The high-end rMBP is equipped with GT 750M and 2GB of GDDR5. The 760M and 780M are way too power-hungry to put in a laptop.
Other than that, I remember a demo by the Adobe Premiere team made on the 15" rMBP last year. They've real-time video editing of a project containing no less than seven 5K streams, each one having a large set of effects applied (different for each stream).
I can't really imagine what your expectations for a laptop are, but it is quite possible current high-end rMBP to be the last one having a discrete graphics card.
You aren't seriously implying that laptops are more powerful than we really need are you? Especially given that for many folks our laptops are our desktops because we work everywhere (work, home, during ballet class, coffee shop).
And you notice the 'M' at the end of the 760M and 780M? That denotes a mobile part so nVidia doesn't believe they are "way too power-hungry to put in a laptop".
The 780M has an estimated TDP at 122W which is a bit much but the 760M has an estimated TDP of 55W compared to the estimated TDP of the 750M of 50W. The 770M has an estimated TDP of 75W.
Estimated because nVidia doesn't actually publicly publish the TDP of their mobile parts and these are from reference MXM boards.
You aren't seriously implying that laptops are more powerful than we really need are you? Especially given that for many folks our laptops are our desktops because we work everywhere (work, home, during ballet class, coffee shop).
And you notice the 'M' at the end of the 760M and 780M? That denotes a mobile part so nVidia doesn't believe they are "way too power-hungry to put in a laptop".
The 780M has an estimated TDP at 122W which is a bit much but the 760M has an estimated TDP of 55W compared to the estimated TDP of the 750M of 50W. The 770M has an estimated TDP of 75W.
Estimated because nVidia doesn't actually publicly publish the TDP of their mobile parts and these are from reference MXM boards.
Are you seriously implying that rMBP is not powerful the way it is? I wonder how you managed to do your job 3-5 years ago ...
Apple engineers have their reasons for going with the 750M. Maybe they've reached the heat dissipation limit of the rMBP chassis. Maybe something else is in the way. I seriously doubt it is the price. $100 more for the highest-end laptop is of no concern to buyers (at least not to me). Or they could have given the option for an upgrade, say +$200.
Are you seriously implying that rMBP is not powerful the way it is? I wonder how you managed to do your job 3-5 years ago ...
Yes, it is powerful but it is relative. The top end could use a better GPU BTO just like the 27" iMac does that bumps the 775M to a full up 780M. Going up to either the 760M or the 770M is a reasonable desire.
As far as performance from 3-5 years ago my current laptop is a 3 year old MBP. I expect to use my next MBP for 3 years since that's our replacement cycle like many shops. No, it's never powerful enough three years later. And yes, our work demands do increase over time.
I was so excited for the past few months, as my plan was to buy one of these bad boys as soon as they came out, to replace my 2011 iMac (the last one with a DVD/CD drive). Finally Tuesday came and the new models were released; everything looked really good at first.
They announced a price drop, TB2, USB3, faster SSDs and Wifi and better battery life (barely). Everyone knew that they were getting Iris Pro, and the most conservative estimates had it get the 750M too, but some of us were hoping for something a little more 'Pro' in the dedicated graphics card aspect. What also seemed like a reasonable 'dream' was a Fusion Drive, because let's face it, 256GB is 'nothing', even 512gb is just barely enough for any serious system, and external storage is all well and fine for a desktop machine, but this is a laptop that moves around, typically without large peripherals.
Since I was aiming to get the top of the line model, I started pricing the purchase and trying to figure out what would be best. Then reality started to sink in.
-The price drop only applied to the very bottom of the line model, the top of the line configuration came in at exactly the same price as it used to be, so... no 'real' price drop in my case.
-This top model also just happens to have a processor that is clocked lower than the model it was replacing, even the processor you can upgrade to is clocked lower. I know that gigahertz aren't everything, but they are something, and here specs had actually gotten worse.
-Everyone knew the Haswell chip was all about efficiency, but I didn't realize just how modest the performance difference was, essentially there isn't any. Early benchmarks are reporting 2-4% better scores. Not impressed and hardly worth the wait.
My bubble was burst but it gets worse.
