News about the impending arrival of a 13" RMBP is most welcome.
iit is most certainly good news.
It strikes me that Apple has had quite a job cramming all the hardware it needs into the new slimmer enclosure on the 15" RMBP, so you can understand why doing the same job with the 13" might take longer.
Something will have to give. Most likely this will be RAM & battery capacity.
I agree that all this nonsense about Intel's integrated GPU not being good enough is ridiculous. The 4000 is a step up. Haswell will be another. Intel gets it. They know that GPUs are a big deal, so they're working on getting them right. In the meantime, Ivy Bridge processors with the 4000 are doing a more than acceptable job running external hi res monitors.
This however I have to disagree with. The 4000 series isn't all that great and as noted elsewhere doesn't even beat last years AMD solution. Of course the real test isn't against AMD rather it is ability to drive a retina display. It is not a given that Intel will be acceptable here.
The other point I don't agree with is that Apple's product matrix is a mess. I think it is extremely coherent. Professional and Consumer users are both well catered for in the laptop space. If the difference between professional and consumer models is screen quality more than GPU quality, that's ample justification for a price premium between the two lines and thus two 13" models can easily co-exist.
I would agree that they have the best laptop line up in the market. On the desktop they have nothing but crap.
I certainly don't think that the a 13" RMBP spells the death of the 13" MBA.
I don't get this either. There is no overlap now, both machines seem to be strong sellers.
Can't wait for the 13" RMBP to arrive, but maybe the new RMBP range won't hit its stride until REV A sees it get Haswells plus even better GPUs. We're probably talking about another 12 months before this happens, by which time, we should be able to get larger 1 TB SSDs and maybe cheaper retina displays that consume less electricity. These things will definitely differentiate the two line-ups. In the meantime, the 15" is a brilliant step in the right direction.
Best laptop on the market by the looks of it. Time will tell of course, but if one fell into my lap I wouldn't complain.
Looking at the current pricing scheme, I can guess that the 13" MBPR will start at $1,599
You missed one big thing in your calculations - the 13" MacBook Air. Your calculations look at the price differences between the 'old' 15" MacBook Pro and the retina 15" MacBook Pro and then extrapolate those same calculations to the 13" Pro. What you failed to take into account is that the 13" Air with 8GB RAM and Core i7 processor (which is what's in the base 15" retina Pro) costs $1699, $100 more than your calculation. If your calculation was right, no one would buy the top-end Air. Based on this I would predict any retina 13" Pro to be priced around $1899 - for that price you get the retina screen, much faster processor and more ports.
This however I have to disagree with. The 4000 series isn't all that great and as noted elsewhere doesn't even beat last years AMD solution. Of course the real test isn't against AMD rather it is ability to drive a retina display. It is not a given that Intel will be acceptable here.
I have trouble understanding this argument. The older 13" MBP had Intel 3000 graphics - and it was the best selling MBP. The MBA had 3000 graphics and also sold well. Apple has upgraded the graphics of the MBA to 4000 and would presumably do the same thing with the 13" MBP if they deliver one. Since the 4000 series is twice as fast as the old one, why would that not be acceptable?
I would agree that they have the best laptop line up in the market. On the desktop they have nothing but crap.
Let's see:
iMac. Where can you get a better 27" AIO computer for anything approaching Apple's price?
Mini. There are cheaper 'mini solutions', but not all that much, and mostly significantly inferior.
Pro. You can't touch the price of the two CPU Mac Pro with equivalent hardware from anywhere. The MBP holds is own against any other high end workstation.
I have trouble understanding this argument. The older 13" MBP had Intel 3000 graphics - and it was the best selling MBP. The MBA had 3000 graphics and also sold well. Apple has upgraded the graphics of the MBA to 4000 and would presumably do the same thing with the 13" MBP if they deliver one. Since the 4000 series is twice as fast as the old one, why would that not be acceptable?
Let's see:
iMac. Where can you get a better 27" AIO computer for anything approaching Apple's price?
Mini. There are cheaper 'mini solutions', but not all that much, and mostly significantly inferior.
Pro. You can't touch the price of the two CPU Mac Pro with equivalent hardware from anywhere. The MBP holds is own against any other high end workstation.
So where do you get 'nothing but crap'?
I decided to check on this. I've seen way too many problems with the imac. Most are display related (purple edges, image persistence, weird smudgy looking glass, etc.), and they share the sealed in hard drive thing which really shouldn't be necessary on a desktop. I don't have a problem with the specs of the imac relative to its price. There are a couple options I think should be standard that remain upgrades, but it's typical. The mini is an example of a typical Apple thing. When they added a discrete gpu, they went with minimal vram. 256MB is below the minimum requirement for many applications and games with gpu requirements. The same was true last year the day those started shipping. When they go with a single option there, they could do better.
I don't think the mac pro is crap. I think it's neglected. A Dell T5600 with dual E5 2630s can be configured just under $3000. With 2620s it drops to $2465. This is roughly equivalent to the expansion available in a mac pro chassis. The T7600 accommodates a much wider range of hardware than the mac pro which is why I didn't use it as a starting point. I tried to do the same with HP. I know they're more expensive than Dell (and I don't want to be biased), but HP's site kept bugging out on me. Right now the Mac Pro is stuck with nehalem/westmere hardware (mixed) and older gpus. This should be one of the easier machines to keep up to date. If it was up to date, that $3800 12 - core could be rocking dual 2630s too (they're roughly the same price in today's pricing).
I like the macbook pro, but it's not necessarily built with the same design goals as a workstation. Usually if you're building something to be pushed hard for long periods of time, you want it to run cooler than that. This is in case of eventual dust buildup. You don't want anything running near its limit. The mobile cards really aren't designed to be beaten up during after effects rendering either. They get scary hot. Mobile workstations on Windows or tower based workstations would have Quadro or Firepro cards. These are typically clocked lower for stability, but they do perform well when it comes to double precision math. It's still better using a desktop for something like this. In case you're wondering, I have caused thermal shutdown before . I saw it as an achievement and laughed about it. This kept me from getting angry.
Anyway it's not an Apple hate post. I just wanted to respond to some of those points.
