When the 13-inch MacBook Pro with retina display is going to be released?

[skaertus]

Going by historical evidence, Apple tends to release changes onto the 15 inch and then bring it to the 13 (and 17 inch) before. I don't think it would take that long to release this product considering they already spent a lot of time on it at WWDC. The most important questions will be about the GPU and CPU and Apple don't tend to go into much detail with that during presentations anyway.

Well, as for the specs, I wouldn't expect anything much different from the current 13" MBP.

I mean, an Ivy Bridge Core i5 2.5 GHz in the base model, and a Core i7 2.9 GHz (dual core as well) in the higher end model. I don't expect quad-core processors and I guess anyone who is expecting them will be disappointed. I think Apple will use dual-core processors due to heating issues and also to keep a consistent pricing strategy in its MBP line.

I also don't expect a dedicated graphics card. According to these rumors (https://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/1...ro-sai-to-carry-unprecedented-battery-design/), the 13" rMBP will probably have an integrated graphics card, and that, of course, is Intel HD 4000. The integrated graphics card will probably handle the 2560x1600 resolution well. It won't be screaming fast for gaming, but that's not the purpose of this laptop anyway.

The Dell XPS One 27 has a 2560x1440 screen and runs on a HD 4000 on the base model, and the performance seems to be just fine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRXB8XiWwzk

There are also videos of a 27" 2560x1440 Thunderbolt Display running connected to a MacBook Air, which only has the Intel integrated card.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMGKPv9Va90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uUbchklSjY

In these videos, the Thunderbolt Display was connected to the MacBook Air and things ran just fine. I didn't notice any lag. Note that all these videos are from late 2011, so these MacBook Airs are running Sandy Bridge processors at most, with an Intel HD 3000 graphics card. The HD 4000 of the Ivy Bridge is far more powerful than the HD 3000, so it should have plenty of horsepower to drive the 2560x1600 retina resolution.

A dedicated graphics card, on the other hand, would consume more battery and would have more heating issues.

Seriously, I wouldn't expect anything different from these specs. I would like to know, though, if Apple will put a 128 GB or a 256 GB SSD in the base model. That's the big question for me in what concerns the specs.

 

[HishamAkhtar]

Well, as for the specs, I wouldn't expect anything much different from the current 13" MBP.

I mean, an Ivy Bridge Core i5 2.5 GHz in the base model, and a Core i7 2.9 GHz (dual core as well) in the higher end model. I don't expect quad-core processors and I guess anyone who is expecting them will be disappointed. I think Apple will use dual-core processors due to heating issues and also to keep a consistent pricing strategy in its MBP line.

I also don't expect a dedicated graphics card. According to these rumors (https://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/1...ro-sai-to-carry-unprecedented-battery-design/), the 13" rMBP will probably have an integrated graphics card, and that, of course, is Intel HD 4000. The integrated graphics card will probably handle the 2560x1600 resolution well. It won't be screaming fast for gaming, but that's not the purpose of this laptop anyway.

The Dell XPS One 27 has a 2560x1440 screen and runs on a HD 4000 on the base model, and the performance seems to be just fine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRXB8XiWwzk

There are also videos of a 27" 2560x1440 Thunderbolt Display running connected to a MacBook Air, which only has the Intel integrated card.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMGKPv9Va90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uUbchklSjY

In these videos, the Thunderbolt Display was connected to the MacBook Air and things ran just fine. I didn't notice any lag. Note that all these videos are from late 2011, so these MacBook Airs are running Sandy Bridge processors at most, with an Intel HD 3000 graphics card. The HD 4000 of the Ivy Bridge is far more powerful than the HD 3000, so it should have plenty of horsepower to drive the 2560x1600 retina resolution.

A dedicated graphics card, on the other hand, would consume more battery and would have more heating issues.

Seriously, I wouldn't expect anything different from these specs. I would like to know, though, if Apple will put a 128 GB or a 256 GB SSD in the base model. That's the big question for me in what concerns the specs.

Great post.

I agree with your view on the iGPU. I don't think we'll see a dGPU since it wouldn't make sense. Apple is moving towards iGPU and this will be the case when Haswell is released. So it makes no sense for them to go back for one generation.

I wouldn't be surprised if they make a quad core CPU though. It would help differentiate the MBP from the MBA and would justify the higher price point of the laptop. Without that, what's the point of buying a MBP aside from the retina screen? Besides, Intel has recently released a new range of low power quad core chips that could fit into the 13 inch nicely.

