It's a 13" model. It's not going to have a discrete chip. Apple has never made a 13" computer with a discrete chip, and the last laptop close to that size with one was the last iBook G4 in July 2005.
As you note, they've made 12" and 14" notebooks with discreet GPUs. I don't think think it's unfathomable to consider Apple using a dGPU in a 13" MBP if the new display requires it. They are saving quite a big of room by removing the ODD and HDD.
One thing I know is that if Apple releases a 13" MBP with only an iGPU it will be sufficient for my needs as my needs will be to playback high-profile 1080p video flawlessly.
The questions I have are about the max RAM and max SSD sizes.
As you note, they've made 12" and 14" notebooks with discreet GPUs. I don't think think it's unfathomable to consider Apple using a dGPU in a 13" MBP if the new display requires it.
And I'd love one! How nice to have a muscly, tiny computer that might just turn into the modern version of the 12" PowerBook.
Thing is, they're going to make it thinner. That's a given. So any space freed by the loss of the ODD and Ethernet port will be eaten up by the battery. And the Intel 4000 has shown itself to be… okay… at driving the retina display, so it seems like they're fine with using that as a stopgap until Haswell hits with its better iGPUs.
They are saving quite a big of room by removing the… …HDD.
Ah, forgot about that; they are, aren't they…
The questions I have are about the max RAM and max SSD sizes.
Hopefully the same as the 15"… There's no excuse not to, yeah?
And I'd love one! How nice to have a muscly, tiny computer that might just turn into the modern version of the 12" PowerBook.
The 13" MBP was always the muscly version of the 12" PB. The lack of a dGPU doesn't mean the iGPU was weaker than the dGPU those PowerBooks used. I'll take my any of the MBP Nvidia and Intel integrated GPUs over any of the discreet GPUs the 12" PowerBooks have. They range from a to a 32MB to a 64MB NVIDIA GPU. They pale in comparison to any of the iGPUs out today.
My only concern is if it's powerful enough to run the machine doing general tasks. I've never had a reason to not trust Apple on this front. If they only use a dGPU then it must require it. If it has an iGPU, even as a base option, then it must not require it.
Hopefully the same as the 15"… There's no excuse not to, yeah?
They each require more chips which may not be possible. Look at the SSD cards in the 11" and 13" MBAs.
It's likely I'll buy a new 13" MBP or iMac, whichever comes out with a Retina version first.
Those are dramatically different models! It is strange that you will jump on whatever comes out first.
Then buy one with 8 or 16GB. I think 4GB is sufficient for most 13" MBP users but I'd recommend all get at least 8GB to future-proof their system.
I think that was the point of tallest post, a machine with onlyn4GB of RAM is very poor investment these days. I don't even consider it sufficient for most users anymore, the reality is Mac OS already runs like crap on 2GB so in effect 4GB becomes a minimal configuration. Anything labeled pro can not really be considered a minimal machine.
In any event this should be an interesting machine. I still beleive it will have a descrete GPU to drive that screen. As such it best have it's own VRAM and lots of it. In fact 1GB of VRAM would make a 4GB machine a little easier to take ( if hard to recommend).
None of the 13" MBPs have quad-core now. Also, don't make the mistake of equating Pro to "Graphics Pro" - there are many professions that don't require a discrete graphics card.
As far as I can see there was no indication one way or the other with respect to a descrete GPU. In any event it isn't the profession but rather the screen that may very well require a descrete GPU.
Yes in a 'pro' model if it isn't upgradeable you'd think 8 would be a wiser level to start. 4 is fine for the average Joe though so i assume the Pro monica is now being used rather loosely.
Apple covers the average Joe market with the AIRs. Even there they now offer 8GB options. 4GB in any machine targeting the "Pro" market is extremely thin.
It's the reason I walked out of an Apple Store last week without a box having intended to buy one. The cost of the fully loaded Retina 15" is out of my budget for a laptop but I wouldn't want to be stuck with lower RAM than a system was able to use. I am back pondering the non Retina MBP again...
Those are very good upgradable machines.
although what i really want is another Mac Pro, if only they really upgraded that model ... maybe next year / sigh
If you really would prefer a Mac Pro, or whatever it is replaced with you should wait for whatever comes next year! It is pretty obvious that this Mac Pro is a stop gap measure for something entirely different. I suspect Apple will take a different approach to Pro hardware next year.
Of course there is nothing wrong with having your own stop gap measure. There an AIR may be very useful.