I have trouble understanding this argument. The older 13" MBP had Intel 3000 graphics - and it was the best selling MBP. The MBA had 3000 graphics and also sold well. Apple has upgraded the graphics of the MBA to 4000 and would presumably do the same thing with the 13" MBP if they deliver one. Since the 4000 series is twice as fast as the old one, why would that not be acceptable?
This is fairly easy, you would have far more pixels to push. I'm not saying the 4000 series is not a huge improvement over other "Intel" GPUs, I'm just not convinced it can drive a retina display.
Let's see:
iMac. Where can you get a better 27" AIO computer for anything approaching Apple's price?
The iMac is rejected for reasons other than price.
Mini. There are cheaper 'mini solutions', but not all that much, and mostly significantly inferior.
The Mini is not a bad machine but it is extremely underpowered. They tried to address that in the last rev and failed
Pro. You can't touch the price of the two CPU Mac Pro with equivalent hardware from anywhere. The MBP holds is own against any other high end workstation.
So where do you get 'nothing but crap'?
The Mac Pro is extremely outdated. Further the last rev turned it into a joke for the entire industry to laugh at.
I decided to check on this. I've seen way too many problems with the imac. Most are display related (purple edges, image persistence, weird smudgy looking glass, etc.), and they share the sealed in hard drive thing which really shouldn't be necessary on a desktop. I don't have a problem with the specs of the imac relative to its price. There are a couple options I think should be standard that remain upgrades, but it's typical. The mini is an example of a typical Apple thing. When they added a discrete gpu, they went with minimal vram. 256MB is below the minimum requirement for many applications and games with gpu requirements. The same was true last year the day those started shipping. When they go with a single option there, they could do better.
This thing with every single revision to the Mini being a castrated example of engineering is really getting to me. I realize there is a real need for a low end machine, it is a fact of life that won't go away. As you note they decide to beef up one model and thoroughly screw it up. It is like the community asks for a more powerful machine but Apple goes out of it's way to make sure it can't even compete with other Apple hardware.
Sadly I see the Mini as the Apple desktop right now that has the best potential of morphing into something I might buy. I don't think Apple has the Mojo to build an iMac that I'd buy and right now the Mac Pro is way to expensive. So the Mini has potential as a desktop sale but they really need to get over this Apple thing and produce a real line up with models that can perform reasonably well.
I don't think the mac pro is crap. I think it's neglected.
Neglect leads to crap. I'm not even a current Mac Pro user but the last rev really burnt me bad. It is the combination of the micro upgrade to the Mac Pro and the ignoring of the rest of the desktop line up that really has me in a hostile mood relative to Apple.
A Dell T5600 with dual E5 2630s can be configured just under $3000. With 2620s it drops to $2465. This is roughly equivalent to the expansion available in a mac pro chassis. The T7600 accommodates a much wider range of hardware than the mac pro which is why I didn't use it as a starting point. I tried to do the same with HP. I know they're more expensive than Dell (and I don't want to be biased), but HP's site kept bugging out on me. Right now the Mac Pro is stuck with nehalem/westmere hardware (mixed) and older gpus. This should be one of the easier machines to keep up to date. If it was up to date, that $3800 12 - core could be rocking dual 2630s too (they're roughly the same price in today's pricing).
Those are mainstream vendors, you can buy server hardware from a number of vendors that are more state of the art than the Mac Pro.
I like the macbook pro, but it's not necessarily built with the same design goals as a workstation. Usually if you're building something to be pushed hard for long periods of time, you want it to run cooler than that. This is in case of eventual dust buildup. You don't want anything running near its limit. The mobile cards really aren't designed to be beaten up during after effects rendering either. They get scary hot.
Define scary hot. My MBP is rather old and I can load it to the point it becomes non responsive with a compile and other tasks running and it still runs fine. Supposedly all machine after this one got progressively cooler running.
Frankly I would be more worried about the retina MBP when it comes to heat. It will be interesting to see if they where able to prevent thermal throttling.
Mobile workstations on Windows or tower based workstations would have Quadro or Firepro cards. These are typically clocked lower for stability, but they do perform well when it comes to double precision math. It's still better using a desktop for something like this. In case you're wondering, I have caused thermal shutdown before . I saw it as an achievement and laughed about it. This kept me from getting angry.
So you are one of those guys. I have to ask which model and year this machine was because I'm under the understanding that today's hardware would simply throttle performance to remain within operating temperatures.
As to desktops being better machines for this sort of work, isn't that obvious?
Anyway it's not an Apple hate post. I just wanted to respond to some of those points.
I'm hoping nobody takes my posts as hate against Apple. Sitting here typing on my iPad, with an iPhone plugged into my old MBP I suspect thatnI'm a typical Apple customer. However they more than tarnished my attitude towards Apple with this run through at WWDC and the disdain for the desktop demonstrated.
Look at it this way I bought my MBP in 2008 because Apple had nothing in that performance class for the desktop. Note: that even in 2008 I rejected the iMac out of hand as a suitable machine. In that time Apple has yet to wise up in regards to the desktop, they push the same old platform line up even though sales lag more and more every year. With the MBP getting on in years I have to consider a replacement just as in 2008 my preference is for a desktop. My fear is another tiny bump to the Mini line that keeps it squarely in last place performance wise.
The Mac Pro is extremely outdated. Further the last rev turned it into a joke for the entire industry to laugh at.
Your lack of any facts to support your claim is noted. The Mac Pro is still a very powerful, extremely high quality, very price competitive machine.
If you need every 0.1 GHz available, it's probably not the computer for you. But for people who want a solid, well-built, reliable, fast workstation, it's a great machine.
I decided to check on this. I've seen way too many problems with the imac. Most are display related (purple edges, image persistence, weird smudgy looking glass, etc.), and they share the sealed in hard drive thing which really shouldn't be necessary on a desktop. I don't have a problem with the specs of the imac relative to its price. There are a couple options I think should be standard that remain upgrades, but it's typical. The mini is an example of a typical Apple thing. When they added a discrete gpu, they went with minimal vram. 256MB is below the minimum requirement for many applications and games with gpu requirements. The same was true last year the day those started shipping. When they go with a single option there, they could do better.
