Review: Apple's late-2013 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 126
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    apple ][ wrote: »
    I haven't tried or tested this new 2013 Macbook Pro yet, but it certainly looks like a really great machine.

    I am personally tired of all of the whiners here, complaining about price, or about how it should come with more RAM or more storage space.

    If you don't feel that it's worth it, then go buy something else. Whining is not going to change anything, and Apple certainly doesn't care about what you think, and I don't care about the whiners either. Do these people know nothing about Apple?

    If you want more RAM, then pay for it, if you need more storage space, then pay for it. Go buy a cheap stick of RAM from Newegg and try to put it in your Macbook Pro, see how that works out for you.:lol:  It's called a Macbook Pro, not a Macbook Amateur, and some people are apparently in the wrong business.

    I want Apple to unsolder everything. It's not just about the RAM being soldered. Or about the CPU and GPU being soldered. But everything should come unsoldered. The motherboard should be replaced with a breadboard and I should be able to pick and choose from all components out of a bag like Legos with the option to use parts from Radio Shack to make my Mac super awesome. I know more about this stuff than Apple because I built my gaming machine with parts from Newegg.
  • Reply 62 of 126
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post



    Why the heck is Cash097 banned? Is there some type of new Taliban AI-posting code that we should know about?



    I see nothing that he said here to be offensive in the least!



    image

    I guess we'll never know since Marvin said the offensive bits were removed.

     

    I got an infraction once when I became disgusted with TS. His arrogant and belittling writing style can get quite irksome. His posts are very often astoundingly hate filled as if he takes great pleasure in trying to push you to the point of losing your temper. I got so fed up with him that I even wrote a 'Javascript-let' which completely removes his posts, even from the replies. I occasionally use it when he really goes off.

     

    Here it is if anyone wants it:

    Quote:

     Javascript:var%20theQuotes%20=%20document.getElementsByClassName("quote-block");for(var%20i=0;i<theQuotes.length;%20i++)%20{%20var%20str%20=%20theQuotes[i].innerHTML;%20if%20(str.indexOf('Originally%20Posted%20by%20<strong>Tallest%20Skil</strong>')%20>=%200)%20{theQuotes[i].innerHTML%20=%20'<span%20style="color:red;font=family:Arial;">BLOCKED%20TS</span>';}}var%20thePosts%20=%20document.getElementsByClassName("single-post%20mod-select-parent%20status_115%20user-id-78766%20left-post-container");%20for(var%20i=0;%20i<thePosts.length;%20i++){var%20str%20=%20thePosts[i].innerHTML;%20if%20(str.indexOf('rel="nofollow">Tallest%20Skil</a')%20>=%200)%20{thePosts[i].innerHTML%20=%20'<span%20style="color:red;font=family:Arial;">BLOCKED%20TS</span>';}}


     


  • Reply 63 of 126
    kpomkpom Posts: 618member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by akqies View Post





    NovaBench Score: 1225

    2013-11-03 16:33:03 +0000

    Mac OS X 10.9.0

    Intel Core i7 @ 2300 MHz

    Graphics Card: Intel Iris Pro







    AI's numbers do seem very low but I don't know if I trust this short test. Note that my 15" MBP has the Nvidia GeForce GT 750M which I turned with gfxCardStatus and it still shows in both Nova and in About This Mac => More Info as the Intel Iris Pro. I also noted that this app also has the link for Memory Upgrade Instructions under Memory even though that's not possible. This is definitely an un-Apple attention to detail.

     

    Here's what I get on a 2.4GHz 13" model (8/256). I think Novabench (last updated in 2011) just isn't optimized for the newer chips. The SSD speeds are nowhere near what I get from BlackMagic Disk Speed Test

     

    NoNovaBench Score: 684


    NovaBench Score 684

    Mac OS X 10.9.0

    Intel Core i5 @ 2400 MHz

    Graphics Card: Intel Iris



    8192 MB System RAM (Score: 175)

    - RAM Speed: 7838 MB/s



    CPU Tests (Score: 410)

    - Floating Point Operations/Second: 126762152

    - Integer Operations/Second: 251645216

    - MD5 Hashes Calculated/Second: 1042398



    Graphics Tests (Score: 41)

    - 3D Frames Per Second: 95



    Hardware Tests (Score: 58)

    - Primary Partition Capacity: 165 GB

    - Drive Write Speed: 280 MB/s



     

  • Reply 64 of 126
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    sambira wrote: »
    What options did you want that forced you into the top model?  Or did you not go BTO?