And yeah I don't think the HD4000 will have too much problem with retina as long as it's optimized properly. The MBA can run an external display on ULV Sandy Bridge so the MBP shouldn't have too much problems...

 

[skaertus]

Great post.

Thank you.

I agree with your view on the iGPU. I don't think we'll see a dGPU since it wouldn't make sense. Apple is moving towards iGPU and this will be the case when Haswell is released. So it makes no sense for them to go back for one generation.

Yes, it wouldn't make sense.

If Apple used a dGPU right now, it would have a hard time downgrading to the iGPU of the Haswell. People would certainly complain.

I wouldn't be surprised if they make a quad core CPU though. It would help differentiate the MBP from the MBA and would justify the higher price point of the laptop. Without that, what's the point of buying a MBP aside from the retina screen? Besides, Intel has recently released a new range of low power quad core chips that could fit into the 13 inch nicely.

Although Apple could do that, I don't think it will. Here are the reasons:

1. The 15" rMBP has basically the same specs as the 15" cMBP. If Apple follows the same pattern, the 13" rMBP will have the same specs as the 13" cMPB, so no quad-core processor.

2. The current dual-core processors used in the 13" MBP are already more powerful than the low-voltage ones used in the 13" MBA. In fact, the Core i5-3210M 2.5 GHz used in the low-end 13" MBP is more powerful than the Core i5-3427U 1.8 GHz used in both 13" MBA and about as powerful as the i7-3667U 2.0 GHz (which is the maximum the MBA can be configured to). That's enough reason already to differentiate the 13" rMBP from the 13" MBA.

3. The only 35W Ivy Bridge quad-core processor, as far as I am aware of, is the i7-3612QM 2.1 GHz. But, although having the same TDP, it probably runs hotter than the i7-3520M 2.9 GHz. In addition, the i7-3612QM is a more expensive processor and Apple will want to keep costs down; the retina display and the SSD will probably add much to the price of the 13" rMBP already.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think it's unlikely.

And yeah I don't think the HD4000 will have too much problem with retina as long as it's optimized properly. The MBA can run an external display on ULV Sandy Bridge so the MBP shouldn't have too much problems...

That's what I thought after I saw the videos in YouTube. I don't have a MacBook Air or a Thunderbolt Display, and I haven't tested it, but I think there should be no reason to worry on this.

 

[ImperialX]

That's what I thought after I saw the videos in YouTube. I don't have a MacBook Air or a Thunderbolt Display, and I haven't tested it, but I think there should be no reason to worry on this.

I have a 11" MacBook Air (2012) and had a Thunderbolt display. It runs as smooth as butter, even with Final Cut Pro X as long as there isn't too much stuff in the timeline (I have the Core i7 2.0GHz / 8GB RAM build).

I can't say anything overly fantastic about gaming performance though. When I play StarCraft II, I have to disconnect the screen to get playable framerates. That's not a problem for me though, and I doubt it will be a problem for anyone who buys Macs.

Anyway, all I can say is that the HD4000 perfectly capable of driving a 2560x1600 screen. However, the software optimisation is another story. Some of the graphical glitches 15" rMBP suffers on integrated isn't due to the HD4000 not powerful enough, but rather the retina graphics themselves.

 

[skaertus]

I have a 11" MacBook Air (2012) and had a Thunderbolt display. It runs as smooth as butter, even with Final Cut Pro X as long as there isn't too much stuff in the timeline (I have the Core i7 2.0GHz / 8GB RAM build).

I can't say anything overly fantastic about gaming performance though. When I play StarCraft II, I have to disconnect the screen to get playable framerates. That's not a problem for me though, and I doubt it will be a problem for anyone who buys Macs.

Anyway, all I can say is that the HD4000 perfectly capable of driving a 2560x1600 screen. However, the software optimisation is another story. Some of the graphical glitches 15" rMBP suffers on integrated isn't due to the HD4000 not powerful enough, but rather the retina graphics themselves.

Great to hear that.

As for the gameplay, I guess hardly someone would expect to play games in a laptop with a 2560x1600 resolution.

 

[bill-p]

Great to hear that.

As for the gameplay, I guess hardly someone would expect to play games in a laptop with a 2560x1600 resolution.

Well, you can play games in a laptop with 2880 x 1800... so naturally...

But I think the key point is that gaming is not going to be the main usage of anyone looking for a ridiculously high resolution display. The machine is likely to be used mainly for work and other serious productive things.

 

[BiscottiGelato]

Well, you can play games in a laptop with 2880 x 1800... so naturally...