The problem is that your knowledge of the iMac is greatly outdated. The screen color problems were many years ago. While there are undoubtedly occasional lemons in any device sold by the millions, there are no recent widespread iMac video problems.
The fact that you're arguing about 255 MB VRAM further proves that your information is out of date. The cheapest iMac you can buy today has 512 MB of VRAM. Furthermore, your requirement that 256 MB is below the minimum requirement is purely arbitrary. Many people never play hard core games or do anything that requires more than 256.
I don't think the mac pro is crap. I think it's neglected. A Dell T5600 with dual E5 2630s can be configured just under $3000. With 2620s it drops to $2465. This is roughly equivalent to the expansion available in a mac pro chassis. The T7600 accommodates a much wider range of hardware than the mac pro which is why I didn't use it as a starting point. I tried to do the same with HP. I know they're more expensive than Dell (and I don't want to be biased), but HP's site kept bugging out on me. Right now the Mac Pro is stuck with nehalem/westmere hardware (mixed) and older gpus. This should be one of the easier machines to keep up to date. If it was up to date, that $3800 12 - core could be rocking dual 2630s too (they're roughly the same price in today's pricing).
Let's use your example. I went to Dell's site to configure their dual CPU T5600 to match the Mac Pro. Here's what I came up with:
Mac Pro $3,799
Dell $4,237
I made the following changes:
The base Dell as 2.0 GHz CPUs. I upgraded to 2.2 (which is still below the Mac's 2.4). Since you agree that they're roughly the same price, this is probably the best comparison.
The base Dell only has 8 GB of RAM, the Mac pro has 12. You can't get the Dell with 12, so I upgrade both to 15 to be fair.
The Dell has a Radeon 2770 while the Mac has a 5770. I'm not going to dig into it because neither is a very expensive card, but there may be a difference (or Dell might simply rebrand the 5770)
Apple's power supply is 980 Watt, so I upgraded the Dell, but their max is only 825 Watt.
So, even though the Dell system is inferior, it still costs more. And that doesn't even include the superior case design on the Mac and vastly superior OS.
I like the macbook pro, but it's not necessarily built with the same design goals as a workstation. Usually if you're building something to be pushed hard for long periods of time, you want it to run cooler than that. This is in case of eventual dust buildup. You don't want anything running near its limit. The mobile cards really aren't designed to be beaten up during after effects rendering either. They get scary hot. Mobile workstations on Windows or tower based workstations would have Quadro or Firepro cards. These are typically clocked lower for stability, but they do perform well when it comes to double precision math. It's still better using a desktop for something like this. In case you're wondering, I have caused thermal shutdown before . I saw it as an achievement and laughed about it. This kept me from getting angry.
Why in the world would you expect a laptop to have the same design goals as a workstation?
Furthermore, where's your evidence that the MBP's components are being pushed to their limits and/or unstable? That paragraph is nothing more than pure FUD. In reality, Mac laptops are consistently rated as the most reliable laptops available.
I'm hoping nobody takes my posts as hate against Apple. Sitting here typing on my iPad, with an iPhone plugged into my old MBP I suspect thatnI'm a typical Apple customer. However they more than tarnished my attitude towards Apple with this run through at WWDC and the disdain for the desktop demonstrated.
Look at it this way I bought my MBP in 2008 because Apple had nothing in that performance class for the desktop. Note: that even in 2008 I rejected the iMac out of hand as a suitable machine. In that time Apple has yet to wise up in regards to the desktop, they push the same old platform line up even though sales lag more and more every year. With the MBP getting on in years I have to consider a replacement just as in 2008 my preference is for a desktop. My fear is another tiny bump to the Mini line that keeps it squarely in last place performance wise.
Mac sales lag more and more every year? Have you even looked at the figures?
Admittedly, laptop sales are growing faster than desktop sales, but since the margins are probably better, there's nothing wrong with that.
Your lack of any facts to support your claim is noted. The Mac Pro is still a very powerful, extremely high quality, very price competitive machine.
If you need every 0.1 GHz available, it's probably not the computer for you. But for people who want a solid, well-built, reliable, fast workstation, it's a great machine.
That 0.1 GHz doesn't mean a whole lot, it is the system as a whole that is extremely dated.
The problem is that your knowledge of the iMac is greatly outdated. The screen color problems were many years ago. While there are undoubtedly occasional lemons in any device sold by the millions, there are no recent widespread iMac video problems.
The fact that you're arguing about 255 MB VRAM further proves that your information is out of date. The cheapest iMac you can buy today has 512 MB of VRAM. Furthermore, your requirement that 256 MB is below the minimum requirement is purely arbitrary. Many people never play hard core games or do anything that requires more than 256.
First he is talking Mini yet you are talking iMac. There is nothing arbitrary about VRAM sizes, software packages often come with very specific requirements. Further you need to disconnect the gaming culture from video acceleration. Many apps having nothing to do with gaming have real hard VRAM requirements. Apples underhanded configuration of the Mini keeps that machine from running a number of Apps that can otherwise run on Apples notebooks. It is a real problem with Apple hardware that marketing decisions like this are made. One should have to buy a laptop because it is the only mid range machine Apple has that you would consider.
Let's use your example. I went to Dell's site to configure their dual CPU T5600 to match the Mac Pro. Here's what I came up with:
Mac Pro $3,799
Dell $4,237
I made the following changes:
The base Dell as 2.0 GHz CPUs. I upgraded to 2.2 (which is still below the Mac's 2.4). Since you agree that they're roughly the same price, this is probably the best comparison.
The base Dell only has 8 GB of RAM, the Mac pro has 12. You can't get the Dell with 12, so I upgrade both to 15 to be fair.
The Dell has a Radeon 2770 while the Mac has a 5770. I'm not going to dig into it because neither is a very expensive card, but there may be a difference (or Dell might simply rebrand the 5770)
Apple's power supply is 980 Watt, so I upgraded the Dell, but their max is only 825 Watt.