    When I decided on 15" over 13" it excluded 128GB as an option and when I decided on the dGPU over just the iGPU it excluded 256GB as an option.
  • Reply 65 of 126
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    kpom wrote: »
    Here's what I get on a 2.4GHz 13" model (8/256). I think Novabench (last updated in 2011) just isn't optimized for the newer chips. The SSD speeds are nowhere near what I get from BlackMagic Disk Speed Test

    Have you seen in the Mac App Store there is another speed test app with the exact same logo as the one Blackmagic uses that isn't a free tool and appears to be from a Chinese seller. Why does Apple allow this? I'm all for the walled garden app store but I want it actually be policed to protect developers and users alike.
  • Reply 66 of 126
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

    I got so fed up with him that I even wrote a 'Javascript-let' which completely removes his posts, even from the replies.




    Talk about infantile. <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

    I certainly hope the above warrants you using it again.

  • Reply 67 of 126
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,494member
    mstone wrote: »
    I got so fed up with him that I even wrote a 'Javascript-let' which completely removes his posts, even from the replies. I occasionally use it when he really goes off.

    Here it is if anyone wants it

    Cool! So I can simply replace his name with any other? No, no, not your name, someone else. I wonder if it would work with more than one name; heck, you could sell it to AI readers. Call it the JackedOffEverySingleThread.js or BeatsTheBlockList.js

    Anyhoo, thanks!
  • Reply 68 of 126
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by akqies View Post





    To add to that, Apple would surely have to be much more certain of the RAM that is soldered to a board than with standard modules because their cost for having to replace an entire board with can include a CPU and GPU that, alone, is many hundreds of dollars can be quite damning.

    In my experience of dealing with Apple products, soldered on memory can actually be more reliable since those memory modules use those slot connectors and sometimes they don't have the most reliable connection and the memory has to be reseated.   Unfortunately, there are pros and cons to soldered on memory.  And there might be a design reason to keep the thickness of the unit as thin as possible.  Apple is trying to make the MBPro line as thin as they can. I'm sure years from now, they'll get faster RAM in smaller, reliable packaging where we can add more memory and still keep the thickness of the unit as thin as possible, but for now, that's the way it is.  I think some people just have to accept it and deal with it.  I just don't like it when people think that Apple (pays) the least amount for memory and is the same as the lowest priced memory on the market, because it isn't.  The cheapest memory is usually the most unreliable in the long run.

  • Reply 69 of 126
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    drblank wrote: »
    In my experience of dealing with Apple products, soldered on memory can actually be more reliable since those memory modules use those slot connectors and sometimes they don't have the most reliable connection and the memory has to be reseated.   Unfortunately, there are pros and cons to soldered on memory.  And there might be a design reason to keep the thickness of the unit as thin as possible.  Apple is trying to make the MBPro line as thin as they can. I'm sure years from now, they'll get faster RAM in smaller, reliable packaging where we can add more memory and still keep the thickness of the unit as thin as possible, but for now, that's the way it is.  I think some people just have to accept it and deal with it.  I just don't like it when people think that Apple (pays) the least amount for memory and is the same as the lowest priced memory on the market, because it isn't.  The cheapest memory is usually the most unreliable in the long run.

    I sort of understand when people claim that the Apple Cinema Display is way over priced because it uses the same display panel. It's clearly incorrect based on that one component but at least they are matching the same component even if they are uniting all other components, quality and cost of the housing and assembly, the factory calibration, and QA for dead pixels, calibration and other display aspects, but grabbing the cheapest budget RAM based on only a spec comparison is just sloppy thinking in every way.
  • Reply 70 of 126
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by akqies View Post





    I sort of understand when people claim that the Apple Cinema Display is way over priced because it uses the same display panel. It's clearly incorrect based on that one component but at least they are matching the same component even if they are uniting all other components, quality and cost of the housing and assembly, the factory calibration, and QA for dead pixels, calibration and other display aspects, but grabbing the cheapest budget RAM based on only a spec comparison is just sloppy thinking in every way.

