I noticed the "new" as of 2013 rMBP came out. Besides the price drop, is there anything new about them?
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.
What's new about the 2013 rMBP? 13 and 15?
- Thread starter omfgskyler
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All but the base model 13" have slightly upgraded processors. It's just 100MHz different at the base and Turbo Boost speeds. For instance, the base 13" has a 2.5GHz i5 with a Turbo Boost of 3.1GHz, same as before. But the 256GB and higher models have a 2.6GHz model with a Turbo Boost of 3.2GHz. The i7 option went from 2.9GHz to 3.0GHz (with the Turbo Boost increasing from 3.6GHz to 3.7GHz).
The main thing is the price drop, though. You likely wouldn't notice a 100MHz difference in speed.
The main thing is the price drop, though. You likely wouldn't notice a 100MHz difference in speed.
Because no one cared to update it yet? The same goes for EveryMac and iFixIt (teardown and such).
It hasn't been updated yet. Note that the 2.6GHz i5 on Wikipedia is a different one from the one released yesterday. The 2012 2.6 GHz model i5-3320M has a top Turbo Boost of 3.3GHz and GPU speed of 1.2Ghz. Yesterday's 2.6GHz model (i5-3230M)is essentially a refinement of the 2012 2.5GHz and tops out at 3.2GHz (GPU 1.1GHz).
Basically, Intel just cranked up the clock a little as their process got more reliable. All the CPUs are made on the same lines. They just clock some at lower speeds (likely those that didn't pass specs for extended operations at the higher speeds).
Here's the 2012:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/processor-specifications.html?proc=64896
Here's the 2013:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/processor-specifications.html?proc=72164
Notice the 2012 is faster. However the 2013 2.6GHz is really just the update to this:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/processor-specifications.html?proc=67355
I know. It's needlessly confusing. Intel likes it that way.
Yea I'm seconding that statement as well, I'm about to go swap my 2012 rMBP 13 for the supposedly 2013 with a faster processor...
Can someone chime in who really gets what the difference is.
I also have the choice of just putting up a $100 and getting the 2012 with double the memory as opposed to putting up $200 for the 2013.
DO this... the 100MHz isnt worth $100 at all and wont be noticeable in day to day tasks, or even that much in CPU intensive task as much as more memory will help.
The 2013 2.6GHz (i5-3230M) is a refined version of the 2012 chip that ran at 2.5GHz (i5-3210M). They still sell the "2012" 2.6GHz chip (i5-3320M) that runs at the higher Turbo Boost and GPU speeds.
Intel's numbering scheme is deliberately confusing. It was nice when all you had to know was the speed rating and the processor family. Now i5/i7 is virtually a meaningless distinction (1MB larger cache is pretty much it for the dual core mobile chips), and the speed ratings overlap.
----------
The 2.6GHz in the 2013 rMBP is 100MHz faster at the base and top Turbo Boost speed than the 2.5GHz 2012 rMBP. That's it. The graphics are the same. It's the same story with the i7. The 3.0GHz i7 is 100MHz faster at the base and Turbo Boost speeds than last year's 2.9GHz i7.
Today I got my 2013 15-rMBP (replaced my 2012 bought 1 week ago) and the Intel HD4000 feels a little snappier.
too bad its not though lol...
Thanks...I think that's what I'm going to do! Double the memory to me is deff worth $100! But $200 for virtually no real bump in speed is not worth it.
However...and nobody may be able to answer this one?
Screens...Are they still going with the toss up of Samsung and LG screens for the 2013?
Well I know they are ditching the Samsung SSDs for SanDisk, so I assume screens will be by LG and another partner and ditch Samsung.
I thought there was only a 2.3Ghz, 2.6Ghz, and a 2.8Ghz 2012 rmbp. So my confusion remains. According to the specs on these sites from earlier in the thread:
Here's the 2012:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/processor-specifications.html?proc=64896
Here's the 2013:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/processor-specifications.html?proc=72164
The 2012 2.6Ghz (3.30Ghz) is .1Ghz faster Max Turbo than the 2013 (3.20Ghz) and .1Ghz faster for Graphics Max Frequency (2012-1.2Ghz vs 2013-1.1Ghz)
I've got to be missing something but according to those charts, the 2012 2.6Ghz > 2013 2.6Ghz.
EDIT: I figured it out. There is no 2.6Ghz 2013 no the MBP, it's a 2.7. Doh!
I think that Apple and Samsung are making up, they need each other and they know it, there is a recent article saying that neither Steve Jobs nor Tim Cook wanted to mess around with Samsung but Samsung crossed the line, they have a very high quality control and in the end Samsung has the capacity to deliver as many components as Apple needs.
I am curious if Apple is using the i7 3630QM in the base 15 rMBP or the i7 3635QM. The i7 3635QM is a direct upgrade (albeit slight) to the i7 3615QM that is being used currently. 100MHz increase to both default clockspeed and turboboost. i7 3630QM is mostly identical to the i7 3635QM however the integrated GPU is clocked a bit less during boost and it lacks VTd. The tray price is the same as the i7 3615QM so it is possible Apple went with the cheaper i7 3630QM.
Not true. Apple is currently evaluating TSMC because Apple's demand for AX processors will soon exceed Samsung's maximum capacity. This means that even if Samsung gave their entire fab product line capacity to produce AX processors, Apple would still need more.
So, at the end of the day, if purchasing a 2012 model is slightly wiser than a 2013, how do you go about buying a 2012?
Last edited:
The 2.5 & 2.6 are standard and you can upgrade to 3.0ghz on the high end but apparently using Bto you can still get the 2.9 ghz on the low end..weird