The point is wasting money on Apple RAM for upgrades.
Quote:
I think 4GB is sufficient for most 13" MBP users
With Mountain Lion requiring half of that baseline, I doubt it. Unless Apple is accelerating their upgrade cycle by a few years (too many).
I'd simply suggest that sufficient doesn't usually mean you can't benefit from more of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I think that was the point of tallest post, a machine with onlyn4GB of RAM is very poor investment these days. I don't even consider it sufficient for most users anymore, the reality is Mac OS already runs like crap on 2GB so in effect 4GB becomes a minimal configuration. Anything labeled pro can not really be considered a minimal machine.
In any event this should be an interesting machine. I still beleive it will have a descrete GPU to drive that screen. As such it best have it's own VRAM and lots of it. In fact 1GB of VRAM would make a 4GB machine a little easier to take ( if hard to recommend).
I won't even look at anything under 16GB in a new machine today. It means far less swap. Even with an SSD this isn't a bad thing given the inherent limited write cycles of the technology. If we're talking about users with moderate tasks going beyond facebook and email but nothing heavy with a 3 year replacement cycle, I'd still say to take at least 8. These numbers only sound big because you double the resources each time. What's weird is when people try to figure out how little memory is enough when it can mean a much greater difference than some of these slight cpu bumps. $250 for slightly faster X86 cores often means much less. The issue with VRAM is more that certain OpenCL functions won't run on cards with too little ram. They don't run slower. The function is simply disabled and run on the cpu instead. Apple shouldn't even offer discrete cards with less than 1GB anymore given that it's not that costly. Usually when they do this, such as the lowest 15" mbp, it has less vram allocated than the typical reference spec for that card. Given the tech site insinuations that Apple's 650m is slightly overclocked, it makes even less sense to ship it in such a configuration. This strikes me as one of those rounding issues on margins. If the machine goes above a certain manufacturing cost, it would be rounded up $100 to maintain Apple's minimum desired margin for the model. Instead they cut down the components slightly. It still seems cheap.
It's a pro in that it's in the more expensive line, with more luxury features. It's not about graphics, and more cores don't mean anything to most common uses.
This is garbage throughout. Especially the thing about more cores, four cores are now the sweet spot for performance unless you have apps bound to a single thread. Even then very few Mac users run only one app at a time.
A doctor or a lawyer making $2-3M a year are much more pro than a $70K a year graphic designer, and they have no need for a fancy graphics card.
This is highly debatable even the iPad has FDA approved apps for XRays and the like. Beyond that the Intel integrated GPUs do not do well driving screens with lots of pixels. The simple inclusion of a retina screen would seem to indicate a need for a descrete GPU.
One possibility here is that Apple is waiting on a new un announced Intel GPU that performs better than the current Ivy Bridge Integrated GPUs. That could happen with a faster clock rate or other improvements to Intels processors. Even a larger cache might help.
In Amy event I think you have warped reality with your comment about a "fancy graphics card". There is nothing fancy about a descrete GPU (it isn't a card in this case) it is just another chip on the motherboard used to drive performance.
If you really would prefer a Mac Pro, or whatever it is replaced with you should wait for whatever comes next year! It is pretty obvious that this Mac Pro is a stop gap measure for something entirely different. I suspect Apple will take a different approach to Pro hardware next year.
Of course there is nothing wrong with having your own stop gap measure. There an AIR may be very useful.
Yep you are correct, the next MacPro should be sweet. My current MBP i7 with 8 GiGs of ram will have to do till Then. I really want true multitasking again (as in it doesnt blink doing compression, cloning, copying and surfing at the same time) and that means MacPro so yes, I will wait. I just bought myself an new Epiphone Nighthawk Custom Reissue to stave of frustration .... For those in the know, man it is sweet!
It's a 13" model. It's not going to have a discrete chip. Apple has never made a 13" computer with a discrete chip, and the last laptop close to that size with one was the last iBook G4 in July 2005.
Apple has never made the following until the decided to do so:
An iPod
A cell phone
AppleTV
A retina MBP
An iPad
I think you mis one very important point, a complete revamping of the 13" MBP gives them a chance to do whatever they want. The deletion of the optical frees up a huge amount of space for support of a GPU. If not a GPU maybe a cellular interface and antenna. I'm certain I'm not the only one with ideas on how to use that space.
In any event the fact that they never did something in the past is no arguement about what they may do in the future. In fact it is down right silly considering it is Apples intent to innovate to keep ahead of the competition.