So, even though the Dell system is inferior, it still costs more. And that doesn't even include the superior case design on the Mac and vastly superior OS.
The case design if far from superior.
So you managed to prove my point.
Why in the world would you expect a laptop to have the same design goals as a workstation?
Furthermore, where's your evidence that the MBP's components are being pushed to their limits and/or unstable? That paragraph is nothing more than pure FUD. In reality, Mac laptops are consistently rated as the most reliable laptops available.
While his approach may be questionable the reality is if one wants to buy a midrange machine your only choice with Apple is its laptop line up. As such it is not unreasonable to expect to run them at full bore the entire work day. Or to try too.
Mac sales lag more and more every year? Have you even looked at the figures?
Yes I have, have you? Apples positive sales growth is almost entirely in Laptops in the USA with a slide in Mini and Pro sales and the iMac flat. You should ask yourself why that is while taking a critical look at Apples crap desktop line up
Admittedly, laptop sales are growing faster than desktop sales, but since the margins are probably better, there's nothing wrong with that.
Laptop sales are the only thing growing. The problem is if you want a decent performing Mac, considering the current state of the art, you have no choice but to consider the laptops.
Laptop sales are the only thing growing. The problem is if you want a decent performing Mac, considering the current state of the art, you have no choice but to consider the laptops.
If we look only at Apple's desktop sales I am pretty sure their desktop sales are increasing YoY.
Furthermore, if a 13" RMBP doesn't appear before an RiMac I'm pretty sure I'll be buying a desktop for the first time since 1998. I've been using notebooks for a very, very long time since before it was common and you could buy a new car for the cost of one.
The fact that you're arguing about 255 MB VRAM further proves that your information is out of date. The cheapest iMac you can buy today has 512 MB of VRAM. Furthermore, your requirement that 256 MB is below the minimum requirement is purely arbitrary. Many people never play hard core games or do anything that requires more than 256.
That was relative to the macbook pro last year. I was also referring to both games and OpenGL applications relative to the early 2011 model. A year later it wouldn't make minimum requirements for many things. Considering that the discrete gpu is one of the things you pay for on the 15", they could do better. It seems like that is one of the areas where they balance their costs as fewer people will notice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Your lack of any facts to support your claim is noted. The Mac Pro is still a very powerful, extremely high quality, very price competitive machine.
If you need every 0.1 GHz available, it's probably not the computer for you. But for people who want a solid, well-built, reliable, fast workstation, it's a great machine.
The problem is that your knowledge of the iMac is greatly outdated. The screen color problems were many years ago. While there are undoubtedly occasional lemons in any device sold by the millions, there are no recent widespread iMac video problems.
The fact that you're arguing about 255 MB VRAM further proves that your information is out of date. The cheapest iMac you can buy today has 512 MB of VRAM. Furthermore, your requirement that 256 MB is below the minimum requirement is purely arbitrary. Many people never play hard core games or do anything that requires more than 256.
Let's use your example. I went to Dell's site to configure their dual CPU T5600 to match the Mac Pro. Here's what I came up with:
Mac Pro $3,799
Dell $4,237
I made the following changes:
The base Dell as 2.0 GHz CPUs. I upgraded to 2.2 (which is still below the Mac's 2.4). Since you agree that they're roughly the same price, this is probably the best comparison.
The base Dell only has 8 GB of RAM, the Mac pro has 12. You can't get the Dell with 12, so I upgrade both to 15 to be fair.
re probably better, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't bother configuring ram typically, but are you really measuring cpus of different generations by ghz? The mac pros are using Westmeres as opposed to Sandy Bridge E ones. I went by cpus using similar retail pricing. It's not possible to really line up the gpus as you pay a lot for workstation drivers. The OSX gpus are balanced a little differently. Under Windows good luck working with a Radeon card in most OpenGL applications. Under OSX it's fine as OSX applications tend to be balanced around the cards that are available. This doesn't mean that Quadros and Firepros have zero advantage, but the one available under OSX has half the features you'd get under Windows with it anyway. They're just not a big OSX market. Bumping the ram for dual package compliance to 8GB brings it to $3235 (I think you can still order it the other way, I upgrade my own on any machine). I used E5-2630 cpus which are slightly more expensive than the ones in the mac pro. They also came out in 2012 as opposed to 2010. The dell has a 3 year warranty standard, and their business model warranties aren't bad. I didn't bother to add that to the mac. The Firepro 2270 is around the same price as a 5770.
Given the other costs in there, I'm not going to argue over something as silly as ram when you could place in 16GB of third party ram for $100 in either case. If you're wondering how I configured, I just used the base configuration and went from there. With oems you have a certain amount of markup built into any changes you make from a standard configuration. They're not all guaranteed to reach the same totals if you start from different spots. Now to get something that matches the benchmarks of that Dell that I noted, you're still looking at over $5k on the mac pro. Sandy Bridge E is a considerable boost. Actual performance varies by application, and I have seen some that do better under OSX, but it's usually within 10%. Some things are worse. It depends how well they're ported. Obviously native OSX runs best.
On the topic of the imac, the more recent complaints were the yellow screen thing. I've seen the other issues on the current design, but I haven't seen any on 2011 models. I also haven't seen that many 2011 models, so even if I saw it once, it wouldn't mean much.
By the way, I missed the power supply. When did Apple go back to such a big power supply? The biggest they ever used was a 1000 or 1200 or something on the quad G5. I thought this one was much lower.
Has anyone here read about the Asus UX32VD? I bring this up because it's 3.2 lbs with a 13-inch display, and they managed to fit a discrete graphics card in the chassis. Granted, the GeForceGT 620M is a low-end graphics card, but it's still a step up from integrated, and illustrates an instance of discrete graphics fitting inside a notebook of approximately the same size. If Asus can pull it off, I'm wondering what's stopping a talented company like Apple from including at least an entry level discrete card?
Also, given the fact that the 17-inch MBP was axed in favor of the Retina 15-inch MBP, wouldn't one similarly expect the Retina 13-inch MBP to perform well enough for it to serve as a viable upgrade option for those who own a previous-generation 15-incher (given the fact that a Retina 13-incher would have a larger viewing area than the previous-gen 15-incher)? I will definitely be disappointed if Apple does indeed release the 13-inch MBP solely with integrated graphics.
