or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Online battery test log points to possible 13-inch Retina Display MacBook Pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Online battery test log points to possible 13-inch Retina Display MacBook Pro

post #1 of 64
Thread Starter 
An as-yet unannounced MacBook Pro model made an appearance in the log of an online battery test archive with a machine identifier possibly pointing to a 13-inch version of Apple's Retina Display-toting notebook lineup.

Unconfirmed data found by AppleInsider reader Sam shows a listing on battery performance compiler Mini Battery Logger's website for a "MacBookPro10,2" which could be a next-generation version of Apple's 13-inch notebook if the company's coding scheme is followed.

It should be made clear that AppleInsider cannot vouch for the legitimacy of the log listing and merely offers the finding for discussion.

The recently-released 13-inch MacBook Pro is labeled "MacBookPro9,2" while the 15-inch model is "MacBookPro9,1." Apple flipped the numbering scheme with the current models as the company previously assigned the "MacBookProX,1" code to smaller-screened notebooks while larger versions carried the "MacBookProX,2" code as seen with the previous generation "MacBookPro8,1" and "MacBookPro8,2" which 13-inches and 15-inches, respectively.

Following the new numbering system, Apple named the next-generation Retina Display-toting 15-inch MacBook Pro "MacBookPro10,1" as seen in Tuesday's benchmark test and Geekbench Browser search results, thus the "MacBookPro10,2" code found online could logically be a smaller unannounced 13-inch Retina Display model.

According to the log listing, the last data upload date was April 25, 2012 after the battery had undergone only four cycles. As there are no logs for the new 15-inch Retina Display MacBook Pro on the site, the formerly-undiscovered log listing could either be a prototype or just a mis-labeled device.

MBP Battery
"MacBookPro10,2" listing points to 13-inch Retina Display MacBook Pro. | Source: Mini Battery Logger


While the site doesn't list machine specs or benchmarks, the data mined from the battery does fit the specs for a next-gen 13-inch MacBook Pro. The voltage output is similar to current Apple notebooks with a design capacity of 6580 mAh, which is much higher than the regular small-screen Pro's 5770 mAh and nears the 6900 mAh cells found in 15-inch models. The battery was manufactured in early March by SMP, a company Apple previously sourced parts from but seemingly not on a side-scale basis.

As of this writing, the specific battery used in "MacBookPro10,2" is not used in any other laptop on the website's data log.
post #2 of 64

I was just thinking today that a 13-inch version of the new Retina display MBP would be right up my alley. I've currently got a 15-inch MBP, and would be totally willing to make the display real estate sacrifice for a 13-inch Retina. I'd like something more portable, but I'm a little hesitant to make the speed and I/O sacrifice of the Air. 

 

I'm thinking:

 

13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display (early 2013)

$1499

 

2880 by 1800 pixel display 2560x1600

3.5 pounds, 0.71 inch thin

2.5 GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 (or 2.9 GHz Core i7); maybe Haswell?

8 GB memory

256 GB flash storage (upgradeable to 512 GB)

Intel HD Graphics 4000

NVIDIA GeForce GT650M with 512 MB memory (it'd be nice to have discrete graphics in a 13" package)

2x USB 3

2x Thunderbolt

1x SDXC

FaceTime HD

 

There's so much I like about the new Retina MBP. I'm sure that some of the price is being managed by being a premium 15-inch product (kind of like how Tesla is making only luxury cars). But hopefully the design/tech will trickle down like it always has. 


Edited by acslater017 - 6/13/12 at 7:02pm
post #3 of 64

Now THIS is what I want. Perfect size for portability, amazing display and power. Not to mention HDMI (possibly?) in row.