I'd simply suggest that sufficient doesn't usually mean you can't benefit from more of it.
Well I see it this way most users can benefit from more though not all of them may have a technical understanding of how having more RAM makes for a better machine for their uses.
I won't even look at anything under 16GB in a new machine today. It means far less swap.
Well I'm pretty sure any new Mac I get will not have less than 8GB but that is to support how I use the machine. If I where to buy the New Retina MBP I might seriously consider that 16Gb of RAM simply because of the non upgradable nature and my need to hang onto a model longer than have in the past.
Even with an SSD this isn't a bad thing given the inherent limited write cycles of the technology. If we're talking about users with moderate tasks going beyond facebook and email but nothing heavy with a 3 year replacement cycle, I'd still say to take at least 8.
That seems rational.
These numbers only sound big because you double the resources each time. What's weird is when people try to figure out how little memory is enough when it can mean a much greater difference than some of these slight cpu bumps. $250 for slightly faster X86 cores often means much less.
Yep makes little sense. It can be likened to putting a 1000HP engine into a car with a frame that can't handle it.
The issue with VRAM is more that certain OpenCL functions won't run on cards with too little ram. They don't run slower. The function is simply disabled and run on the cpu instead. Apple shouldn't even offer discrete cards with less than 1GB anymore given that it's not that costly. Usually when they do this, such as the lowest 15" mbp, it has less vram allocated than the typical reference spec for that card. Given the tech site insinuations that Apple's 650m is slightly overclocked, it makes even less sense to ship it in such a configuration.
I'm a bit concerned about what motivated Apple to go with this GPU. Performance wise the NVidia chip sucks.
This strikes me as one of those rounding issues on margins. If the machine goes above a certain manufacturing cost, it would be rounded up $100 to maintain Apple's minimum desired margin for the model. Instead they cut down the components slightly. It still seems cheap.
This is often the case with Aple products though the laptops suffer less. Think about the people looking at Minis which are significantly castrated considering the price. At time it is Apple being cheap but it is also an artificial attempt to drive sales to the higher end. Apple should be more concerned about marketing a viable line up rather then forcing customers into laptops, expensive laptops at that.
Well I see it this way most users can benefit from more though not all of them may have a technical understanding of how having more RAM makes for a better machine for their uses.
Much of the time there's this idea that if everything opens, they cannot benefit from further upgrades. 8 should be the norm for a lot of people, especially considering how cheap ram is these days. Less than that is somewhat of a compromise to longevity. Personally I hate switching hardware frequently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'm a bit concerned about what motivated Apple to go with this GPU. Performance wise the NVidia chip sucks. Quote:
Kepler was well reviewed. What do you dislike? My only irritation at the moment is the split between CUDA and OpenCL. Adobe is a bit divided there at the moment. Some of their prior developments were for CUDA due to its maturity at the time. I do kind of dislike the mac pro nvidia implementations. They've been terrible. The Quadro 4000 is still available as a workstation card, but half the driver features you would get under Windows are unavailable with OSX. I've probably mentioned that before. It only shows significant advantages in a couple applications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is often the case with Aple products though the laptops suffer less. Think about the people looking at Minis which are significantly castrated considering the price. At time it is Apple being cheap but it is also an artificial attempt to drive sales to the higher end. Apple should be more concerned about marketing a viable line up rather then forcing customers into laptops, expensive laptops at that.
Yes.. although the display upgrade should do that on its own with the 15" model. I realize the price there is a commonly discussed issue, but Apple has occupied that price territory in the past as well. The issue may be that people who were previously buying at lower price points are now debating the rMBP.
Much of the time there's this idea that if everything opens, they cannot benefit from further upgrades. 8 should be the norm for a lot of people, especially considering how cheap ram is these days. Less than that is somewhat of a compromise to longevity. Personally I hate switching hardware frequently.
Kepler was well reviewed. What do you dislike? My only irritation at the moment is the split between CUDA and OpenCL. Adobe is a bit divided there at the moment. Some of their prior developments were for CUDA due to its maturity at the time. I do kind of dislike the mac pro nvidia implementations. They've been terrible. The Quadro 4000 is still available as a workstation card, but half the driver features you would get under Windows are unavailable with OSX. I've probably mentioned that before. It only shows significant advantages in a couple applications.
Yes.. although the display upgrade should do that on its own with the 15" model. I realize the price there is a commonly discussed issue, but Apple has occupied that price territory in the past as well. The issue may be that people who were previously buying at lower price points are now debating the rMBP.