But I think the key point is that gaming is not going to be the main usage of anyone looking for a ridiculously high resolution display. The machine is likely to be used mainly for work and other serious productive things.

Not trying to speak for all people, but I bet a lot of people are in the same camp. They need a slim, sleek and reasonable sized (13") Mac that can do what they need to do (photo/video edit, virtual machines, or just FB or whatever it is), but do not want another dedicated machine just to do occassional gaming.

I am one of them, I only play SC2. I don't think I will play anything else (if any games at all for that matter) for the next 5 years. I don't want to keep a giant 2007 PC tower just to play a single game.... Not to mention I don't mind to play a game or two when I'm on the go sometimes~

 

[skaertus]

Not trying to speak for all people, but I bet a lot of people are in the same camp. They need a slim, sleek and reasonable sized (13") Mac that can do what they need to do (photo/video edit, virtual machines, or just FB or whatever it is), but do not want another dedicated machine just to do occassional gaming.

I am one of them, I only play SC2. I don't think I will play anything else (if any games at all for that matter) for the next 5 years. I don't want to keep a giant 2007 PC tower just to play a single game.... Not to mention I don't mind to play a game or two when I'm on the go sometimes~

Well, I guess so. I'm interested in buying the 13" rMBP, but not for playing games. I won't play games on it and I wouldn't even consider buying a Mac for this purpose.

All I expect of the video card is that it is able to run normal tasks without gripes.

 

[ImperialX]

One of the most interesting gripes about Retina Displays is the amount of screen estate you have in reality. The Retina MacBook Pro 15" has a usable estate of 1440x960. However, I have owned a MacBook Air 13" in the past that's also 1440x960, and there's no doubt in my mind you the 15" Retina display is more "usable".

The main thing that you need to consider is that with Retina displays, text and images are so much sharper, your windows can be smaller and yet still more readable. That's why even if the 13" Retina MacBook Pro only has 1280x800 of real screen estate, I doubt it will actually be any worse than the 13" MacBook Air's 1440x960.

If the 13" MacBook Pro is at/below $1499, I'm buying it. 128GB SSD would be a bit disappointing, but as long as it has 2.9 GHz dual-core i7 and 8GB RAM, that's enough for me. My 11" MBA has never slowed down and neither will a 13" rMBP with those specs.

 

[skaertus]

Well, you can play games in a laptop with 2880 x 1800... so naturally...

But I think the key point is that gaming is not going to be the main usage of anyone looking for a ridiculously high resolution display. The machine is likely to be used mainly for work and other serious productive things.

That's what I meant.

----------

One of the most interesting gripes about Retina Displays is the amount of screen estate you have in reality. The Retina MacBook Pro 15" has a usable estate of 1440x960. However, I have owned a MacBook Air 13" in the past that's also 1440x960, and there's no doubt in my mind you the 15" Retina display is more "usable".

The main thing that you need to consider is that with Retina displays, text and images are so much sharper, your windows can be smaller and yet still more readable. That's why even if the 13" Retina MacBook Pro only has 1280x800 of real screen estate, I doubt it will actually be any worse than the 13" MacBook Air's 1440x960. [/QUOTE]

Just as I thought. I may be able to zoom out documents and webpages and they'll still be very readable. So, there's more work area in a 15" rMBP even though the icons and screen elements are the same size as in a 1440x900 resolution (and not 1440x960). The same will happen with the 13" rMBP.

If the 13" MacBook Pro is at/below $1499, I'm buying it. 128GB SSD would be a bit disappointing, but as long as it has 2.9 GHz dual-core i7 and 8GB RAM, that's enough for me. My 11" MBA has never slowed down and neither will a 13" rMBP with those specs.

I would like a 256 GB SSD, as I will have to install Windows (probably on Parallels, not BootCamp).

 

[bill-p]

Not trying to speak for all people, but I bet a lot of people are in the same camp. They need a slim, sleek and reasonable sized (13") Mac that can do what they need to do (photo/video edit, virtual machines, or just FB or whatever it is), but do not want another dedicated machine just to do occassional gaming.

I am one of them, I only play SC2. I don't think I will play anything else (if any games at all for that matter) for the next 5 years. I don't want to keep a giant 2007 PC tower just to play a single game.... Not to mention I don't mind to play a game or two when I'm on the go sometimes~

And for playing games, the 13" rMBP will do just fine if you drop the resolution of the game down to a reasonable one. I mean... seriously, at the end of the day, it's not like you absolutely have to run the game at 2560 x 1600 at max settings, right?

