Purported 13" Retina MacBook Pro benchmarks appear, launch rumored before Oct. - Page 2

To match the PPI of the 15", it would need to have a resolution of 2560 x 1440, same as the 27" iMac and Cinema display. The HD 4000 will probably struggle if the 650M GT struggles with 2880 x 1800 - it needs a GPU that is 70% of the performance of the GT 650M.

That pretty much points directly at the 640M GT as it is almost exactly 70% of the performance. The 640M LE model is a possibility at 60% as it shaves off about 10W and still 2-3x faster than the HD 4000.

You can run a 27" display at 2560 x 1440 from an HD 3000 though:



The lag seen on the 15" retina might be down to the scaling process rather than the resolution.

I hope they don't go with a 128GB entry SSD. I think 4GB RAM is ok to hit the price point but 256GB SSD is a must. A 640M(LE) with 512MB-1GB memory would make for a very nice 13" MBP.

At $1599-1699, it has a good chance of killing the 13" Air. I think next year, they will drop the prices on the retina models and kill off the 13" Air, old 13" and 15" Pro together. I'd like to see them drop the 11" Air too. I think it's a compromise too far. Instead, just ship a 13" MBP with a non-retina TN display and IGP for $999 with the same chassis as the Pro and 128GB SSD. While the taper design does give the sense of thinness, I much prefer the Retina MBP design.

Hey for once I agree with you. The 11" seemed too small for most things, but they needed a $999 option. I realize that some people like it. The tapered design was gimmicky. I dislike it no matter who uses it. I thought lenovo had the right idea with theirs in that it was thinner and flat. The rMBP is similar. I still dislike the complicated issue of getting a new battery and the proprietary/expensive drive. I can live with the ram thing. As far as price is concerned, it remains to be seen what kind of hardware will accompany such a machine. Intel has been experimenting with 35W quad core cpus , and Haswell should further beef up the integrated graphics.

 

http://ark.intel.com/products/64901

 

compared to Apple's current upper 13" option

 

http://ark.intel.com/products/64893/

 

It's slightly more expensive, but I think this is the first time Intel has produced a 35W quad mobile cpu.

I had an HP mini 210 netbook and while the 11" MacBook Air mops the floor with it, I feel 11" is too small a screen for a notebook. 13" should be the minimum and you have to wonder if at some point, the 13" Air will become the entry level model at $999, followed by the 13" retina, and 15" retina.

I do not understand Apple's use of the marketing term "Retina" nowadays.  Didn't Steve Jobs originally say that 300 PPI or higher is the magic number? Now Apple is calling devices with a 220 PPI Retina quality as well which there are many Android and Windows devices that would fall under that definition in that case.

How many fucking times does this need to be discussed? Common sense should tell you that one's ability to discern pixel size is based on the distance you are from the display. It's been made very clear, from the start, that with the average distance one holds a phone from one's face means that about 300 PPI is needed for the Retina display effect for someone with 20/20 vision. Since we tend to use tablets and PC display at a farther distance the pixels don't have to be as dense.

I find it funny to read the complaints about the MacBook Pro with retina display not having any user serviceable parts when there's barely any fuss that the iPad the iPhone doesn't have any user serviceable parts either. But I'm right there with you. It kind of bothers me that there aren't any user serviceable parts in the new MacBook Pro with retina display. However I think Steve Jobs said at the worldwide developers conference back in 2011 when he introduced iCloud, that the computer was being demoted to a device. So I guess the MacBook Pro with retina display is just a device like the iPad & the iPhone.

As far as this rumor regarding the MacBook Pro 13 inch with retina display, it's probably going to come out sometime this fall. There is no question in my mind that it exists and it's coming. It's probably going to be a huge seller. Like off the charts.

The way I see it...probably within the next 12 to 18 months Apple phases out the classic MacBook Pro. Apple will keep the two lines: a MacBook Air & a MacBook Pro. There will be no mergers of the lines contrary to all of the people here that wish it to be true. The MacBook air will always be about having a thin & light portable but will always use low-voltage Intel processors; the MacBook Pro on the other hand, will always be about power & braun.

I never heard him say that, but I don't watch those things every time. Usually with Apple events I'll watch part of the keynotes, but it depends on the topics. The idevices are a less awkward issue. It's generally easier to be without an ipad than without your primary computer. With the iphone, the subsidy model makes the upfront payment cheap every other year, and you shouldn't be able to kneecap  battery life in the first year assuming it's not defective. Overall I have no interest in purchasing this one. If they turn out to be indestructible, perhaps I'll pick up one of the future generation versions. First generation product + intel tick cycle is kind of unappealing to me.

He made some sort of comment about "PCs" no longer being your digital hub and that "PCs" were to become just another device.

 

 

He says it right here...

 

:

 

 

I think the computer transitioning to a device fits for the new MacBook Pro with Retina display.

With good reason! ;)

There's probably a fair number of buyers who purposely buy the 15" MBP's because of the dedicated gpu. If a retina 13" MBP comes with a dedicated gpu (because it may need it)...then there may be a lot less reasons (at least for a segment of 15" MBP buyers) to buy 15" MBP's.

On the other hand...maybe there's some sort of "slick" integrated graphics hardware out there that can handle it...or some sort of "slick" software that will allow a 13" MBP to run a retina display.

I'm not really sure...but how does "horsepower" of the graphics hardware in the iPad 3/new iPad (which is driving a 9.7" retina display)...compare to the integrated graphics of a 13" MBP. Anyone know?

 

No, he didn't, even in the first ever Keynote that included the term, he mentioned *specifically* that it's not just 300 PPI but has to do with viewing distance.

 

He said: "well it turns out, there is a magic number, around 300 PPI, where when you hold something 10" away from your face"... (emphasis mine). Around 1:55 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l1KWAX3y50