Apple expected to launch 13" Retina MacBook Pro by early Oct.

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 116
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post


    Worthless for gaming, fine for everything else. Moral of the story? Don't game on a laptop, you'll always be disappointed if not now, then in a year or two.



    I wouldn't want them for anything OpenGL intensive either for a variety of reasons. Integrated graphics have become increasingly common. They're even used as base options in consumer desktops. This will only increase given the lack of software scaling beyond 2-4 cores on applications that don't do a lot of heavy lifting. Intel is likely to keep on pushing improvements on integrated graphics over more cores in this segment to the point of eating the low end of the graphics card market. I'm not that big on gaming, but some things run fine on the 15" models (I've seen friends' kids game on them plenty of times, as unlikely as kids owning these might sound). Obviously if you're using a tower with swappable cards, you can expect a much longer service life. 


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by internetworld7 View Post




    Clearly you need to be educated.



    He makes a lot of troll posts.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post


     


    I don't.  I'm just saying that if doesn't have a discrete GPU I still wont consider the 13" MBPR.  Which won't upset Apple much since it means an upsell to the 15" MBP as intended.  Well, maybe.  If I can't get a discrete GPU anyway I might as well get a MBA.





    Everyone has different priorities. I think much of the desire

  • Reply 42 of 116
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,228member


    That resolution will stress the HD 4000 GPU. 


     


    From apple website:


     



    • Intel HD Graphics 4000


    • Dual display and video mirroring: Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display and up to 2560 by 1600 pixels on an external display, both at millions of colours


     


    It will work but performance is going to be horrible if you do anything other than desktop use.  Video editing is going to be too much.

  • Reply 43 of 116
    aizmovaizmov Posts: 989member
    No discrete graphics no buy
  • Reply 44 of 116
    aizmovaizmov Posts: 989member
    No discrete graphics no buy
  • Reply 45 of 116

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post


    Looking at the current pricing scheme, I can guess that the 13" MBPR will start at $1,599


     



     


    My guess is that Apple may use the introduction of the 13" MBPR to drop the price of the 15" by a hundred dollars while bringing in the 13" a hundred or so lower then the market expects.


     


    Keep in mind that Apple is more likely to be a disrupter these days and if they can roil the water enough they can keep their competition off balance like they have been doing with the tablet market. Although, Apple has been doing this mostly by raising the spec bar more so then lowering the price bar. 

  • Reply 46 of 116
    dempsondempson Posts: 62member
    tundraboy wrote: »
    Is there an integrated GPU that is powerful enough to drive a 2560X1600 screen?

    Intel HD 4000 is sufficient to drive the retina display. The specs for the 15" RMBP say that it has:
    Intel HD Graphics 4000
    NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB of GDDR5 memory and automatic graphics switching

    http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/

    Graphics switching means the HD 4000 must be able to drive the 2880x1800 retina display for simple applications, without help from the GPU.

    The question is whether the HD 4000 can drive three displays (internal and two external), all at 2560x1600. It can do 1280x800 plus two 2560x1600, in the classic 13" MBP.

    I suspect it can, so a 13" retina MBP will not require a GPU. It would be very nice if Apple could squeeze one in, but I can't see how it would fit in a body design similar to the 15" RMBP (either in board space or more heat to deal with and larger battery). If the 13" model was a little thicke than the 15", it might be possible.
  • Reply 47 of 116

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    FIrst off, if Appleinsider hasn't checked with Apple for a validation on this, I would NOT have released this article.  It has too many specifics without being validated BY APPLE.  What's Kuo's track record? 



    Kuo's track record is exceptionally good. 


     


    Keep in mind that (1) this is a rumor site, and (2) Apple almost never comments on an unreleased product. 


     


    I suspect that Apple may use integrated graphics here for several reasons. (1) Intel integrated graphics has greatly improved from their earlier terrible speed. (2) The new thin laptops by the competition will most likely use Intel's integrated graphics. This spec will keep Apple from being two high a jump to pull over some buyers. (3) While the 15" MBP-R has a lot of pixels to juggle, it is less so on the 13" version, so it may be easier to get the job done.


     


    Apple's competitors may be living in interesting times.

  • Reply 48 of 116
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    nht wrote: »
    The lack of a discrete GPU really keeps me from considering the current 13" MBP.  It'll keep me from considering a 13" MBP Retina as well.

    Ah well.
    With the ODD removed there should be room for one. With the inclusion of a 2560x1600 display will the latest Intel iGPUs even be able to feasibly push 4.1 million pixels?

    edit: Pipped by tundraboy and answered by dempson.

    pmz wrote: »
    Integrated graphics = worthless.
    That's a relative statement. For my needs the GPU in all the 13" MBPs were more than sufficient but going to a larger and heavier notebook with worse battery life added cost and lessened its worth.
  • Reply 49 of 116
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,212member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post


     


    I wouldn't hold my breath on that.  Apple is KNOWN to hyper-inflate things.



    In that case, my figures are based on the already "hyper-inflated" (your term) price of the 15" MBPR. So what's your argument again?


    We'll hopefully get the ultimate answer from Apple in a few months, though.

  • Reply 50 of 116

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Wonder how much the 13" would weigh in at....?



     


    15" Retina weighs 4.46 lbs. ( 0.71 x 14.13 X 9.73 ) which has a slighly smaller 2D footprint compared with the 15" MBP (14.35 x 9.82 ). The current MBP has a footprint of 0.95 x 12.78 x 8.94. Guessing the 13" MBP will be 0.71 x 12.6 x 8.8


     


    Adding a little math:


     


    Density = 4.46 / ( 0.71 x 14.13 x 9.73 ) = 0.04569 lbs/ inches^3


     


    Weight of 13" Retina = 0.04569 lbs/ inches^3 x 0.71 x 12.6 x 8.8 = 3.6 lbs


     


    0.6 lbs heavier than the MBA 13".