One of the most interesting gripes about Retina Displays is the amount of screen estate you have in reality. The Retina MacBook Pro 15" has a usable estate of 1440x960. However, I have owned a MacBook Air 13" in the past that's also 1440x960, and there's no doubt in my mind you the 15" Retina display is more "usable".

The actual screen real estate you can have on the 15" rMBP is maximum 1920 x 1200 without any tweak. You are not locked to an effective 1440 x 900 maximum desktop size.

That's a perk that I think a lot of people misunderstand. You are not locked to one desktop size.

Similarly, if a 13" rMBP is to be released, I'd bet that you can scale to 1440 x 900 and 1680 x 1050 effective desktops on it as well, which would mean it has more screen real estate than the MacBook Air 13".

 

[skaertus]

And for playing games, the 13" rMBP will do just fine if you drop the resolution of the game down to a reasonable one. I mean... seriously, at the end of the day, it's not like you absolutely have to run the game at 2560 x 1600 at max settings, right?

Depending on the game, I guess not even an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 would play at 2560x1600 with maximum settings.

The actual screen real estate you can have on the 15" rMBP is maximum 1920 x 1200 without any tweak. You are not locked to an effective 1440 x 900 maximum desktop size.

That's a perk that I think a lot of people misunderstand. You are not locked to one desktop size.

Similarly, if a 13" rMBP is to be released, I'd bet that you can scale to 1440 x 900 and 1680 x 1050 effective desktops on it as well, which would mean it has more screen real estate than the MacBook Air 13".

Sure, you're right. You would be able to use a non-retina resolution of 1440x900 or 1680x1050 on the 13" rMBP, which would give more real estate than a MBA. But I think he meant something different.

The aspect ratio of the 13" will be 1280x800, but the actual resolution would be 2560x1600. So, documents and webpages can be zoomed out and they will still be perfectly legible. Although this does not increase the desktop area, it does allow more usable elements to be seen at the same time on the screen. One would be able to zoom out a document and a web page to see them both side-to-side and they would be perfectly viewable. It's not possible to do that with the current 13" MBP, as it wouldn't be possible to see the details in the webpage or the document if they are zoomed out.

 

[ImperialX]

And for playing games, the 13" rMBP will do just fine if you drop the resolution of the game down to a reasonable one. I mean... seriously, at the end of the day, it's not like you absolutely have to run the game at 2560 x 1600 at max settings, right?

Of course. However, running games on the Thunderbolt display not at full resolution makes it look absolutely rubbish. This isn't be a problem on the Retina MacBook Pros because the displays are so small in comparison in the first place.

Sure, you're right. You would be able to use a non-retina resolution of 1440x900 or 1680x1050 on the 13" rMBP, which would give more real estate than a MBA. But I think he meant something different.

The aspect ratio of the 13" will be 1280x800, but the actual resolution would be 2560x1600. So, documents and webpages can be zoomed out and they will still be perfectly legible. Although this does not increase the desktop area, it does allow more usable elements to be seen at the same time on the screen. One would be able to zoom out a document and a web page to see them both side-to-side and they would be perfectly viewable. It's not possible to do that with the current 13" MBP, as it wouldn't be possible to see the details in the webpage or the document if they are zoomed out.

That is correct. I know you can scale the displays on the MacBook Pro, but most people (including me) don't find that too useful. Sure, I can get 1920x1200 on the 15" MacBook Pro, but for most purposes I find 2880x1800 (scaled from 1440x900) much more usable. Even though the screen estate is significantly lower, the sharper fonts and graphics allows windows to be smaller, yet still be clearly readable - not to mention the text is nearly impossibly small to read with 1920x1200 non-scaled on a 15" display.

Basically, what I'm saying is, even if the 13" rMBP can scale to 1440x900 when given the option, most people will stick with 2560x1600 (scaled from 1280x800) even when they have this choice simply because of Retina graphics that eliminates the problem of having "less" estate.

 

[bill-p]

Sure, you're right. You would be able to use a non-retina resolution of 1440x900 or 1680x1050 on the 13" rMBP, which would give more real estate than a MBA. But I think he meant something different.

The aspect ratio of the 13" will be 1280x800, but the actual resolution would be 2560x1600. So, documents and webpages can be zoomed out and they will still be perfectly legible. Although this does not increase the desktop area, it does allow more usable elements to be seen at the same time on the screen. One would be able to zoom out a document and a web page to see them both side-to-side and they would be perfectly viewable. It's not possible to do that with the current 13" MBP, as it wouldn't be possible to see the details in the webpage or the document if they are zoomed out.

