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.
Where is the MBP 13" retina???
- Thread starter xdhd
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Panels of sufficient size and pixel density exist already. The problem is likely related to the GPU power necessary to push the high res screen. Style is very important to Apple, and at this point in time, they haven't found a way to get a sufficiently powerful GPU into their 13" form factor.
The HD4000 integrated into all Ivy Bridge chips works. It is currently powering the 15" retina under non-strenuous loads. The dedicated only kicks in when needed.
The 13" retina wouldn't have quite the resolution the 15" so it would be even easier on the integrate GPU. And the 13" was never meant to do the same the 15" was.
Using the HD4000 would seriously cripple the notebook's usability. In general, people dont buy a notebook with a retina display to type word documents. Any application requiring hardware acceleration would be unusable. The HD4000 in the RMBP is "barely enough" to power the retina display. This can be observed in the "choppy scrolling" that users are reporting.
It would also remove the ability to have multiple monitors, which Apple wouldn't dare do.
I think we might see either a 35W quad core or even a dual core (but not ultra low voltage) processor and something like a GT640M in the 13" model.
There just isn't enough space to handle the heat load of the components used in the 15".
I don't see them releasing it with just HD4000 graphics. That would basically just make it a 13" Air with a retina display.
There just isn't enough space to handle the heat load of the components used in the 15".
I don't see them releasing it with just HD4000 graphics. That would basically just make it a 13" Air with a retina display.
I agree that it isn't the ideal GPU, but as far as what people use retina for...look at the iPad. Plenty of people use a 10" for playing angry birds, watching movies and just browsing the web, I would easily argue that more people do that than do significant video editing on the iPad. The idea that its only for video editing etc is entirely naive.
It's not going to play Diablo 3 at full res, but like I said, the 13" was never meant to do what the 15" and 17" did. Also, does anyone know from scaling what res the 13" retina would be? It wouldn't take as much horsepower as the 15", thats for sure.
That's basically what I want, except it'd have to be thicker than the air to have a meaningful battery life.
But few people ever used the iPad for video editing. MacBooks on the other hand are heavily used by professionals. Same with people editing photos.
Plus, there's really only one option with the iPad when it comes to screen, and it's a $100 difference.
That's never been what the 13 was for. That was ALWAYS the 15 and 17. Always.
13 has always been meant for college students and regulars, the 15 and 17 for high-end video professionals.
Stetrain said:
So we should be asking how well the HD 4000 performs at 2560x1600.
It's true but not impossible. Sony's vaio z models achieve just that: they are 13" and have 19xsomething displays and also discrete graphics. At least the previous model did. This time they thinned out (to thinner than a MBA) and left discrete as an external unit
This is probably the truth behind there being no 13" retina. Looking at the internal design of the 15" one, i dont see how it would be possible to make a 13" model with a similar structure and still have the necessary components to make it thin, while making it a "pro" machine.
Exactly, people spend too much time dreaming up their ideal computer and then get annoyed when it doesn't ship.
I have a feeling that Apple couldn't get the 13" screen into a machine that is priced competitively. That might be why they chose to debut it in a machine that was going to be more expensive anyway.
Not to worry. Apple will announce the 13" RMBP as soon as they are done collecting our money for the 15" model. 
C'mon guys, we all know how Apple works. It's just one long strip tease.
C'mon guys, we all know how Apple works. It's just one long strip tease.
Personally, I'm a big fan of the MBP 13 and would love to see the retina show up at some point in the future. My real concern is with the slimming down meaning the RAM is not upgradable and the SSD could be very hard to upgrade. I prefer to buy the entry level then upgrade the RAM and SSD myself to make it a more cost effective machine.
Bring out a retina MBP 13 with upgradable RAM & Hard drive and I will be all over it.
Bring out a retina MBP 13 with upgradable RAM & Hard drive and I will be all over it.
Looks as though it might exist and is being tested, if this story isn't made up
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...sible_13_inch_retina_display_macbook_pro.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...sible_13_inch_retina_display_macbook_pro.html
I have been holding back on my next laptop purchase for over a year waiting for this mac update- I'm so disapointed that the 13 didn't get any retina- im gonna continue to wait it out.... unless I get weak at the apple store when I actually go play with the 15- maybe I will break down- in my observations I almost never see anyone using a 15 macs in the wild, they are always 13 or 11's and 14's on pc side- - im certain that the 13 inch will be out before the holidays but I might be wrong- i would get the 13 air but would much prefer the matte screen and more power....
not sure that you are speaking for the majority here. i'm quite happy with the product line overall. Currently it is just not feasible to drive a retina display with a integrated GPU. That's why the 13" MBP and the MBA's didn't get retina displays. In a year or two maybe.
My wish is rather that they had an antiglare Retina version of the 15" and that they would keep the 17" MBP.
In the wild...
I love 13" and 14" laptops but I decided a while ago to go with a 15" MBP. My work laptop (which I take on business trips) is a 15". I've even seen people pull out 17" MBPs at school. Insane, but true.
13" MBP, Hi-Res, 1400 x 900, Glossy
I saw this listed on B&H website this AM:
Apple 13.3" MacBook Pro Z101 Notebook Computer (750GB) (Hi-Res Glossy Screen) 1400 x 900, i5, 2.5, 4 gb RAM, 750 HDD, Intel HD 4000. $1299
I sent them an Email because the detailed description didn't match the description in the title.
I checked back and they removed "1400 x 900" but the item is still there.
Apple "Z0MT-MD1011.
Can't find any info on this anywhere.
I saw this listed on B&H website this AM:
Apple 13.3" MacBook Pro Z101 Notebook Computer (750GB) (Hi-Res Glossy Screen) 1400 x 900, i5, 2.5, 4 gb RAM, 750 HDD, Intel HD 4000. $1299
I sent them an Email because the detailed description didn't match the description in the title.
I checked back and they removed "1400 x 900" but the item is still there.
Apple "Z0MT-MD1011.
Can't find any info on this anywhere.
I don't agree.. The 15" Retina Pro won't be a massive seller compared to the MacBook Air. It's not a volume product but a high-end product. I'd say they just don't have the manufacturing capacity yet to build the retina screens in volumes large enough for the 13"'ers.
The 15" Retina Pro will probably beat the 13" Pro in sales but that's because it's so lousy now compared to the Air.
But the Air is the real mass product, it's sufficient for the average user who just wants to surf the web and write some emails.
There's very few people who have a real need for top of the line hardware like the Retina Pro and who are willing to pay for it.
Yep. It's very intentional that the first retina display Mac is one that will probably be relatively low volume and that has a pretty high entry price.