  • Reply 51 of 116
    lukeskymaclukeskymac Posts: 506member


    Guys, stop defending integrated graphics. Just. Stop.

  • Reply 52 of 116
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    lukeskymac wrote: »
    Guys, stop defending integrated graphics. Just. Stop.

    If you have a case to make as to why no iGPU has ever or will ever have valid usability in adequate performance, power usage, or cost for any application then please make it.

    As previously stated I have been very happy with my 13" MBP but would not have been happy with the larger, heavily and costlier MBPs for the reasons previously stated. So why are my usage needs not valid?

    Furthermore, I'm pretty sure most Macs sold are accounted for under the MBAs and 13" MBP so for that mean these are bad or worthless devices because you feel their is no defending the GPUs they use?
  • Reply 53 of 116
    tundraboy wrote: »
    Is there an integrated GPU that is powerful enough to drive a 2560X1600 screen?

    Do you realize that the 15 MBP retina is powered by integrated graphics? It runs the standard intel graphics, and when you run a game it switches. But normally it's just running plain ol Intel graphics.

    Some of these questions are ridiculous. The Airs which also have integrated graphics power those resolutions on thunderbolt or LED displays.
  • Reply 54 of 116
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member


    I don't really follow Apples' logic here. I would have thought it made more sense to have an 11" & 13" MBA as the ultra light portable and a 15" & 17" MBP with retina display as a desktop replacement for pro users.


     


    A 13" MBP Retina would be neither one thing nor the other. If the 15" MBP Retina is anything to go buy it's still going to be much heavier than the 13" MBA, it will certainly be a lot more expensive and how useful is a retina screen going to be on a 13" laptop anyway. What are you going to do with it that you can't do with the current 13" MBP.


     


    Apples' product matrix seems all over the place at the moment.

     

  • Reply 55 of 116
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    lukeskymac wrote: »
    Guys, stop defending integrated graphics. Just. Stop.

    Guys, stop whining about integrated graphics. Just. Stop.

    Maybe you don't realize it, but not everyone needs discrete graphics. If you're buying the computer for hard-core gaming, discrete graphics are pretty much necessary, but you probably wouldn't be buying a Mac. The small number of people who would buy a 13" computer for professional graphics are really the only ones out of luck - but most pros would choose the larger 15", anyway.
    shaun, uk wrote: »
    I don't really follow Apples' logic here. I would have thought it made more sense to have an 11" & 13" MBA as the ultra light portable and a 15" & 17" MBP with retina display as a desktop replacement for pro users.

    A 13" MBP Retina would be neither one thing nor the other. If the 15" MBP Retina is anything to go buy it's still going to be much heavier than the 13" MBA, it will certainly be a lot more expensive and how useful is a retina screen going to be on a 13" laptop anyway. What are you going to do with it that you can't do with the current 13" MBP.

    Apples' product matrix seems all over the place at the moment.

     

    It seems pretty clear to me. MBP - more RAM, better CPU and world class screen. MBA - focuses on super-ultra-light, sacrificing RAM and performance for the sake of reducing weight.

    Do you have trouble picturing someone who wants a 13" computer but still wants a great screen?
  • Reply 56 of 116
    amtiamti Posts: 19member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Koifim View Post


    I hope the resolution is wrong, because if it isn't it will suck. That means the screen will still be 1280 * 800, which is too small for my needs. Why not make it 1440 * 900, just like the Air and the (R)MBP.



     


    Agree completely. I really wish they would raise base res of the 13" MBP to the same as the 13" Air, before they go to retina.


     


    Of course, they could do both in one move. 


     


    If they did, I'd be first in the queue for one.

  • Reply 57 of 116
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    Do you have trouble picturing someone who wants a 13" computer but still wants a great screen?


     


    No but I wonder ultimately how many of them will be willing to pay the hundreds of dollars premium over the standard 13" MBP just for the Retina screen.


     


    The current 13" MBP sells well because it's the cheapest model in the range.

  • Reply 58 of 116
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Maybe you don't realize it, but not everyone needs discrete graphics. If you're buying the computer for hard-core gaming, discrete graphics are pretty much necessary, but you probably wouldn't be buying a Mac. The small number of people who would buy a 13" computer for professional graphics are really the only ones out of luck - but most pros would choose the larger 15", anyway.


    If he's using it for gaming, he'd be better off with a desktop tower that could be kept up to date much longer with a gpu bump after the first year or two. For anything that is heavily reliant on OpenGL, going to a quad core machine would not be a bad thing. Even many desktops come with integrated graphics in their base configurations. Integrated graphics ate a lot of the $50-60 graphics card market which always ran on thin margins..

  • Reply 59 of 116
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    lukeskymac wrote: »
    Guys, stop defending integrated graphics. Just. Stop.

    It is the future for mainstream computing. If you take a serious look at AMDs chips you will see that integrated GPUs can be very good.

    Think about this; Trinity could easily power a 13" retina machine and provide respectable CPU performance. Maybe not Intel state of the art performance but certain an increase in CPU performance over last year. Along with the GPU graphics you get OpenCL functionality that actually works.

    As to Intel there are already negative reports about intel trying to drive the retina display all alone. I'm not surprised because the new Intel GPU has been overhyped by many web sites. Intels marketing dollars sure can change people's objectivity.
  • Reply 60 of 116

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    FIrst off, if Appleinsider hasn't checked with Apple for a validation on this, I would NOT have released this article.  It has too many specifics without being validated BY APPLE.  What's Kuo's track record? 



     


    Depends. Should we just count the times he got it right?

Sign In or Register to comment.