That is correct. I know you can scale the displays on the MacBook Pro, but most people (including me) don't find that too useful. Sure, I can get 1920x1200 on the 15" MacBook Pro, but for most purposes I find 2880x1800 (scaled from 1440x900) much more usable. Even though the screen estate is significantly lower, the sharper fonts and graphics allows windows to be smaller, yet still be clearly readable - not to mention the text is nearly impossibly small to read with 1920x1200 non-scaled on a 15" display.

Basically, what I'm saying is, even if the 13" rMBP can scale to 1440x900 when given the option, most people will stick with 2560x1600 (scaled from 1280x800) even when they have this choice simply because of Retina graphics that eliminates the problem of having "less" estate.

I think you guys are missing the point.

The scaled resolutions are still Retina. It's not like 1440 x 900 pixel-doubled is the only Retina resolution on the 15" rMBP. Similarly, I don't think 1280 x 800 is the only Retina resolution on the 13" rMBP.

1440 x 900 would be a 2880 x 1800 virtual desk space scaled down to 2560 x 1600. Much like 1680 x 1050 would be 3360 x 2100 scaled down.

So you get no loss in sharpness, and any loss in pixel is already invisible since the pixel density is still high.

That's what's on the 15" rMBP. the 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200 effective desktops are not non-Retina. They are 3360 x 2100 and 3840 x 2400 respectively. That's why people keep complaining about poor performance. Those resolutions require Apple to scale things twice before displaying them to you.

In short, 1680 x 1050 desktop (3360 x 2100 scaled down) on the 15" rMBP looks a lot sharper than a high-res 15" cMBP, and I don't doubt 1440 x 900 desktop (2880 x 1800 scaled down) on the 13" rMBP would look sharper than the 13" MBA.

Edit: Here's a 3840 x 2400 screenshot to show you what I'm talking about:

And sincerely, the text is not so hard to read. It's about the same size as texts on the MacBook Air 11.6". Just on a much larger display.

 

[skaertus]

I think you guys are missing the point.

The scaled resolutions are still Retina. It's not like 1440 x 900 pixel-doubled is the only Retina resolution on the 15" rMBP. Similarly, I don't think 1280 x 800 is the only Retina resolution on the 13" rMBP.

1440 x 900 would be a 2880 x 1800 virtual desk space scaled down to 2560 x 1600. Much like 1680 x 1050 would be 3360 x 2100 scaled down.

So you get no loss in sharpness, and any loss in pixel is already invisible since the pixel density is still high.

That's what's on the 15" rMBP. the 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200 effective desktops are not non-Retina. They are 3360 x 2100 and 3840 x 2400 respectively. That's why people keep complaining about poor performance. Those resolutions require Apple to scale things twice before displaying them to you.

In short, 1680 x 1050 desktop (3360 x 2100 scaled down) on the 15" rMBP looks a lot sharper than a high-res 15" cMBP, and I don't doubt 1440 x 900 desktop (2880 x 1800 scaled down) on the 13" rMBP would look sharper than the 13" MBA.

Edit: Here's a 3840 x 2400 screenshot to show you what I'm talking about:

Image

And sincerely, the text is not so hard to read. It's about the same size as texts on the MacBook Air 11.6". Just on a much larger display.

Impressive screenshot.

So, what you are really saying is that the 1920x1200 resolution on the 15" rMBP is a 3840x2400 fitted on a 2880x1800 resolution so it looks like 1920x1200, but as sharp as 2880x1800? I am a little bit confused right now...

 

[ImperialX]

The scaled resolutions are still Retina.

Wait, are you serious? Why doesn't Apple list this on their website? If this is true, that's amazing.

Hang on, I'm going down to my local Apple Store right now to check this out.

 

[skaertus]

Wait, are you serious? Why doesn't Apple list this on their website? If this is true, that's amazing.

Hang on, I'm going down to my local Apple Store right now to check this out.

Damn! The stores in Brazil are closed right now, I can't go out and check this myself!