    In panel technology, these panel mfg make them off their assembly lines and they test them, depending on the results for how well they adhere to the specs, they grade them differently and then sell them to different customers at different prices. They do the same thing with chips (different speed ratings, some for consumer, commercial, military, etc. etc.)   I used to sell computer products and I would ask memory mfg, monitor mfg, etc. and components in general get rated and priced accordingly.  Look at how much plasma screens were just 15 or so years ago, they used be $20K or more, now they are dirt cheap and actually better in most ways than the original models.



    RAM is the same thing, there are a variety of tests they do and some mfg like Apple, HP, Kingston (for their brand specific), etc. will usually have very high standards and if the memory passes, it gets used by them, if not, then the memory (as long as it actually works at a minimal level) will get sold on the surplus market at dirt cheap prices and that's just cheap, unreliable memory and people need to think about why something is so cheap instead of assuming it's the same memory.  The cheap memory usually fits in 3 categories. It either doesn't work the day you buy it, or it doesn't last that long, or you end up having lots of intermittent memory related problems.  I wish all computers at least used ECC memory, but that's usually only used in the higher end workstations and servers.

  • Reply 71 of 126
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,393member
    akqies wrote: »
    You claim that Apple doesn't use testings on expensive 3rd-party equipment. They do, which makes your claim false, false, false. They use testing and building on very expensive machinery that they either buy, lease, or contract out. You think this is just about buying some machinery that sits next to Tim Cook's office which is absurd and frankly juvenile. This is how a global enterprise works.

    When did I claim that? I said I haven't seen an article based on the criteria you listed.

    akqies wrote: »
    Yes, they do test RAM. Yes, they do have to use tests for integrated items that are more strict than discreet items. These tests require additional time and/or more price equipment. You even end your stupid comments by saying that there are variety of of different quality RAM. Do you even understand how different performance and quality is had? Do you think they have a machine with a dial that list: DOA, poor quality, decent, OK, and excellent? Of course not, The RAM chips are tested!!!
    Seriously? Really? You can look at the performance of most the RAM and see they aren't the same, but if technical specs are too complex for you you can look at the very fact they are discreet sticks of RAM and not soldered onto an Apple mother board to see they are clearly not the same.

    Apple themselves test RAM? Apple? An Apple owned company? They get all the chips in, test them all, then ship them somewhere to get put onto the board in the form factor they want? So are you saying if I get a Mac that is fitted with a Kingston branded board with product ID xxxxx/yyy, and I purchase the same model product from someone else then it would have been tested differently?

    akqies wrote: »
    Just think about what you're suggesting. You're suggesting the same level of scrutiny for use buying RAM on Newegg is being used by Apple for soldering RAM to an expensive mother board (which also gets tested more than a desktop-class motherboard that has no major components attached) and you're claiming Apple has made no investments in machinery to push innovation. Neither of these can possibly be true as there are plenty of evidence, not just rumors, of Apple doing just that. You may like to think Apple is all marketing and shiny gadgets with no actual technically know how or quality assurance but you'd be very wrong. Just look at the latest Mac Pro video for an example.


    I think you are getting a little emotional. I have never suggested anything as to what you are claiming. I simply said purchasing a product xxxxx/yyy that comes in a Mac, is the same product as xxxxx/yyy that is purchased through a different supplier. I also said that companies like Kingston etc have different grades of RAM.

    As for your last claim, the only person I have heard say something like that is you.

    Now to your claims, since there is plenty of evidence of Apple double testing RAM, can you please post links to this evidence?
  • Reply 72 of 126
    gctwnlgctwnl Posts: 278member

    I held off on buying a 13" MBP until now because the reviews told me that the GPU could not handle Retina (no smooth scrolling etc.). This review does not tell me, but has that been fixed? I expect it to be, but is it true?