Discussions about the merits of RAM never cease to fascinate me. I recall arguing 8 MB was needed in my Mac ii fx against detractors. lol
RAM amounts are of course a moving target. The hardware guys figure out how to add more, and the software guys figure out how that's still not enough.
These days 4GB is a working minimum, 8GB is very comfortable, and 16GB or more are into special requirements territory. Oh, and let's not forget that integrated graphics take their VRAM out of main RAM.
For the love of Steve please cram a decent dedicated graphics chip in it. I don't care about heat dissapation or how many vaginas you set on fire during testing. I don't want the hassle of a 15-inch laptop or some windows junk just to get premium graphics performance in three year old games.
I know it's Apple, so they won't do it, but I think I would not be the only person who would like the retina screen as an option on the older style Macbook Pros.
The new Macbook Pro Retinas should really have been called Air Pro. I can just about swallow the fixed Ram and SSD, but the battery situation is more of a worry. Having to pack up your machine and send it away somewhere just to get a new battery put in is ridiculous - as is the price for doing so. It might be OK in countries with Apple stores but, here in Ireland, we don't have such an option. When My iPod HD died, the thing had to be sent to the Netherlands and then returned. A near three week round trip. Not an option for a laptop that is a main use machine.
There's no question that apple *could* fit in a discrete GPU (dGPU :P). They need only manage the case thickness to accommodate a large enough battery and only fractions of a millimetre equate to significantly more volume. They could even manage the heat by under-clocking the GPU and programming it's temp thresholds, so none of this is a problem and is all par for the course for an experienced manufacturer.
Sadly, the real reason why they likely won't do so is because of marketing and business models. Apple often cripples its cheapest hardware to incentivise the more expensive and higher margin products. Apple wants to push anyone that's wavering toward the 15" model.
It won't work for me because I don't want a bigger and more expensive laptop than I need. I just want that gorgeous retina display in a 13" form factor! So Apple just give us a break this one time and exceed our expectations! Your company is doing so well due to our loyalty and support!
Using a Mac Mini Server with 8GB RAM......when I start my system, I am left with 5GB RAM.
That's not a useful figure. The way VM works, the system takes up a significant fraction of available RAM. As more and more apps are loaded, the system gives up some of its RAM and pages to VM. With platter drives, this involves a significant performance penalty, but with SSD, the performance penalty is much smaller. Only a relatively small number of people would see any benefit from more than 8 GB (heck, many wouldn't see any performance benefit from more than 4 GB).
Problem is APPLE freaking RAM is 2X the price selling online. That's why APPLE made the RAM boring
This is no longer true. On the rMBP, 16 GB is $200. From third parties, that RAM is about $160 or more without factoring in installation cost (if you pay to have it done). Furthermore, there's no guarantee that the third party RAM won't cause problems. $200 vs $160 is not 2x the price.
I don't think think it's unfathomable to consider Apple using a dGPU in a 13" MBP if the new display requires it. They are saving quite a big of room by removing the ODD and HDD.
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:
[VIDEO]
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.
Comments
As you note, they've made 12" and 14" notebooks with discreet GPUs. I don't think think it's unfathomable to consider Apple using a dGPU in a 13" MBP if the new display requires it. They are saving quite a big of room by removing the ODD and HDD.
One thing I know is that if Apple releases a 13" MBP with only an iGPU it will be sufficient for my needs as my needs will be to playback high-profile 1080p video flawlessly.
The questions I have are about the max RAM and max SSD sizes.
And I'd love one! How nice to have a muscly, tiny computer that might just turn into the modern version of the 12" PowerBook.
Thing is, they're going to make it thinner. That's a given. So any space freed by the loss of the ODD and Ethernet port will be eaten up by the battery. And the Intel 4000 has shown itself to be… okay… at driving the retina display, so it seems like they're fine with using that as a stopgap until Haswell hits with its better iGPUs.
Ah, forgot about that; they are, aren't they…
Hopefully the same as the 15"… There's no excuse not to, yeah?
The 13" MBP was always the muscly version of the 12" PB. The lack of a dGPU doesn't mean the iGPU was weaker than the dGPU those PowerBooks used. I'll take my any of the MBP Nvidia and Intel integrated GPUs over any of the discreet GPUs the 12" PowerBooks have. They range from a to a 32MB to a 64MB NVIDIA GPU. They pale in comparison to any of the iGPUs out today.