512MB Shuffle
4GB iPod mini (2nd Gen)
Reply
512MB Shuffle
4GB iPod mini (2nd Gen)
Reply
post #4 of 64
2 days ago I would have wanted this but now I think I might just hold out for the iMac with the Retina Displays which probably won't come until at least 2013.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post

I'm thinking:
2880 by 1800 pixel display

I don't see that happening. A doubling of the resolution seems most likely, which brings it to 2560x1600.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #5 of 64

Maybe it's a 17 inch instead. That would make more sense than a 13 inch. I think there would be more professionals that would rather buy a 17 inch than a 13 inch Retina which is what this is geared towards.

post #6 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Maybe it's a 17 inch instead. That would make more sense than a 13 inch. I think there would be more professionals that would rather buy a 17 inch than a 13 inch Retina which is what this is geared towards.

I'm pretty sure 13" notebooks far exceed 17" notebooks in unit sales.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #7 of 64

lol... if they release a 13" MBPR, I seriously doubt it'll have any GPU in it let alone the 650m... 

post #8 of 64

The 17" is back!

post #9 of 64

This only makes sense to me. Yeah, I agree that it will probably have just an Intel graphics chip in it. Its pretty packed inside and I don't see where there's any room for a separate graphics chip. Its been said the Intel 4000 graphics can push a retina display. I believe this is the reason why you don't see a separate graphics chip in the current 13" MBP. I think that would be really nice to see a retina 13" MBP. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #10 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Maybe it's a 17 inch instead. That would make more sense than a 13 inch. I think there would be more professionals that would rather buy a 17 inch than a 13 inch Retina which is what this is geared towards.

 

Don't get your hopes up. If Apple was going to update the 17", they would have on Monday. There's no reason why they wouldn't have. There was nothing holding them back from at least giving the current ones Ivy Bridge chips. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #11 of 64

Pretty sure Apple wants to ease their whole line into Retina displays, it'll just take time to roll it out. Maybe within 3 years?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #12 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

2 days ago I would have wanted this but now I think I might just hold out for the iMac with the Retina Displays which probably won't come until at least 2013.
I don't see that happening. A doubling of the resolution seems most likely, which brings it to 2560x1600.

Oops, that's what I meant. 4x the current 13" resolution. Thanks for the correction.

post #13 of 64

If you do the math (Voltage times Current), it equals about 80Wh, compared to the current 95Wh in the 15.4", that's ~85% capacity.

Guess what 85% of 15.4" is. Right. ~13"

 

I find in a lot of products that you can relate battery capacity to the number of pixels/screensize with pretty good accuracy, if you're talking about

similar pixel depths.

 

My guess is this comes out as 'one more thing' when announcing the new iMacs somewhere this year.

post #14 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Maybe it's a 17 inch instead. That would make more sense than a 13 inch. I think there would be more professionals that would rather buy a 17 inch than a 13 inch Retina which is what this is geared towards.

This makes no sense.

 

As mentioned before, the 13" model sells many more units than the 17" model.

 

Secondly, if Apple were commited to the 17" size, they simply would have upgraded the hardware as they did with the 13" and non-Retina 15" MacBook Pros. They completely removed the 17" model from the store.

 

Lastly, the battery test results point to a smaller notebook, not a larger one based on the energy usage parameters.

 

Accept reality: the 17" MacBook Pro has gone the way of the dinosaur.

post #15 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

 

Don't get your hopes up. If Apple was going to update the 17", they would have on Monday. There's no reason why they wouldn't have. There was nothing holding them back from at least giving the current ones Ivy Bridge chips. 

 

Apple has always described their 17" as the flagship of the Pro notebook line. The 17" base models have always out-speced the 15". Maybe Apple wants to stay with that rule and not have an underspeced 17 below the new Retina 15's. The 17" unibodies trailed the 15" to market, maybe...

 

You have to believe!

post #16 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ressurrector17 View Post

 

Apple has always described their 17" as the flagship of the Pro notebook line. The 17" base models have always out-speced the 15". Maybe Apple wants to stay with that rule and not have an underspeced 17 below the new Retina 15's. The 17" unibodies trailed the 15" to market, maybe...

 

You have to believe!

