What's new about the 2013 rMBP? 13 and 15?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by omfgskyler, Feb 14, 2013.

  1. omfgskyler macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    #1
    I noticed the "new" as of 2013 rMBP came out. Besides the price drop, is there anything new about them?
     
  2. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Liquinn Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    #3
    Why does wikipedia say the 2012 model is the current one? =/
     
  4. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #4
    Because no one cared to update it yet? The same goes for EveryMac and iFixIt (teardown and such).
     
  5. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #5
    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.
     
  6. Liquinn Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    #6
    So I guess we can expect Haswell MBPs in 8 months time. :D
     
  7. mike5065 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Location:
    Toronto
    #7
    looks like the GPU max dynamic frequency got a bump. always welcome.
     
  8. tekksan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    #8
    Wait, the 2012 is faster than the 2013 bump? I don't get this but I'm not that smart.
     
  9. Sean76 macrumors 6502

    Sean76

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Location:
    NYC
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #10
    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.
     
  11. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #11
    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.
     
  12. Alekto macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    Location:
    Tokyo
    #12
    Thanks KPOM. I thought I was going crazy.

    Nearly 200 bucks for a measly 100mhz speed bump in the top end model? Ouch.
     
  13. walkie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    #13
    Today I got my 2013 15-rMBP (replaced my 2012 bought 1 week ago) and the Intel HD4000 feels a little snappier :).
     
  14. Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #14
    too bad its not though lol...

    :mad:
     
  15. Sean76 macrumors 6502

    Sean76

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Location:
    NYC
    #15
    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?
     
  16. Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #16
    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.
     
  17. tekksan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    #17
    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!
     
  18. walkie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    #18
    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.
     
  19. lixuelai macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    #19
    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.
     
  20. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #20
    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.
     
  21. Ry. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    #21
    Is there likely to be a price drop on the 15" like there is on the 13"? Why the drop in price anyway? Apart from the fact they were well overpriced in the first place ofcourse.
     
  22. x-evil-x macrumors 68030

    x-evil-x

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #22
    cheaper cost for storage now a days. Apple lowered price according to this pretty sure.
     
  23. eljimberino, Feb 15, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2013

    eljimberino macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    #23
    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?
     
  24. applepie555 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    #24
    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
     
  25. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #25

Share This Page