I wonder if such a machine could even run the Retina display at satisfactory performance using integrated graphics?
My thought exactly. I really hope that if not the 650M Apple manages to fit in a lesser discreet graphics card like the 640M. The 640M is only 32 W TDP compared to 45 W for the 650M so it would give better battery life and run cooler to suit the 13"'s smaller case and battery.
I think it's easily possible that Apple can fit a 640M. They've included discreet graphics in the 13" MBP before and that was using larger fabrication processes and older battery technology. By removing the optical drive, replacing magnetic with flash-based storage and other general motherboard optimisations I'd be very surprised if they can't find room for it.
I'd be willing to forgo a 16 Gb maximum RAM for 8 Gb if it means we can have discreet graphics! I'm really hanging out for a retina 13" laptop Apple, please don't let me down!
Can anyone provide info about the generation of Intel GPUs that will be incorporated in Haswell-equipped machines? My understanding is that they will represent a genuine leap in GPU performance and capability. I believe there will be three different models and that even the lowest will be equivalent to a 650M.
If people want to buy a gaming notebook, they can buy a gaming notebook and there are tons out there. Having said that, when people spend the money on a MacBook Pro they want it to play at least a few games adequately.
I don't think anyone buys a MacBook Pro in order to play Crysis 2 at max settings though if they can't play it at least at medium to high settings with possibly a configure to order option, it's kind of sad. No?
Not in the USA. IMac sales are flat or seeing very minor year over year growth. Both the Mini and the Mac Pro are seeing significant regressions in sales.
If we look only at Apple's desktop sales I am pretty sure their desktop sales are increasing YoY.
Furthermore, if a 13" RMBP doesn't appear before an RiMac I'm pretty sure I'll be buying a desktop for the first time since 1998. I've been using notebooks for a very, very long time since before it was common and you could buy a new car for the cost of one.
That is interesting because I can see myself going to a desktop model if Apple had something I wanted. The current iMac design won't do it for me though. I'm really hoping for an overhauled Mini / XMac sort of machine.
I still believe that AMD offers a better option for notebook computing, especially the smaller machines. Doesn't matter though as I agree there is nothing technically keeping a descrete GPU out of the 13" MBP. Removal of the optical drive would be a huge win for both battery and GPU space.
As to RAM 8GB max is something I could live with as long as they don't get cheap on VRAM for the GPU. Apple has this nasty habit of configuring the machines in odd ways to apparently ensure up sells. A 13" MBP with only 256GB of VRAM, supporting a descrete GPU, would be worthless in my eyes. it wouldn't shock me one bit to see Apple do this on the 13" machine though.
My thought exactly. I really hope that if not the 650M Apple manages to fit in a lesser discreet graphics card like the 640M. The 640M is only 32 W TDP compared to 45 W for the 650M so it would give better battery life and run cooler to suit the 13"'s smaller case and battery.
I think it's easily possible that Apple can fit a 640M. They've included discreet graphics in the 13" MBP before and that was using larger fabrication processes and older battery technology. By removing the optical drive, replacing magnetic with flash-based storage and other general motherboard optimisations I'd be very surprised if they can't find room for it.
I'd be willing to forgo a 16 Gb maximum RAM for 8 Gb if it means we can have discreet graphics! I'm really hanging out for a retina 13" laptop Apple, please don't let me down!
I think it is a given, but when is harder to say. I can't see them releasing anymore laptops until late fall. So if you can hold out that long do so.
I have no info and frankly don't trust any leaks from Intel when it comes to their GPUs. Ivy Bridge hasn't really lived up to its billing when tested objectively, it is still a second class GPU.
So when it comes to Intel GPUs I'm a wait and see guy. More so if Haswell comes on time you are still talking a year from now. Being on time hasn't been one of Intels strong points lately.
Can anyone provide info about the generation of Intel GPUs that will be incorporated in Haswell-equipped machines? My understanding is that they will represent a genuine leap in GPU performance and capability. I believe there will be three different models and that even the lowest will be equivalent to a 650M.
A 13" MBP with only 256GB of VRAM, supporting a descrete GPU, would be worthless in my eyes. it wouldn't shock me one bit to see Apple do this on the 13" machine though.
A discrete GPU with 256 GB of VRAM would be awesome! Probably a bit expensive, though...
On a serious note, I do hope that if they go with a discrete card, it's one that's actually semi-useful. Too low-end would be a waste of space that could've been used for extra battery capacity (not that it matters much to me, since I'm probably not buying one without a discrete GPU).
I really hope that if not the 650M Apple manages to fit in a lesser discreet graphics card like the 640M. The 640M is only 32 W TDP compared to 45 W for the 650M so it would give better battery life and run cooler to suit the 13"'s smaller case and battery.
I think it's easily possible that Apple can fit a 640M. They've included discreet graphics in the 13" MBP before and that was using larger fabrication processes and older battery technology.
No they haven't. The only non-Intel graphics used in the 13" MacBook Pro to date have been the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and 320M, which are both integrated graphics controllers (they used main memory for graphics, incorporated the memory controller, and were used alongside the Intel Core 2 Duo). Admittedly they were much better than Intel's integrated graphics at the time. That route is no longer an option due to Intel not allowing third party integrated memory/graphics controllers with recent processor families.
Quote:
By removing the optical drive, replacing magnetic with flash-based storage and other general motherboard optimisations I'd be very surprised if they can't find room for it.
Have you seen how compact the 15" RMBP logic board is already? Now try to squeeze that into a smaller case, while leaving enough room for a battery and cooling system which are almost the same volume as the 15" ones. I don't think it could be done without a significantly thicker body.
Not including a discrete GPU (and its associated graphics memory and graphic switching circuitry) would save some logic board space, require less power therefore less battery capacity, and produce less heat to manage, possibly allowing space savings in the cooling system.
Apple's goal is likely to be to produce a 13" RMBP which is similar in thickness to the 15" model, without sacrificing operating time from the battery. Even without a discrete GPU, I think it would have to be a little thicker.