My only concern is if it's powerful enough to run the machine doing general tasks. I've never had a reason to not trust Apple on this front. If they only use a dGPU then it must require it. If it has an iGPU, even as a base option, then it must not require it.
They each require more chips which may not be possible. Look at the SSD cards in the 11" and 13" MBAs.
I think that was the point of tallest post, a machine with onlyn4GB of RAM is very poor investment these days. I don't even consider it sufficient for most users anymore, the reality is Mac OS already runs like crap on 2GB so in effect 4GB becomes a minimal configuration. Anything labeled pro can not really be considered a minimal machine.
In any event this should be an interesting machine. I still beleive it will have a descrete GPU to drive that screen. As such it best have it's own VRAM and lots of it. In fact 1GB of VRAM would make a 4GB machine a little easier to take ( if hard to recommend).
If you really would prefer a Mac Pro, or whatever it is replaced with you should wait for whatever comes next year! It is pretty obvious that this Mac Pro is a stop gap measure for something entirely different. I suspect Apple will take a different approach to Pro hardware next year.
Of course there is nothing wrong with having your own stop gap measure. There an AIR may be very useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Then buy one with 8 or 16GB.
The point is wasting money on Apple RAM for upgrades.
Quote:
I think 4GB is sufficient for most 13" MBP users
With Mountain Lion requiring half of that baseline, I doubt it. Unless Apple is accelerating their upgrade cycle by a few years (too many).
I'd simply suggest that sufficient doesn't usually mean you can't benefit from more of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I think that was the point of tallest post, a machine with onlyn4GB of RAM is very poor investment these days. I don't even consider it sufficient for most users anymore, the reality is Mac OS already runs like crap on 2GB so in effect 4GB becomes a minimal configuration. Anything labeled pro can not really be considered a minimal machine.
In any event this should be an interesting machine. I still beleive it will have a descrete GPU to drive that screen. As such it best have it's own VRAM and lots of it. In fact 1GB of VRAM would make a 4GB machine a little easier to take ( if hard to recommend).
I won't even look at anything under 16GB in a new machine today. It means far less swap. Even with an SSD this isn't a bad thing given the inherent limited write cycles of the technology. If we're talking about users with moderate tasks going beyond facebook and email but nothing heavy with a 3 year replacement cycle, I'd still say to take at least 8. These numbers only sound big because you double the resources each time. What's weird is when people try to figure out how little memory is enough when it can mean a much greater difference than some of these slight cpu bumps. $250 for slightly faster X86 cores often means much less. The issue with VRAM is more that certain OpenCL functions won't run on cards with too little ram. They don't run slower. The function is simply disabled and run on the cpu instead. Apple shouldn't even offer discrete cards with less than 1GB anymore given that it's not that costly. Usually when they do this, such as the lowest 15" mbp, it has less vram allocated than the typical reference spec for that card. Given the tech site insinuations that Apple's 650m is slightly overclocked, it makes even less sense to ship it in such a configuration. This strikes me as one of those rounding issues on margins. If the machine goes above a certain manufacturing cost, it would be rounded up $100 to maintain Apple's minimum desired margin for the model. Instead they cut down the components slightly. It still seems cheap.
This is highly debatable even the iPad has FDA approved apps for XRays and the like. Beyond that the Intel integrated GPUs do not do well driving screens with lots of pixels. The simple inclusion of a retina screen would seem to indicate a need for a descrete GPU.
One possibility here is that Apple is waiting on a new un announced Intel GPU that performs better than the current Ivy Bridge Integrated GPUs. That could happen with a faster clock rate or other improvements to Intels processors. Even a larger cache might help.
In Amy event I think you have warped reality with your comment about a "fancy graphics card". There is nothing fancy about a descrete GPU (it isn't a card in this case) it is just another chip on the motherboard used to drive performance.
Yep you are correct, the next MacPro should be sweet. My current MBP i7 with 8 GiGs of ram will have to do till Then. I really want true multitasking again (as in it doesnt blink doing compression, cloning, copying and surfing at the same time) and that means MacPro so yes, I will wait. I just bought myself an new Epiphone Nighthawk Custom Reissue to stave of frustration .... For those in the know, man it is sweet!
Apple has never made the following until the decided to do so:
I think you mis one very important point, a complete revamping of the 13" MBP gives them a chance to do whatever they want. The deletion of the optical frees up a huge amount of space for support of a GPU. If not a GPU maybe a cellular interface and antenna. I'm certain I'm not the only one with ideas on how to use that space.