  • Reply 73 of 126
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    jfanning wrote: »
    Now to your claims, since there is plenty of evidence of Apple double testing RAM, can you please post links to this evidence?

    You really can't understand why a 3rd-pary vendor like Newegg selling a stick of RAM to an end user might require the same rigid testing for reliability, power usage and performance as a company like Apple, Samsung or Cisco that is putting RAM directly on a motherboard along with hundreds to thousands of dollars in other parts? Have you spent your entire life looking at shadows on a cave wall?
  • Reply 74 of 126
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gctwnl View Post

     

    I held off on buying a 13" MBP until now because the reviews told me that the GPU could not handle Retina (no smooth scrolling etc.). This review does not tell me, but has that been fixed? I expect it to be, but is it true?


    From what I understand yes, I haven't got mine yet (getting it tomorrow) but Intel Iris 5100 is about 65 percent faster than the HD 4000 graphics used in the original Retina 13". The old HD 4000 graphics wasn't bad it just wasn't quite there, am sure an extra 65 percent horse power should of gotten rid of any remaining issues. 

     

    Its actually very good on the graphics performance for a 13" "ultrabook" better than anything else I could find on offer anyway.

  • Reply 75 of 126
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

     
    Cool! So I can simply replace his name with any other? No, no, not your name, someone else. I wonder if it would work with more than one name; heck, you could sell it to AI readers. Call it the JackedOffEverySingleThread.js or BeatsTheBlockList.js


    You could write an array and loop through it. I actually wrote a server-side solution for Vbulletin that would remove the blocked user in the replies too. I really don't know why these forum software packages don't do it,  even though it isn't real easy, it is doable. It is difficult because of the way the app builds the page dynamically, it just does a look up on your block list against the user of the current post, so you have to dig through the final output with regular expressions which gets really messy. It works sort of like my Scriptlet works, but ahead of time on the server.

  • Reply 76 of 126
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    gctwnl wrote: »
    I held off on buying a 13" MBP until now because the reviews told me that the GPU could not handle Retina (no smooth scrolling etc.). This review does not tell me, but has that been fixed? I expect it to be, but is it true?
    doumeki wrote: »
    From what I understand yes, I haven't got mine yet (getting it tomorrow) but Intel Iris 5100 is about 65 percent faster than the HD 4000 graphics used in the original Retina 13". The old HD 4000 graphics wasn't bad it just wasn't quite there, am sure an extra 65 percent horse power should of gotten rid of any remaining issues. 

    Its actually very good on the graphics performance for a 13" "ultrabook" better than anything else I could find on offer anyway.

    I haven't noticed any issues with the Iris Pro or with ghosting that affected some of last year's Retina MBPs. This is on my 15" MBP which at about 5 million pixels is roughly one million more pixels than the 13" MBP with about 4 million pixels.
  • Reply 77 of 126
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,494member
    mstone wrote: »
    philboogie wrote: »
     
    [CONTENTEMBED=/t/160544/review-apples-late-2013-13-inch-macbook-pro-with-retina-display/40#post_2429551 layout=inline]Cool! So I can simply replace his name with any other? No, no, not your name, someone else. I wonder if it would work with more than one name; heck, you could sell it to AI readers. Call it the JackedOffEverySingleThread.js or BeatsTheBlockList.js[/CONTENTEMBED]
    You could write an array and loop through it. I actually wrote a server-side solution for Vbulletin that would remove the blocked user in the replies too. I really don't know why these forum software packages don't do it,  even though it isn't real easy, it is doable. It is difficult because of the way the app builds the page dynamically, it just does a look up on your block list against the user of the current post, so you have to dig through the final output with regular expressions which gets really messy. It works sort of like my Scriptlet works, but ahead of time on the server.

    I was afraid you would give me a technical answer which would be way over my head :\ I can deal with a little HTML but JavaScript is not on my skill set.