 

I seriously doubt Apple thinks the 17" laptop...something thats less than 1% of Mac sales (1.7% of notebook sales) is their flagship notebook. It wouldn't make any sense for them not to update it at WWDC along with the rest of the line up. Its not like they're planning something extra special for something that doesn't sell and doesn't really fit into their notebook lineup anymore. Everything is going smaller, thinner, etc. The 17" doesn't fit what they're trying to accomplish. 

 

You're like the people who were completely convinced PowerBook G5's were coming someday. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #17 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

This makes no sense.

 

As mentioned before, the 13" model sells many more units than the 17" model.

 

Secondly, if Apple were commited to the 17" size, they simply would have upgraded the hardware as they did with the 13" and non-Retina 15" MacBook Pros. They completely removed the 17" model from the store.

 

Lastly, the battery test results point to a smaller notebook, not a larger one based on the energy usage parameters.

 

Accept reality: the 17" MacBook Pro has gone the way of the dinosaur.

 

NOOOOOOO!

 

...they are just waiting on better production yield results on the 17" retina screen, that's all.

post #18 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ressurrector17 View Post

...they are just waiting on better production yield results on the 17" retina screen, that's all.

Then they wouldn't have discontinued the old model

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #19 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Then they wouldn't have discontinued the old model

 

Right...if anything, they would have updated the existing models with Ivy Bridge chips. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #20 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

 

I seriously doubt Apple thinks the 17" laptop...something thats less than 1% of Mac sales (1.7% of notebook sales) is their flagship notebook. It wouldn't make any sense for them not to update it at WWDC along with the rest of the line up. Its not like they're planning something extra special for something that doesn't sell and doesn't really fit into their notebook lineup anymore. Everything is going smaller, thinner, etc. The 17" doesn't fit what they're trying to accomplish. 

 

You're like the people who were completely convinced PowerBook G5's were coming someday. 

 

The 17" has never had a high percentage of Apples's notebook sales. They did more than just "think" of it as their flagship notebook, they called it that on their website. Walk into any creative content company and tell me the percentage of 17" Macbook Pros you see versus the 13 and 15's. It's all about screen real estate in a mobile platform. If a 15"retina will allow more workspace than an older 17", then a 17"retina will allow that much more. The iMacs will get retina and the Cinema Displays will get retina....it all doesn't end with the "smaller and thinner" 15.

 

The creative industry is in Apple's DNA, they won't abandon it.

post #21 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

 

Right...if anything, they would have updated the existing models with Ivy Bridge chips. 

 

Apple has never had a 15 out-spec a 17...and a 15 Retina out-specs a 17 non-Retina, no matter what the chip is.

post #22 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ressurrector17 View Post

Apple has never had a 15 out-spec a 17...and a 15 Retina out-specs a 17 non-Retina, no matter what the chip is.

Not really, if the hardware sans screen is faster.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #23 of 64

While he wasn't 100% correct in the details, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo with KGI was the only one saying Apple would introduce updated 13" and 15" MacBook Pros along side a next generation 15" MacBook with Retina display.  Few believed Apple would have two completely different 15" MacBook Pro models yet here we are.  He mentioned a 13" MacBook with Retina display would come around August.  

 

I'm curious as to how it may differ in specs to the current 13" MacBook Pro.  The two 15" models (non-Retina vs Retina) are pretty much the same in terms of processor and graphics but the 13" MacBook Pro has integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics.  Is that enough to drive a 2560x1600 Retina display?  I also wonder if this is the reason why they never updated the resolution beyond 1280x800 even when the 13" MacBook Air got 1440x900.  That always seemed odd.  Maybe they knew they would be offering a Retina version at double 1280x800 and due to heat and battery issues, the 13" MacBook Air would retain the 1440x900 resolution for quite a while after that.

 

AI: Inside Apple's rumored 'new MacBook' vs. updated MacBook Pro

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply
post #24 of 64

Next year's 13" MBA with a retina screen is looking tasty to me... for the missus' use, of course (^_-)

 

Now that makes me think: take away the optical drive, put in an SSD, slim the body down - is there anything left to differentiate the 13" MBA from the 13" MBP?
 

