the width was also able to be reduced due in part to them moving the SSD out from under the trackpad to where it belongs on the logic board. The batteries were pretty much the same (2013's 71.8 Wh and 11.34 V battery is only slightly down from 2012's 74.0 Wh and 11.21 V) battery).
dusk007
macrumors 68040
The problem was exactly what they said. A 35W CPU required a fairly big battery. Everything was as cramped as it could be and they couldn't shrink the battery or they wouldn't have hit the battery life.
The new battery is smaller in thickness. It may not be a huge difference in capacity now as they have more space due to the one fan less but the last model was a tradeoff between thickness and battery life.
The 28W system on a chip just is much more efficient than the old two chip design. It needs less cooling and less battery capacity to still get longer battery life and a cooler notebook in many usecases.
The old two chip solution was about as efficient as the 15" quad core with low load, the difference coming from the bigger screen. The 15" has two more cores but when not in use those are power gated and use virtually no extra power, the northbridge and all the other stuff like RAM was just the same (assuming the dGPU is off). The new single chip can basically go down to power levels of the new MBA with its 12+h battery life. It is just a version of that same chip that is allowed to clock higher when needed.
The new battery is smaller in thickness. It may not be a huge difference in capacity now as they have more space due to the one fan less but the last model was a tradeoff between thickness and battery life.
The 28W system on a chip just is much more efficient than the old two chip design. It needs less cooling and less battery capacity to still get longer battery life and a cooler notebook in many usecases.
The old two chip solution was about as efficient as the 15" quad core with low load, the difference coming from the bigger screen. The 15" has two more cores but when not in use those are power gated and use virtually no extra power, the northbridge and all the other stuff like RAM was just the same (assuming the dGPU is off). The new single chip can basically go down to power levels of the new MBA with its 12+h battery life. It is just a version of that same chip that is allowed to clock higher when needed.