    Thanks for the answer. Makes one wonder who these Bulletin Board software guys are, and why they don't innovate. Or innovate more (trying to remain polite here)

    Thanks for the .js; I'll just use it on a single poster then 8-) and sorry for quoting the whole lot, I'm on an iPad and didn't feel like pinching and all that.

    edit: the CONTENTEMBED tag does not embed content, first time I'm seeking this...
  • Reply 78 of 126
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    mstone wrote: »
    You could write an array and loop through it. I actually wrote a server-side solution for Vbulletin that would remove the blocked user in the replies too. I really don't know why these forum software packages don't do it,  even though it isn't real easy, it is doable. It is difficult because of the way the app builds the page dynamically, it just does a look up on your block list against the user of the current post, so you have to dig through the final output with regular expressions which gets really messy. It works sort of like my Scriptlet works, but ahead of time on the server.

    How much trouble would it be to create a Safari extension that would allow you to type in names into a block list that would also remove those posters and their content from all Huddler forums?
  • Reply 79 of 126
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post



    Apple themselves test RAM? Apple? An Apple owned company? They get all the chips in, test them all, then ship them somewhere to get put onto the board in the form factor they want? So are you saying if I get a Mac that is fitted with a Kingston branded board with product ID xxxxx/yyy, and I purchase the same model product from someone else then it would have been tested differently?

     

    This is getting tiresome, and I like how your trying to approach it from a common sense standpoint. However your common sense seems to be failing you in some areas which is why I think your winding some people up. Lets get this out of the way, none of us actually know what testing Apple or X other brand puts into a product or what build process they use to ensure quality. 

     

    But what is really irritating is your refusal to accept some fairly simple common sense suggestions that others are putting forward. 

     

    1) When Cosair solders RAM onto a memory stick PCB they are essentially working with equipment that if fails totals a value of around 10 dollars. When Apple is soldering RAM onto their PCB they are working with equipment that if fails is valued around 300-600 dollars, that motherboard is then placed into a Macbook Pro and sold for as much as $3000, Cosair is lucky to get $200. Common sense would state that Apple would at least test the RAM chips before soldering them on. I assume Cosair may also but not with the same level of depth. But clearly this is simply a common sense assumption since we can't possibly have all the figures to get a definite answer.

     

    Quote:

     I simply said purchasing a product xxxxx/yyy that comes in a Mac, is the same product as xxxxx/yyy that is purchased through a different supplier. I also said that companies like Kingston etc have different grades of RAM.

     

    2) Yes that is a good assumption, but you should also understand that parts to make a product and the final product are two totally different things. Some of the parts used to make a Ford Fiesta can be used in a Ferrari Enzo, just because they are the same parts costing the same price doesn't mean they are implemented to the same quality and finish. I mean come on this fairly rudimentary stuff.

     

    Quote:


     As for your last claim, the only person I have heard say something like that is you.



    Now to your claims, since there is plenty of evidence of Apple double testing RAM, can you please post links to this evidence?


     

    3) Can you post evidence they aren't as far as I can see we are all arguing based on common sense and logic, however some of us seem to be more lacking in the critical thinking department.