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #25 of 64

does anyone else have a problem with the fact that even though you increase the resolution, you're still stuck with the physical real estate of the monitor?

 

i currently have a 17" mbp and i love it. glad i got in under the wire. i find the 15" simply too small for my needs.

 

won't even consider 13". makes no sense to me.

post #26 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Next year's 13" MBA with a retina screen is looking tasty to me... for the missus' use, of course (^_-)

 

Now that makes me think: take away the optical drive, put in an SSD, slim the body down - is there anything left to differentiate the 13" MBA from the 13" MBP?
 

Let's see...

 

Faster CPU, more cache memory, discrete graphics in the Pro, more RAM in the Pro, more ports in the Pro.

 

The 17" MBP was probably showed up on a Mac product roadmap as a dead end a couple of years ago. Apple certainly has seen unit sales of the size drop each quarter (as a percentage of total notebook sales as well as actual units shipped). Once the Retina MBP became a viable commercial product, the 17" model's death was finalized.


It's likely that the 17" engineering team knew about eighteen months ago that they were working on the final model, and most of the team moved to the Retina engineering team. It was a very deliberate decision by Apple, probably one that has been coming for a couple of years based on declining sales of that 17" model.


Edited by cvaldes1831 - 6/13/12 at 9:16pm
post #27 of 64

I have a 17" as well and I couldn't go back to a screen less than 1920x1200. Physically, 15" is fine, but the resolution is important for me - fortunately, touch wood, my eyesight is still near-perfect even though I'm old enough to have played Choplifter on an Apple ][e.
 

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #28 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Let's see...

 

Faster CPU, more cache memory, discrete graphics in the Pro, more RAM in the Pro, more ports in the Pro.


I'm not sold that these are essential on the 13". But perhaps you are right.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #29 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post


I'm not sold that these are essential on the 13". But perhaps you are right.
Me?

No, you mean Apple. Just go look at the specs for the current 13" MBA and the 13" MBP on the Apple website.

Those are the actual differences between the two. I don't decide what's important. Apple does. If there are actual differences between products, Apple deliberately made it that way. And if there are similarities, same thing.

You asked what the differences were between the two. I just made a quick list based on the actual specs published by Apple. It's not a matter of opinion.
post #30 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Me?
No, you mean Apple. Just go look at the specs for the current 13" MBA and the 13" MBP on the Apple website.
Those are the actual differences between the two.

Now, yes. But we are seeing the MBA rapidly increasing in performance - the lowest end 11" is now benching more than the top end 13" of the last generation MBA. I am not sure that when entire range of MBPs are trimmed down as per the current Retina 15" that the difference between the 13" MBA and 13" MBP is big enough to warrant 2 separate models. I'm just throwing it out there....

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #31 of 64
Well, much of it will be determined by the marketplace. The 13" Mac has always been the most popular size.

My guess is that there will always be a need for better CPUs and discrete graphics in a compact form, so likely 13" and 15" MBPs although my guess is that we may be seeing the last MacBooks with built-in optical drives. At some point the non-Retina MBPs will go away and the 13" and 15" models will be Retina only.

When the Retina Display will come to the MBAs is still hazy. Regardless, Apple may want to keep a non-Retina MBA as a lower priced machine (e.g., for education) for some time.
post #32 of 64

Now, that makes sense. There is no obvious reason why it'd be impossible to produce a 13" retina display while 15" are out in the wild. Once again, I am sure the 15" is an unfinished machine. Apple *had* to announce something big at WWDC; if they had just introduced the spec-bumped 13" and 15" MBP and new MBA, they would have faced a riot. So they hastily prepared this 15" retina which is still half-prototype and pushed it to content most of the people who were eagerly waiting for fresh meat to come out. Now, why does I call it a prototype? First because it is far below Apple main engineering standards (glued batteries, soldered RAM…); besides, we were told that "Apple was ramping up production of a new 15" model" from April on. They wouldn’t have run out of stock so quickly had this been true. I bet the first machine was build only two or three weeks ago.