-Apple has always charged a premium for their products, but what is just plain unacceptable is that a 3000$ machine comes with only 512gb of storage, bump that to 1TB (the maximum) (which I can only assume is actually 960GB) if you want to doll out 500$ more (I know, it's 450$, add tax... yeah.) So now we're at 3500$ for a nice looking laptop with cutting edge technology, but all around somewhat disappointing specs.
-Thunderbolt 2 : Nice in theory, almost useless in practice. I give it points for future-proofness though, and if it had NOT received this spec bump, double ouch.
-USB3.0: Welcome to the party, you are 3 years late, the first laptop with usb 3 came out in October 2010. So much for cutting edge...
-Retina Display: second iteration of these. Are they nice? No doubt? Are they useful? I doubt it. Unless you are editing HD video on a 15 inch screen (what is wrong with you?) this is just an expensive component with no real benefit. Macbook Pros are not toys, we need performance. If all someone wanted was a pretty case and screen, they can buy an iPad (ok now I'm getting bitter, sorry about that)
-HDMI port : See USB3.0 above, and I'll add: Who needs/wants this? wouldn't an Ethernet port see more real world use than this? Besides you can get an adapter for Thunderbolt for this, no? Seems redundant, I hope the component doesn't cost them anything, because it sure isn't worth anything.
A big factor for me was that this machine would replace my 2011 iMac. I even bought a thunderbolt display to use as an awesome dock. Heck, I figured I'd pretty much an iMac when at home (docked rmbp) and a sweet laptop on the go. Then it became apparent that the 750M wasn't as powerful as the two and half year old 6970M. Almost three years pass and they can't put a better dedicated GPU in their flagship pro-portable? Everyone knows that iMac components are in fact laptop components anyway, "wtf!?" I thought.
Then there's the processor, I have a quad core i7 at 3.4ghz, the rMBP comes in at 2.6GHZ with turboboost to 3.8ghz... I'm not entirely sure that it's really any better. Is it fair for me to be comparing a laptop against a desktop? I think so, iMacs are basically laptops with big screens and there's a 2.5 year difference here... Moore's law my ass...
So it comes down to dropping almost 4000$ for a not-really-faster-or-better machine. Finally, I think I'll pass.
What could have made the difference you ask? Decent storage and better than average graphics, neither of which are offered, regardless of price.
Last thing! The 750M is actually a free upgrade... at one point I thought I might save some money by forgoing the dedicated GPU, but when you configure the entry model of the 15$ to spec the same as the top one, it costs exactly the same, minus the dedicated GPU, go figure, it appears that Apple knows the 750M is in fact worthless.
-This top model also just happens to have a processor that is clocked lower than the model it was replacing, even the processor you can upgrade to is clocked lower. I know that gigahertz aren't everything, but they are something, and here specs had actually gotten worse.
-Everyone knew the Haswell chip was all about efficiency, but I didn't realize just how modest the performance difference was, essentially there isn't any. Early benchmarks are reporting 2-4% better scores. Not impressed and hardly worth the wait.
Clocked slower and 9-10% faster performance for the top end MBP in both single and multi-core performance.
"There are some significant performance gains for the high-end model as it's 10% faster than the previous generation."
Since this is the model you claim to be interested in yes, it is actually pretty impressive.
Quote:
My bubble was burst but it gets worse.
-Apple has always charged a premium for their products, but what is just plain unacceptable is that a 3000$ machine comes with only 512gb of storage, bump that to 1TB (the maximum) (which I can only assume is actually 960GB) if you want to doll out 500$ more (I know, it's 450$, add tax... yeah.)
A $3500 laptop that comes with a 512GB SSD. There isn't a 1TB SSD upgrade option. Which part of SSD confuses you?
Quote:
So now we're at 3500$ for a nice looking laptop with cutting edge technology, but all around somewhat disappointing specs.
$2600 + 500 = $3100. $3,300 if you also bump the CPU to 2.6 Ghz. I guess addition is not your strong suit.
Quote:
-Thunderbolt 2 : Nice in theory, almost useless in practice. I give it points for future-proofness though, and if it had NOT received this spec bump, double ouch.
Useless only if you don't care about I/O speeds.
Quote:
-USB3.0: Welcome to the party, you are 3 years late, the first laptop with usb 3 came out in October 2010. So much for cutting edge...