Not in the USA. IMac sales are flat or seeing very minor year over year growth. Both the Mini and the Mac Pro are seeing significant regressions in sales.
Hope this doesn't spell doom for the mini down the road. I don't think it will but you never know.
Comments
Best laptop on the market by the looks of it. Time will tell of course, but if one fell into my lap I wouldn't complain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeromeus
Looking at the current pricing scheme, I can guess that the 13" MBPR will start at $1,599
You missed one big thing in your calculations - the 13" MacBook Air. Your calculations look at the price differences between the 'old' 15" MacBook Pro and the retina 15" MacBook Pro and then extrapolate those same calculations to the 13" Pro. What you failed to take into account is that the 13" Air with 8GB RAM and Core i7 processor (which is what's in the base 15" retina Pro) costs $1699, $100 more than your calculation. If your calculation was right, no one would buy the top-end Air. Based on this I would predict any retina 13" Pro to be priced around $1899 - for that price you get the retina screen, much faster processor and more ports.
I have trouble understanding this argument. The older 13" MBP had Intel 3000 graphics - and it was the best selling MBP. The MBA had 3000 graphics and also sold well. Apple has upgraded the graphics of the MBA to 4000 and would presumably do the same thing with the 13" MBP if they deliver one. Since the 4000 series is twice as fast as the old one, why would that not be acceptable?
Let's see:
iMac. Where can you get a better 27" AIO computer for anything approaching Apple's price?
Mini. There are cheaper 'mini solutions', but not all that much, and mostly significantly inferior.
Pro. You can't touch the price of the two CPU Mac Pro with equivalent hardware from anywhere. The MBP holds is own against any other high end workstation.
So where do you get 'nothing but crap'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I have trouble understanding this argument. The older 13" MBP had Intel 3000 graphics - and it was the best selling MBP. The MBA had 3000 graphics and also sold well. Apple has upgraded the graphics of the MBA to 4000 and would presumably do the same thing with the 13" MBP if they deliver one. Since the 4000 series is twice as fast as the old one, why would that not be acceptable?
Let's see:
iMac. Where can you get a better 27" AIO computer for anything approaching Apple's price?
Mini. There are cheaper 'mini solutions', but not all that much, and mostly significantly inferior.
Pro. You can't touch the price of the two CPU Mac Pro with equivalent hardware from anywhere. The MBP holds is own against any other high end workstation.
So where do you get 'nothing but crap'?
I decided to check on this. I've seen way too many problems with the imac. Most are display related (purple edges, image persistence, weird smudgy looking glass, etc.), and they share the sealed in hard drive thing which really shouldn't be necessary on a desktop. I don't have a problem with the specs of the imac relative to its price. There are a couple options I think should be standard that remain upgrades, but it's typical. The mini is an example of a typical Apple thing. When they added a discrete gpu, they went with minimal vram. 256MB is below the minimum requirement for many applications and games with gpu requirements. The same was true last year the day those started shipping. When they go with a single option there, they could do better.
I don't think the mac pro is crap. I think it's neglected. A Dell T5600 with dual E5 2630s can be configured just under $3000. With 2620s it drops to $2465. This is roughly equivalent to the expansion available in a mac pro chassis. The T7600 accommodates a much wider range of hardware than the mac pro which is why I didn't use it as a starting point. I tried to do the same with HP. I know they're more expensive than Dell (and I don't want to be biased), but HP's site kept bugging out on me. Right now the Mac Pro is stuck with nehalem/westmere hardware (mixed) and older gpus. This should be one of the easier machines to keep up to date. If it was up to date, that $3800 12 - core could be rocking dual 2630s too (they're roughly the same price in today's pricing).
I like the macbook pro, but it's not necessarily built with the same design goals as a workstation. Usually if you're building something to be pushed hard for long periods of time, you want it to run cooler than that. This is in case of eventual dust buildup. You don't want anything running near its limit. The mobile cards really aren't designed to be beaten up during after effects rendering either. They get scary hot. Mobile workstations on Windows or tower based workstations would have Quadro or Firepro cards. These are typically clocked lower for stability, but they do perform well when it comes to double precision math. It's still better using a desktop for something like this. In case you're wondering, I have caused thermal shutdown before
Anyway it's not an Apple hate post. I just wanted to respond to some of those points.
The Mac Pro is extremely outdated. Further the last rev turned it into a joke for the entire industry to laugh at.
Sadly I see the Mini as the Apple desktop right now that has the best potential of morphing into something I might buy. I don't think Apple has the Mojo to build an iMac that I'd buy and right now the Mac Pro is way to expensive. So the Mini has potential as a desktop sale but they really need to get over this Apple thing and produce a real line up with models that can perform reasonably well. Neglect leads to crap. I'm not even a current Mac Pro user but the last rev really burnt me bad. It is the combination of the micro upgrade to the Mac Pro and the ignoring of the rest of the desktop line up that really has me in a hostile mood relative to Apple. Those are mainstream vendors, you can buy server hardware from a number of vendors that are more state of the art than the Mac Pro. Define scary hot. My MBP is rather old and I can load it to the point it becomes non responsive with a compile and other tasks running and it still runs fine. Supposedly all machine after this one got progressively cooler running.
Frankly I would be more worried about the retina MBP when it comes to heat. It will be interesting to see if they where able to prevent thermal throttling. So you are one of those guys. I have to ask which model and year this machine was because I'm under the understanding that today's hardware would simply throttle performance to remain within operating temperatures.
As to desktops being better machines for this sort of work, isn't that obvious?
I'm hoping nobody takes my posts as hate against Apple. Sitting here typing on my iPad, with an iPhone plugged into my old MBP I suspect thatnI'm a typical Apple customer. However they more than tarnished my attitude towards Apple with this run through at WWDC and the disdain for the desktop demonstrated.
Look at it this way I bought my MBP in 2008 because Apple had nothing in that performance class for the desktop. Note: that even in 2008 I rejected the iMac out of hand as a suitable machine. In that time Apple has yet to wise up in regards to the desktop, they push the same old platform line up even though sales lag more and more every year. With the MBP getting on in years I have to consider a replacement just as in 2008 my preference is for a desktop. My fear is another tiny bump to the Mini line that keeps it squarely in last place performance wise.