 

[skaertus]

From Anandtech:

Even at the non-integer scaled 1680 x 1050 setting, the Retina Display looks a lot better than last year's high-res panel. It looks like Apple actually renders the screen at twice the selected resolution before scaling it to fit the 2880 x 1800 panel (in other words, at 1920 x 1200 Apple is rendering everything at 3840 x 2400 (!) before scaling - this is likely where the perf impact is seen, but I'm trying to find a way to quantify that now). Everything just looks better. I also appreciate how quick it is to switch between resolutions on OS X. When I'm doing a lot of work I prefer the 1920 x 1200 setting, but if I'm in content consumption mode I find myself happier at 1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

See also here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-33620_3-5...a-look-how-much-the-new-macbook-pro-displays/

Now, I'm really impressed. Can't wait to get to a store and check this out in person.

 

[0x000000]

Wait, are you serious? Why doesn't Apple list this on their website? If this is true, that's amazing.

Hang on, I'm going down to my local Apple Store right now to check this out.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-scaling

You're welcome.

It does look a bit worse, though. Probably still better than a native resolution screen, but still a wee bit worse than the "true" retina resolution.

I don't know if this is a source of bad performance, though. First time I heard that, so I wouldn't believe that without further proof.

 

[ImperialX]

Holy ****, he's right.

I'm on a 15" rMBP right now. When I scaled it to 1920x1200, it was still Retina level graphics. I have attached a screenshot. There's just so much screen estate and graphics don't look any worse. The resolution is 3840×2400. I can't believe I didn't know this.

My mind is blown. So far, doesn't look like any kind of slowdowns, but I'm only web browsing. I'm sure this is taxing if you were to start editing movies at this resolution.

 

[skaertus]

Holy ****, he's right.

I'm on a 15" rMBP right now. When I scaled it to 1920x1200, it was still Retina level graphics. I have attached a screenshot. There's just so much screen estate and graphics don't look any worse. The resolution is 3840×2400. I can't believe I didn't know this.

My mind is blown. So far, doesn't look like any kind of slowdowns, but I'm only web browsing. I'm sure this is taxing if you were to start editing movies at this resolution.

OMG! So it means that the 15" rMBP shows images at 2880x1800 resolution even when it's configured to show 1920x1200, because it scales to 3840x2400 and fits into 2880x1800? Is that it?

 

[ImperialX]

OMG! So it means that the 15" rMBP shows images at 2880x1800 resolution even when it's configured to show 1920x1200, because it scales to 3840x2400 and fits into 2880x1800? Is that it?

Yes! It's really working at 3840*2400! It's just scaled down to fit into the display, but it is actually that high, shown by the screenshot.

No wonder people are complaining about performance. Running Final Cut Pro on this resolution can be wrecking.

 

[0x000000]

OMG! So it means that the 15" rMBP shows images at 2880x1800 resolution even when it's configured to show 1920x1200, because it scales to 3840x2400 and fits into 2880x1800? Is that it?

Uhh, yes. And you'll still have a sharp display, because even though it's not 2 "true" pixels for every pixel, it's still 1 point something and the pixels were invisibly small to begin with. You obviously still don't see any pixelation.

But everything is a very tiny bit less sharp, because it's scaled after all. No matter what technology is behind it, you can't prevent that from happening. The question is, whether a scaled 1440px resolution on a 13" retina looks worse than the native 1440px resolution of a 13" MBA.

It's quite possible the retina looks better.

----------

No wonder people are complaining about performance. Running Final Cut Pro on this resolution can be wrecking.

I'm not sure about that. True, it can be wrecking, but people aren't so dumb to not suspect the scaled resolution. Most people probably don't even know about scaling and don't care, because 1440x900 is plenty already. As said before, I wouldn't be so fast to conclude that all reported performance problems are because of this.

 

[ImperialX]

But everything is a very tiny bit less sharp, because it's scaled after all. No matter what technology is behind it, you can't prevent that from happening. The question is, whether a scaled 1440px resolution on a 13" retina looks worse than the native 1440px resolution of a 13" MBA.

It's quite possible the retina looks better.

The retina looks better. I have a 15" regular MBP (1680x1050) and a 15" rMBP (3360x2100) side by side right now. The rMBP does look less sharp than what it normally looks with 2880x1800, but it is still better than the regular MBP. Text and graphics are still sharper.

 

[skaertus]

Yes! It's really working at 3840*2400! It's just scaled down to fit into the display, but it is actually that high, shown by the screenshot.

No wonder people are complaining about performance. Running Final Cut Pro on this resolution can be wrecking.

Wow, then!

How would a HD 4000 handle working at 2880x1800 or 3360x2100? Would it be wise waiting for Haswell?

How does the 15" rMBP handle the 1680x1050 resolution using the HD 4000? I guess the 13" rMBP would have the same behavior.