  • Reply 80 of 126
    akqies wrote: »
    It's interesting how people like you can factor one half of the equation that fits their desire for making everything cheap to the point of offering no profit (and even a loss) for a for-profit company, but never factor in other costs that a full PC vendor has to consider.
    You can always tell when someone has no argument, when they resort to attacking the person rather than what they're saying. No one is saying that Apple should make everything "cheap to the point of offering no profit" (as if Apple of all companies would ever be close enough to that line that simply making 8 GB the baseline would push them over it). Try responding to the actual message once rather than the messenger.
    For instance, Apple has to do more testing on the RAM they buy because if they sell a system that doesn't run it's the whole Mac that is faulty but if G.Skill sells bad RAM it's just the RAM. These are completely different businesses. Then there are Apples support structures that are the same. Have you ever and to get your RAM replaced by a RAM vendor and by Apple? With a company like G.Skill you get to go to their site, look for their support pages, find a page on a replacement, fill out the form and submit the request, often print a physical form to ship into them, hunt down your receipt from Newegg, print it out, find a box, transcribe the correct address for a shipping label, PAY FOR THE SHIPPING LABEL, and (oh yeah) remove the RAM from the device which often involves you testing which stick is bad via trail-and-error before you go through all this trouble.
    G.Skill sucks. I'm not disputing that. In fact, I kind of mentioned it in my post. I didn't get a good brand link for the 2 GBx2 (4 GB total) modules because I couldn't even find any by decent brands, although there were plenty of brands for 4 GB x 2 (8 GB total) modules. This alone should tell you something about the utility of having 4 GB total RAM in 2013.
    For some bizarre reason you think that Apple creates their profit margins and price points based on other components, but not BTO options, and you think that Apple doesn't consider their entire product line and what buyers will likely buy when considering average sales across a line. It should be obvious to anyone with any experience in business or even basic classes in economics, but I think it should be self-evident to the average person how pricing structures work and why entry-level pricing gives those buyers a benefit in the pricing margin if such items fit your needs.
    Have you tried using a machine with just 4 GB of RAM and integrated graphics? I have just recently, on a friend's machine which was running so dog slow that it was a ~30 second wait just to change from one app to another, with all the paging. What apps did she have open? Chrome, Mail, Calendar, Preview, and Word. This is not an out-of-the-ordinary workflow. 4 GB is not enough to fit anyone's needs, although many non-technical users might not realize this, and end up with buyer's remorse (I've seen plenty of this too).
    doumeki wrote: »
    Good use of Google there my friend, still not sure why you keep making silly connections to try back up your faulty argument. Lets be honest earlier you didn't even know the RAM was soldered onto the board, now with 5 minutes Google work your back with a few links that you don't really understand. 
    Seriously? You think I didn't know the RAM was soldered? What the hell do you think this argument's even about? The whole point is that since Apple solders these things and you can't upgrade them, they need to provide reasonable baselines for the computers to be usable. 4 GB is not an acceptable amount of RAM for a computer that you can't upgrade, simple as that.

    Apple actually has a history of never providing enough RAM in their machines going all the way back to the first one, but you've never heard me complain about it, since from the Mac Plus on, the RAM's always been on sockets, and it's always been relatively inexpensive to upgrade to something decent. It's always been part of the standard procedure when buying a Mac that you buy a RAM upgrade from MacWarehouse (in the 90s), or Newegg (today) at the same time and upgrade early on. Hell, Apple could literally sell me one of those machines with zero RAM at all in it and I wouldn't mind, since the RAM that comes with it has always been immediately filed away in the closet, never to be used again.

    Read! It's not that hard, I promise!
    Congrats for finding out that Micron is the parent company of Crucial, that means what now? Audi Volkswagen and Skoda are the same group essentially, does that mean all the cars they produce are of the same quality? The fact that you happened to pick Crucial RAM, that happens to be linked to Micron means honestly nothing to me. 
    What it means is that the Crucial RAM DIMMs that I priced are the closest you can get to what's in the retina MacBook Pros that you can find on the mass market.

    BTW, Micron isn't the "parent company" of Crucial, Crucial is the name of Micron's consumer brand. Crucial isn't "linked" to Micron, it is Micron RAM. Try to go on Newegg and find RAM that's just branded Micron, because you won't. If you want Micron, you buy Crucial. It's what it is. It's not like Audi/Skoda at all. It's the same stuff, it's just in a different form factor. It's not cheaper than what Apple's using; if anything, it's probably more expensive to attach it to a connector that can be installed by the end user than it is just to ship the plain silicon for someone to solder.

    Also: Crucial does test the hell out of their RAM, which is what sets them apart from budget brands (like G.Skill). It's great RAM, and Apple is right to use it. It's what I've been using for about decade. But it's not high-end server RAM. Look, the soldered RAM Apple's using is the exact same RAM, model number and all, as the Chromecast uses. Do you think the Chromecast is using high-end server RAM? Come on.

    Try reading what people write before responding to them in the future, okay? It's better for everyone in the long run.
Sign In or Register to comment.