Your lack of any facts to support your claim is noted. The Mac Pro is still a very powerful, extremely high quality, very price competitive machine.
If you need every 0.1 GHz available, it's probably not the computer for you. But for people who want a solid, well-built, reliable, fast workstation, it's a great machine.
The problem is that your knowledge of the iMac is greatly outdated. The screen color problems were many years ago. While there are undoubtedly occasional lemons in any device sold by the millions, there are no recent widespread iMac video problems.
The fact that you're arguing about 255 MB VRAM further proves that your information is out of date. The cheapest iMac you can buy today has 512 MB of VRAM. Furthermore, your requirement that 256 MB is below the minimum requirement is purely arbitrary. Many people never play hard core games or do anything that requires more than 256.
Let's use your example. I went to Dell's site to configure their dual CPU T5600 to match the Mac Pro. Here's what I came up with:
Mac Pro $3,799
Dell $4,237
I made the following changes:
The base Dell as 2.0 GHz CPUs. I upgraded to 2.2 (which is still below the Mac's 2.4). Since you agree that they're roughly the same price, this is probably the best comparison.
The base Dell only has 8 GB of RAM, the Mac pro has 12. You can't get the Dell with 12, so I upgrade both to 15 to be fair.
The Dell has a Radeon 2770 while the Mac has a 5770. I'm not going to dig into it because neither is a very expensive card, but there may be a difference (or Dell might simply rebrand the 5770)
Apple's power supply is 980 Watt, so I upgraded the Dell, but their max is only 825 Watt.
So, even though the Dell system is inferior, it still costs more. And that doesn't even include the superior case design on the Mac and vastly superior OS.
So you managed to prove my point.
Why in the world would you expect a laptop to have the same design goals as a workstation?
Furthermore, where's your evidence that the MBP's components are being pushed to their limits and/or unstable? That paragraph is nothing more than pure FUD. In reality, Mac laptops are consistently rated as the most reliable laptops available.
Mac sales lag more and more every year? Have you even looked at the figures?
Admittedly, laptop sales are growing faster than desktop sales, but since the margins are probably better, there's nothing wrong with that.
Laptop sales are the only thing growing. The problem is if you want a decent performing Mac, considering the current state of the art, you have no choice but to consider the laptops.
If we look only at Apple's desktop sales I am pretty sure their desktop sales are increasing YoY.
Furthermore, if a 13" RMBP doesn't appear before an RiMac I'm pretty sure I'll be buying a desktop for the first time since 1998. I've been using notebooks for a very, very long time since before it was common and you could buy a new car for the cost of one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The fact that you're arguing about 255 MB VRAM further proves that your information is out of date. The cheapest iMac you can buy today has 512 MB of VRAM. Furthermore, your requirement that 256 MB is below the minimum requirement is purely arbitrary. Many people never play hard core games or do anything that requires more than 256.
That was relative to the macbook pro last year. I was also referring to both games and OpenGL applications relative to the early 2011 model. A year later it wouldn't make minimum requirements for many things. Considering that the discrete gpu is one of the things you pay for on the 15", they could do better. It seems like that is one of the areas where they balance their costs as fewer people will notice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Your lack of any facts to support your claim is noted. The Mac Pro is still a very powerful, extremely high quality, very price competitive machine.
If you need every 0.1 GHz available, it's probably not the computer for you. But for people who want a solid, well-built, reliable, fast workstation, it's a great machine.
The problem is that your knowledge of the iMac is greatly outdated. The screen color problems were many years ago. While there are undoubtedly occasional lemons in any device sold by the millions, there are no recent widespread iMac video problems.
The fact that you're arguing about 255 MB VRAM further proves that your information is out of date. The cheapest iMac you can buy today has 512 MB of VRAM. Furthermore, your requirement that 256 MB is below the minimum requirement is purely arbitrary. Many people never play hard core games or do anything that requires more than 256.
Let's use your example. I went to Dell's site to configure their dual CPU T5600 to match the Mac Pro. Here's what I came up with:
Mac Pro $3,799
Dell $4,237
I made the following changes:
The base Dell as 2.0 GHz CPUs. I upgraded to 2.2 (which is still below the Mac's 2.4). Since you agree that they're roughly the same price, this is probably the best comparison.
The base Dell only has 8 GB of RAM, the Mac pro has 12. You can't get the Dell with 12, so I upgrade both to 15 to be fair.
re probably better, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't bother configuring ram typically, but are you really measuring cpus of different generations by ghz? The mac pros are using Westmeres as opposed to Sandy Bridge E ones. I went by cpus using similar retail pricing. It's not possible to really line up the gpus as you pay a lot for workstation drivers. The OSX gpus are balanced a little differently. Under Windows good luck working with a Radeon card in most OpenGL applications. Under OSX it's fine as OSX applications tend to be balanced around the cards that are available. This doesn't mean that Quadros and Firepros have zero advantage, but the one available under OSX has half the features you'd get under Windows with it anyway. They're just not a big OSX market. Bumping the ram for dual package compliance to 8GB brings it to $3235 (I think you can still order it the other way, I upgrade my own on any machine). I used E5-2630 cpus which are slightly more expensive than the ones in the mac pro. They also came out in 2012 as opposed to 2010. The dell has a 3 year warranty standard, and their business model warranties aren't bad. I didn't bother to add that to the mac. The Firepro 2270 is around the same price as a 5770.
http://ark.intel.com/products/48768/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5645-(12M-Cache-2_40-GHz-5_86-GTs-Intel-QPI) That's the mac pro $3800 12 core.
http://ark.intel.com/products/64593/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2630-(15M-Cache-2_30-GHz-7_20-GTs-Intel-QPI) That's the cpu I configured on the Dell. Note that it is faster, not slower. Ghz aren't a reasonable metric of comparison when comparing cpus that debuted 2 years apart. They also cost more than those used in the mac pro as shown by intel's site.