That explains also why they did not release the 13" retina at the same time. They opened the boiler and eased the pressure with the 15", now I hope they are taking time to polish up the 13"…

Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
post #33 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ressurrector17 View Post

 

The 17" has never had a high percentage of Apples's notebook sales. They did more than just "think" of it as their flagship notebook, they called it that on their website. Walk into any creative content company and tell me the percentage of 17" Macbook Pros you see versus the 13 and 15's. It's all about screen real estate in a mobile platform. If a 15"retina will allow more workspace than an older 17", then a 17"retina will allow that much more. The iMacs will get retina and the Cinema Displays will get retina....it all doesn't end with the "smaller and thinner" 15.

 

The creative industry is in Apple's DNA, they won't abandon it.

 

Were not talking about desktops and external displays here, were talking about laptops. In Apple's laptop lineup, there's no room for a 17" model anymore. It doesn't fit what they want to do in their notebook lineup. I honestly don't remember Apple constantly saying the 17" is their flagship notebook. Maybe they said it once, but I can't recall them saying it time after time after time. 

 

I don't think Apple is thinking about the creative content people 100% of the time anymore. Their market is changing, and not for the better as a creative professional. Apple doesn't have to rely on creative customers anymore. They have more regular everyday people buying them than "creative professionals". If I walk into a creative content company I bet I'd see more 27" iMacs and Macs with external displays than anything else. They're #1 focus for laptops isn't creative professional anymore.

 

They're not abandoning the creative industry. If anything, they're making it better. I bet if you go into an Apple Store and use a 15" Retina MBP you'd drool all over it, especially once FCP, Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, etc are fully retina compatible. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ressurrector17 View Post

 

Apple has never had a 15 out-spec a 17...and a 15 Retina out-specs a 17 non-Retina, no matter what the chip is.

 

All the more reason to believe its EOL (End of Life) for good....and don't come back with this bullshit of well its just because Apple is working on it. No...If Apple was going to keep the 17" MBP, then why would they drop it out of the line up right now? It makes absolutely no sense at all to drop it now and release a new one down the road. They'd just keep the current one there, update it to what the regular 15" MBP now has until a retina one came out. You can count on your hand (1 hand) the amount of times a product has been drop out of the store and then brought back with something new. 


Edited by macxpress - 6/14/12 at 5:22am

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #34 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

This only makes sense to me. Yeah, I agree that it will probably have just an Intel graphics chip in it. Its pretty packed inside and I don't see where there's any room for a separate graphics chip. Its been said the Intel 4000 graphics can push a retina display. I believe this is the reason why you don't see a separate graphics chip in the current 13" MBP. I think that would be really nice to see a retina 13" MBP. 

 

I think the likelier reason is there is only room for one fan in the 13" and to run a dGPU you may well need two.

post #35 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Next year's 13" MBA with a retina screen is looking tasty to me... for the missus' use, of course (^_-)

 

Now that makes me think: take away the optical drive, put in an SSD, slim the body down - is there anything left to differentiate the 13" MBA from the 13" MBP?
 

Let's see...

 

Faster CPU, more cache memory, discrete graphics in the Pro, more RAM in the Pro, more ports in the Pro.

 

But there are no dGPUs in the pros...

post #36 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Well, much of it will be determined by the marketplace. The 13" Mac has always been the most popular size.
My guess is that there will always be a need for better CPUs and discrete graphics in a compact form, so likely 13" and 15" MBPs although my guess is that we may be seeing the last MacBooks with built-in optical drives. At some point the non-Retina MBPs will go away and the 13" and 15" models will be Retina only.
When the Retina Display will come to the MBAs is still hazy. Regardless, Apple may want to keep a non-Retina MBA as a lower priced machine (e.g., for education) for some time.