Except that they've had USB3 for the last three models now (2012, early 2013 and now late 2013). So much for you having a clue.
Quote:
Then it became apparent that the 750M wasn't as powerful as the two and half year old 6970M. Almost three years pass and they can't put a better dedicated GPU in their flagship pro-portable?
The GDDR5 750M is faster than the GTX 660M.
I'd have preferred the GTX 760M as a BTO option but the GDDR5 750M in the MBP is faster than last year's MBP. The iMac has always been faster than the MBP. This hasn't changed in years. And it takes a few years before the mid-tier GPUs overtake the very top end GPUs.
Quote:
Everyone knows that iMac components are in fact laptop components anyway, "wtf!?" I thought.
27" iMac 75W TDP GPU
15" MBP 50W TDP GPU
You thought? I find that hard to believe.
Quote:
Then there's the processor, I have a quad core i7 at 3.4ghz, the rMBP comes in at 2.6GHZ with turboboost to 3.8ghz... I'm not entirely sure that it's really any better
You aren't "entirely sure" because you can't look at geekbench.
The fastest mac currently on the single core 32bit benchmark is the 2013 MBP
The fastest non-mac pro on the multi core 32bit benchmark is the 2013 MBP
The 2013 MBP trails the 2013 iMac by 127 in the single core 64 bit benchmark and 481 in the multi core 64 bit benchmark.
In comparison the 2011 3.4 Ghz iMac trails the 2013 MBP by 1628 or 14% on the multi-core 64 bit benchmark and 12% on the single core 64 bit benchmark.
Taxes in it comes to 3852.5, and that's without Applecare, which anybody buying a 4000$ apple product would most likely buy. My addition seems fine thank you.
You say that usually apple laptops catch up to the iMac after a few years, well its been a few years, and they haven't caught up, if anything they are more crippled than ever.
As for "not caring about I/O speeds", nothing, I repeat, nothing most people have access to can make good use of Thunderbolt, let alone TB2, except maybe 4k screens, and then it takes 3 of them and one hell of a graphics card. I wasn't complaining about TB2, just mentioning that it's high potential but low utility port.
I'm not your typical troll, just trying to understand the logic behind the world's most expensive laptop.
Comments
The high-end rMBP is equipped with GT 750M and 2GB of GDDR5. The 760M and 780M are way too power-hungry to put in a laptop.
Other than that, I remember a demo by the Adobe Premiere team made on the 15" rMBP last year. They've real-time video editing of a project containing no less than seven 5K streams, each one having a large set of effects applied (different for each stream).
I can't really imagine what your expectations for a laptop are, but it is quite possible current high-end rMBP to be the last one having a discrete graphics card.
You aren't seriously implying that laptops are more powerful than we really need are you? Especially given that for many folks our laptops are our desktops because we work everywhere (work, home, during ballet class, coffee shop).
And you notice the 'M' at the end of the 760M and 780M? That denotes a mobile part so nVidia doesn't believe they are "way too power-hungry to put in a laptop".
The 780M has an estimated TDP at 122W which is a bit much but the 760M has an estimated TDP of 55W compared to the estimated TDP of the 750M of 50W. The 770M has an estimated TDP of 75W.
Estimated because nVidia doesn't actually publicly publish the TDP of their mobile parts and these are from reference MXM boards.
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/index.php?mfgr[]=nvidia&mobile=1&released[]=y11_c&generation=&chipname=&interface=&ushaders=&tmus=&rops=&memsize=&memtype=&buswidth=&slots=&sort=released&q=or+type+to+Search...
You aren't seriously implying that laptops are more powerful than we really need are you? Especially given that for many folks our laptops are our desktops because we work everywhere (work, home, during ballet class, coffee shop).
And you notice the 'M' at the end of the 760M and 780M? That denotes a mobile part so nVidia doesn't believe they are "way too power-hungry to put in a laptop".
The 780M has an estimated TDP at 122W which is a bit much but the 760M has an estimated TDP of 55W compared to the estimated TDP of the 750M of 50W. The 770M has an estimated TDP of 75W.
Estimated because nVidia doesn't actually publicly publish the TDP of their mobile parts and these are from reference MXM boards.