Given the other costs in there, I'm not going to argue over something as silly as ram when you could place in 16GB of third party ram for $100 in either case. If you're wondering how I configured, I just used the base configuration and went from there. With oems you have a certain amount of markup built into any changes you make from a standard configuration. They're not all guaranteed to reach the same totals if you start from different spots. Now to get something that matches the benchmarks of that Dell that I noted, you're still looking at over $5k on the mac pro. Sandy Bridge E is a considerable boost. Actual performance varies by application, and I have seen some that do better under OSX, but it's usually within 10%. Some things are worse. It depends how well they're ported. Obviously native OSX runs best.
On the topic of the imac, the more recent complaints were the yellow screen thing. I've seen the other issues on the current design, but I haven't seen any on 2011 models. I also haven't seen that many 2011 models, so even if I saw it once, it wouldn't mean much.
By the way, I missed the power supply. When did Apple go back to such a big power supply? The biggest they ever used was a 1000 or 1200 or something on the quad G5. I thought this one was much lower.
Has anyone here read about the Asus UX32VD? I bring this up because it's 3.2 lbs with a 13-inch display, and they managed to fit a discrete graphics card in the chassis. Granted, the GeForceGT 620M is a low-end graphics card, but it's still a step up from integrated, and illustrates an instance of discrete graphics fitting inside a notebook of approximately the same size. If Asus can pull it off, I'm wondering what's stopping a talented company like Apple from including at least an entry level discrete card?
Also, given the fact that the 17-inch MBP was axed in favor of the Retina 15-inch MBP, wouldn't one similarly expect the Retina 13-inch MBP to perform well enough for it to serve as a viable upgrade option for those who own a previous-generation 15-incher (given the fact that a Retina 13-incher would have a larger viewing area than the previous-gen 15-incher)? I will definitely be disappointed if Apple does indeed release the 13-inch MBP solely with integrated graphics.
My thought exactly. I really hope that if not the 650M Apple manages to fit in a lesser discreet graphics card like the 640M. The 640M is only 32 W TDP compared to 45 W for the 650M so it would give better battery life and run cooler to suit the 13"'s smaller case and battery.
I think it's easily possible that Apple can fit a 640M. They've included discreet graphics in the 13" MBP before and that was using larger fabrication processes and older battery technology. By removing the optical drive, replacing magnetic with flash-based storage and other general motherboard optimisations I'd be very surprised if they can't find room for it.
I'd be willing to forgo a 16 Gb maximum RAM for 8 Gb if it means we can have discreet graphics! I'm really hanging out for a retina 13" laptop Apple, please don't let me down!
Can anyone provide info about the generation of Intel GPUs that will be incorporated in Haswell-equipped machines? My understanding is that they will represent a genuine leap in GPU performance and capability. I believe there will be three different models and that even the lowest will be equivalent to a 650M.
If people want to buy a gaming notebook, they can buy a gaming notebook and there are tons out there. Having said that, when people spend the money on a MacBook Pro they want it to play at least a few games adequately.
I don't think anyone buys a MacBook Pro in order to play Crysis 2 at max settings though if they can't play it at least at medium to high settings with possibly a configure to order option, it's kind of sad. No?
That is interesting because I can see myself going to a desktop model if Apple had something I wanted. The current iMac design won't do it for me though. I'm really hoping for an overhauled Mini / XMac sort of machine.
As to RAM 8GB max is something I could live with as long as they don't get cheap on VRAM for the GPU. Apple has this nasty habit of configuring the machines in odd ways to apparently ensure up sells. A 13" MBP with only 256GB of VRAM, supporting a descrete GPU, would be worthless in my eyes. it wouldn't shock me one bit to see Apple do this on the 13" machine though.
I think it is a given, but when is harder to say. I can't see them releasing anymore laptops until late fall. So if you can hold out that long do so.
So when it comes to Intel GPUs I'm a wait and see guy. More so if Haswell comes on time you are still talking a year from now. Being on time hasn't been one of Intels strong points lately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
A 13" MBP with only 256GB of VRAM, supporting a descrete GPU, would be worthless in my eyes. it wouldn't shock me one bit to see Apple do this on the 13" machine though.
A discrete GPU with 256 GB of VRAM would be awesome! Probably a bit expensive, though...
On a serious note, I do hope that if they go with a discrete card, it's one that's actually semi-useful. Too low-end would be a waste of space that could've been used for extra battery capacity (not that it matters much to me, since I'm probably not buying one without a discrete GPU).
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf
I really hope that if not the 650M Apple manages to fit in a lesser discreet graphics card like the 640M. The 640M is only 32 W TDP compared to 45 W for the 650M so it would give better battery life and run cooler to suit the 13"'s smaller case and battery.
I think it's easily possible that Apple can fit a 640M. They've included discreet graphics in the 13" MBP before and that was using larger fabrication processes and older battery technology.
No they haven't. The only non-Intel graphics used in the 13" MacBook Pro to date have been the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and 320M, which are both integrated graphics controllers (they used main memory for graphics, incorporated the memory controller, and were used alongside the Intel Core 2 Duo). Admittedly they were much better than Intel's integrated graphics at the time. That route is no longer an option due to Intel not allowing third party integrated memory/graphics controllers with recent processor families.
Quote:
By removing the optical drive, replacing magnetic with flash-based storage and other general motherboard optimisations I'd be very surprised if they can't find room for it.
Have you seen how compact the 15" RMBP logic board is already? Now try to squeeze that into a smaller case, while leaving enough room for a battery and cooling system which are almost the same volume as the 15" ones. I don't think it could be done without a significantly thicker body.
Not including a discrete GPU (and its associated graphics memory and graphic switching circuitry) would save some logic board space, require less power therefore less battery capacity, and produce less heat to manage, possibly allowing space savings in the cooling system.
Apple's goal is likely to be to produce a 13" RMBP which is similar in thickness to the 15" model, without sacrificing operating time from the battery. Even without a discrete GPU, I think it would have to be a little thicker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Not in the USA. IMac sales are flat or seeing very minor year over year growth. Both the Mini and the Mac Pro are seeing significant regressions in sales.