In any event the fact that they never did something in the past is no arguement about what they may do in the future. In fact it is down right silly considering it is Apples intent to innovate to keep ahead of the competition.
This is often the case with Aple products though the laptops suffer less. Think about the people looking at Minis which are significantly castrated considering the price. At time it is Apple being cheap but it is also an artificial attempt to drive sales to the higher end. Apple should be more concerned about marketing a viable line up rather then forcing customers into laptops, expensive laptops at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Well I see it this way most users can benefit from more though not all of them may have a technical understanding of how having more RAM makes for a better machine for their uses.
Much of the time there's this idea that if everything opens, they cannot benefit from further upgrades. 8 should be the norm for a lot of people, especially considering how cheap ram is these days. Less than that is somewhat of a compromise to longevity. Personally I hate switching hardware frequently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'm a bit concerned about what motivated Apple to go with this GPU. Performance wise the NVidia chip sucks. Quote:
Kepler was well reviewed. What do you dislike? My only irritation at the moment is the split between CUDA and OpenCL. Adobe is a bit divided there at the moment. Some of their prior developments were for CUDA due to its maturity at the time. I do kind of dislike the mac pro nvidia implementations. They've been terrible. The Quadro 4000 is still available as a workstation card, but half the driver features you would get under Windows are unavailable with OSX. I've probably mentioned that before. It only shows significant advantages in a couple applications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is often the case with Aple products though the laptops suffer less. Think about the people looking at Minis which are significantly castrated considering the price. At time it is Apple being cheap but it is also an artificial attempt to drive sales to the higher end. Apple should be more concerned about marketing a viable line up rather then forcing customers into laptops, expensive laptops at that.
Yes.. although the display upgrade should do that on its own with the 15" model. I realize the price there is a commonly discussed issue, but Apple has occupied that price territory in the past as well. The issue may be that people who were previously buying at lower price points are now debating the rMBP.
Discussions about the merits of RAM never cease to fascinate me. I recall arguing 8 MB was needed in my Mac ii fx against detractors. lol
These days 4GB is a working minimum, 8GB is very comfortable, and 16GB or more are into special requirements territory. Oh, and let's not forget that integrated graphics take their VRAM out of main RAM.
8GB is minimum specs for me.
16GB would be sweet.
Using a Mac Mini Server with 8GB RAM......when I start my system, I am left with 5GB RAM.
So yeah, max out your ram is the best.
Problem is APPLE freaking RAM is 2X the price selling online. That's why APPLE made the RAM boring
For the love of Steve please cram a decent dedicated graphics chip in it. I don't care about heat dissapation or how many vaginas you set on fire during testing. I don't want the hassle of a 15-inch laptop or some windows junk just to get premium graphics performance in three year old games.
Sincerely,
Me
I know it's Apple, so they won't do it, but I think I would not be the only person who would like the retina screen as an option on the older style Macbook Pros.
The new Macbook Pro Retinas should really have been called Air Pro. I can just about swallow the fixed Ram and SSD, but the battery situation is more of a worry. Having to pack up your machine and send it away somewhere just to get a new battery put in is ridiculous - as is the price for doing so. It might be OK in countries with Apple stores but, here in Ireland, we don't have such an option. When My iPod HD died, the thing had to be sent to the Netherlands and then returned. A near three week round trip. Not an option for a laptop that is a main use machine.
Sadly, the real reason why they likely won't do so is because of marketing and business models. Apple often cripples its cheapest hardware to incentivise the more expensive and higher margin products. Apple wants to push anyone that's wavering toward the 15" model.
It won't work for me because I don't want a bigger and more expensive laptop than I need. I just want that gorgeous retina display in a 13" form factor! So Apple just give us a break this one time and exceed our expectations! Your company is doing so well due to our loyalty and support!
Go 13" rMBP with dGPU! Haha
That's not a useful figure. The way VM works, the system takes up a significant fraction of available RAM. As more and more apps are loaded, the system gives up some of its RAM and pages to VM. With platter drives, this involves a significant performance penalty, but with SSD, the performance penalty is much smaller. Only a relatively small number of people would see any benefit from more than 8 GB (heck, many wouldn't see any performance benefit from more than 4 GB).
This is no longer true. On the rMBP, 16 GB is $200. From third parties, that RAM is about $160 or more without factoring in installation cost (if you pay to have it done). Furthermore, there's no guarantee that the third party RAM won't cause problems. $200 vs $160 is not 2x the price.
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:
[VIDEO]
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.