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/index.php?mfgr[]=nvidia&mobile=1&released[]=y11_c&generation=&chipname=&interface=&ushaders=&tmus=&rops=&memsize=&memtype=&buswidth=&slots=&sort=released&q=or+type+to+Search...
Are you seriously implying that rMBP is not powerful the way it is? I wonder how you managed to do your job 3-5 years ago ...
Apple engineers have their reasons for going with the 750M. Maybe they've reached the heat dissipation limit of the rMBP chassis. Maybe something else is in the way. I seriously doubt it is the price. $100 more for the highest-end laptop is of no concern to buyers (at least not to me). Or they could have given the option for an upgrade, say +$200.
Whatever the reasons, it is what it is.
Are you seriously implying that rMBP is not powerful the way it is? I wonder how you managed to do your job 3-5 years ago ...
Yes, it is powerful but it is relative. The top end could use a better GPU BTO just like the 27" iMac does that bumps the 775M to a full up 780M. Going up to either the 760M or the 770M is a reasonable desire.
As far as performance from 3-5 years ago my current laptop is a 3 year old MBP. I expect to use my next MBP for 3 years since that's our replacement cycle like many shops. No, it's never powerful enough three years later. And yes, our work demands do increase over time.
I was so excited for the past few months, as my plan was to buy one of these bad boys as soon as they came out, to replace my 2011 iMac (the last one with a DVD/CD drive). Finally Tuesday came and the new models were released; everything looked really good at first.
They announced a price drop, TB2, USB3, faster SSDs and Wifi and better battery life (barely). Everyone knew that they were getting Iris Pro, and the most conservative estimates had it get the 750M too, but some of us were hoping for something a little more 'Pro' in the dedicated graphics card aspect. What also seemed like a reasonable 'dream' was a Fusion Drive, because let's face it, 256GB is 'nothing', even 512gb is just barely enough for any serious system, and external storage is all well and fine for a desktop machine, but this is a laptop that moves around, typically without large peripherals.
Since I was aiming to get the top of the line model, I started pricing the purchase and trying to figure out what would be best. Then reality started to sink in.
-The price drop only applied to the very bottom of the line model, the top of the line configuration came in at exactly the same price as it used to be, so... no 'real' price drop in my case.
-This top model also just happens to have a processor that is clocked lower than the model it was replacing, even the processor you can upgrade to is clocked lower. I know that gigahertz aren't everything, but they are something, and here specs had actually gotten worse.
-Everyone knew the Haswell chip was all about efficiency, but I didn't realize just how modest the performance difference was, essentially there isn't any. Early benchmarks are reporting 2-4% better scores. Not impressed and hardly worth the wait.
My bubble was burst but it gets worse.
-Apple has always charged a premium for their products, but what is just plain unacceptable is that a 3000$ machine comes with only 512gb of storage, bump that to 1TB (the maximum) (which I can only assume is actually 960GB) if you want to doll out 500$ more (I know, it's 450$, add tax... yeah.) So now we're at 3500$ for a nice looking laptop with cutting edge technology, but all around somewhat disappointing specs.
-Thunderbolt 2 : Nice in theory, almost useless in practice. I give it points for future-proofness though, and if it had NOT received this spec bump, double ouch.
-USB3.0: Welcome to the party, you are 3 years late, the first laptop with usb 3 came out in October 2010. So much for cutting edge...
-Retina Display: second iteration of these. Are they nice? No doubt? Are they useful? I doubt it. Unless you are editing HD video on a 15 inch screen (what is wrong with you?) this is just an expensive component with no real benefit. Macbook Pros are not toys, we need performance. If all someone wanted was a pretty case and screen, they can buy an iPad (ok now I'm getting bitter, sorry about that)
-HDMI port : See USB3.0 above, and I'll add: Who needs/wants this? wouldn't an Ethernet port see more real world use than this? Besides you can get an adapter for Thunderbolt for this, no? Seems redundant, I hope the component doesn't cost them anything, because it sure isn't worth anything.
A big factor for me was that this machine would replace my 2011 iMac. I even bought a thunderbolt display to use as an awesome dock. Heck, I figured I'd pretty much an iMac when at home (docked rmbp) and a sweet laptop on the go. Then it became apparent that the 750M wasn't as powerful as the two and half year old 6970M. Almost three years pass and they can't put a better dedicated GPU in their flagship pro-portable? Everyone knows that iMac components are in fact laptop components anyway, "wtf!?" I thought.