Well until Apple puts in a dGPU in a 13" model, and excluding the faster CPUs, it would seem the only reason to keep a 13" MBP is for ports and legacy tech like optical drives etc. My bet is the second Apple axes the old MBP line on the 15", it'll axe the 13" MBP replacing it with only a 13" MBA. Next year we will get Intel's Haswell and probably a better intel GPU, at that point we'll see the 11" and 13" Retina MBAs, and the only Pro laptop will be the 15".

post #37 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

 

I think the likelier reason is there is only room for one fan in the 13" and to run a dGPU you may well need two.

 

That is true, however there's also no room for a discrete graphics chip in the 13" MBP. I don't know if you've ever seen the logic board of a 13" MBP, but there is absolutely no room for another chip on it. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #38 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

That is true, however there's also no room for a discrete graphics chip in the 13" MBP. I don't know if you've ever seen the logic board of a 13" MBP, but there is absolutely no room for another chip on it. 

That’s right. The only reasonable way to put a dGPU in a crammed 13" PCB is to stuff it in the chipset. That’s what was done on the early Unibody MacBooks(Pro) like mine with the Nvidia 9400 GPU, until Intel kicked Nvidia out the chipset industry. Now, with Haswell processors, all the voltage regulation should go inside the chip, and Thunderbolt should be integrated in the chipset, freeing some space on the PCB. Maybe enough for a dGPU to fit?
Edited by EauVive - 6/14/12 at 5:45am
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
post #39 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

Well until Apple puts in a dGPU in a 13" model, and excluding the faster CPUs, it would seem the only reason to keep a 13" MBP is for ports and legacy tech like optical drives etc. My bet is the second Apple axes the old MBP line on the 15", it'll axe the 13" MBP replacing it with only a 13" MBA. Next year we will get Intel's Haswell and probably a better intel GPU, at that point we'll see the 11" and 13" Retina MBAs, and the only Pro laptop will be the 15".


The main reason we still have the conventional MBPs is price (and capacity or rather price per capacity). And price is there because of the display and the SSD, with the display also needing more battery. Certainly, manufacturing bottlenecks (and lower margins due to the price) might also play a role. And the reasons why we don't have a 13" MBP retina, are likely GPU (ie, HD4000 not able to drive internal retina + external 30") and space for extra battery (that the display needs), GPU and fans (that the GPU might need), again with (display) manufacturing possibly also playing a role. And maybe giving software a bit more time to adjust to retina before going retina on a broader basis.

 

And I think there will be for the next couple of years two lines of notebooks: the thinner, lighter Airs and the not-quite as thin and light retina Pros which will also offer more RAM, faster CPUs and better GPUs.


Edited by noirdesir - 6/14/12 at 5:49am
post #40 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by EauVive View Post

Now, that makes sense. There is no obvious reason why it'd be impossible to produce a 13" retina display while 15" are out in the wild. Once again, I am sure the 15" is an unfinished machine. Apple *had* to announce something big at WWDC; if they had just introduced the spec-bumped 13" and 15" MBP and new MBA, they would have faced a riot. So they hastily prepared this 15" retina which is still half-prototype and pushed it to content most of the people who were eagerly waiting for fresh meat to come out. Now, why does I call it a prototype? First because it is far below Apple main engineering standards (glued batteries, soldered RAM…); besides, we were told that "Apple was ramping up production of a new 15" model" from April on. They wouldn’t have run out of stock so quickly had this been true. I bet the first machine was build only two or three weeks ago.
That explains also why they did not release the 13" retina at the same time. They opened the boiler and eased the pressure with the 15", now I hope they are taking time to polish up the 13"…

Amazing. One of the nicest products Apple has released in years and in your view it's a prototype just because of glued batteries and soldered RAM? In case you hadn't noticed, they've used soldered RAM on the MBA for years. And glued batteries are not that common. Both of those are there to save space and weight - which they do quite well.

As for 'Apple couldn't have sold out if they had been ramping up for months', you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Each iteration of iPad and iPhone sells out within days even though they ramp up for months before release.

Frankly, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Online battery test log points to possible 13-inch Retina Display MacBook Pro