Then there's the processor, I have a quad core i7 at 3.4ghz, the rMBP comes in at 2.6GHZ with turboboost to 3.8ghz... I'm not entirely sure that it's really any better. Is it fair for me to be comparing a laptop against a desktop? I think so, iMacs are basically laptops with big screens and there's a 2.5 year difference here... Moore's law my ass...
So it comes down to dropping almost 4000$ for a not-really-faster-or-better machine. Finally, I think I'll pass.
What could have made the difference you ask? Decent storage and better than average graphics, neither of which are offered, regardless of price.
Last thing! The 750M is actually a free upgrade... at one point I thought I might save some money by forgoing the dedicated GPU, but when you configure the entry model of the 15$ to spec the same as the top one, it costs exactly the same, minus the dedicated GPU, go figure, it appears that Apple knows the 750M is in fact worthless.
-This top model also just happens to have a processor that is clocked lower than the model it was replacing, even the processor you can upgrade to is clocked lower. I know that gigahertz aren't everything, but they are something, and here specs had actually gotten worse.
-Everyone knew the Haswell chip was all about efficiency, but I didn't realize just how modest the performance difference was, essentially there isn't any. Early benchmarks are reporting 2-4% better scores. Not impressed and hardly worth the wait.
Clocked slower and 9-10% faster performance for the top end MBP in both single and multi-core performance.
"There are some significant performance gains for the high-end model as it's 10% faster than the previous generation."
http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2013/10/retina-macbook-pro-benchmarks/
Since this is the model you claim to be interested in yes, it is actually pretty impressive.
My bubble was burst but it gets worse.
-Apple has always charged a premium for their products, but what is just plain unacceptable is that a 3000$ machine comes with only 512gb of storage, bump that to 1TB (the maximum) (which I can only assume is actually 960GB) if you want to doll out 500$ more (I know, it's 450$, add tax... yeah.)
http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/laptops.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&~ck=mn#!facets=226292~0~14720666&p=1
A $3500 laptop that comes with a 512GB SSD. There isn't a 1TB SSD upgrade option. Which part of SSD confuses you?
$2600 + 500 = $3100. $3,300 if you also bump the CPU to 2.6 Ghz. I guess addition is not your strong suit.
Useless only if you don't care about I/O speeds.
Except that they've had USB3 for the last three models now (2012, early 2013 and now late 2013). So much for you having a clue.
The GDDR5 750M is faster than the GTX 660M.
I'd have preferred the GTX 760M as a BTO option but the GDDR5 750M in the MBP is faster than last year's MBP. The iMac has always been faster than the MBP. This hasn't changed in years. And it takes a few years before the mid-tier GPUs overtake the very top end GPUs.
27" iMac 75W TDP GPU
15" MBP 50W TDP GPU
You thought? I find that hard to believe.
You aren't "entirely sure" because you can't look at geekbench.
The fastest mac currently on the single core 32bit benchmark is the 2013 MBP
The fastest non-mac pro on the multi core 32bit benchmark is the 2013 MBP
The 2013 MBP trails the 2013 iMac by 127 in the single core 64 bit benchmark and 481 in the multi core 64 bit benchmark.
In comparison the 2011 3.4 Ghz iMac trails the 2013 MBP by 1628 or 14% on the multi-core 64 bit benchmark and 12% on the single core 64 bit benchmark.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
No. But even when you do the MBP does very well except for the GPU.
Quote:
Not content with inflating $3300 to $3500 you now call it "almost $4000".
Imagine the surprise.
Taxes in it comes to 3852.5, and that's without Applecare, which anybody buying a 4000$ apple product would most likely buy. My addition seems fine thank you.
You say that usually apple laptops catch up to the iMac after a few years, well its been a few years, and they haven't caught up, if anything they are more crippled than ever.
As for "not caring about I/O speeds", nothing, I repeat, nothing most people have access to can make good use of Thunderbolt, let alone TB2, except maybe 4k screens, and then it takes 3 of them and one hell of a graphics card. I wasn't complaining about TB2, just mentioning that it's high potential but low utility port.
I'm not your typical troll, just trying to understand the logic behind the world's most expensive laptop.