Retina Macbook Pro 15" official

[JackBurton]

SATA III is an incremental boost over SATA II, but SATA II is already plenty fast. For the vast majority of usage, what's most important for SSD performance is random reads, and the performance delta of SATA III over SATA II is negligible. For example, boot times are pretty much identical between SATA II and SATA III modes using the exact same drive.

OTOH, USB 3 is roughly 10X as fast as USB 2 in the real world for sequential transfers, which is actually something people do with external drives.

As for Thunderbolt, we're talking something like a $200 premium over the drive just for the enclosure. No thx.

Good points. I personally still have no need for USB 3.0 for my applications.

 

[JackBurton]

Wasn't trying to say it was, more of saying that for $600 you get a screen not available anywhere else, vastly superior build quality, and the OS. Seems like a fair trade. I'm buying one, not trying to diss it.

Sorry man. Didn't mean to come off like an ass.

 

[Dominato3r]

Good points. I personally still have no need for USB 3.0 for my applications.

I had the same view until I went over to my friends house to transfer ~30gb worth of files to an ext-drive... sat there for 2 hours twiddling my thumbs

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Somehow I'm disappointed. While I think they *can* charge this much, I see the increased resolution as a disadvantage if you want to game.

I personally like 1680x1050 a LOT, meaning I still am leaning heavily towards the old MBP design. 4.5 lbs isn't that light, and if I wanted light I would've gone with the MBA. I guess 256gb is enough, but you can't upgrade the RAM nor can you upgrade the HD.

This is a bigger issue on the MBA where I would love to have 8gb and a larger SSD, but I don't want to pay up the wazoo for it. I can't really see myself paying $1599 for 8gb+256gb of space on a MBA. I can't even game on that. An MBP is at least more justifiable with its speed gains, discrete graphics, etc. t almost seems the old design MBP is a good choice because I can swap out my current SSD into it and upgrade the RAM for dirt cheap. However throwing in 1680x1050 brings my cost in a lot closer to the retina display version. I still maintain good gaming capability, and what not.

I guess I would've liked it if they reduced the old 15" MBP more, because once you upgrade the specs of a regular 15" it's more expensive than a retina MBP. Kinda annoyed. They should've priced it around $1600 or $1700 if they really wanted.

I guess what I'm saying is they should've just moved to the new form factor flat out and offered a non retina version for say $200 cheaper or something. Maybe $2k for the 1680x1050 model and $1800 for a 1400x900

 

[mavere]

Somehow I'm disappointed. While I think they *can* charge this much, I see the increased resolution as a disadvantage if you want to game.

One can always run at half-res (1440x900) and just pretend the whole "retina" thing never happened. The 650M should be fine there with medium settings in most games.

In a way this new laptop has two "native" resolutions. I suppose other screens can do similar things in theory, but 960x540 (for a 1080p screen) isn't practical.

 

[JackBurton]

I had the same view until I went over to my friends house to transfer ~30gb worth of files to an ext-drive... sat there for 2 hours twiddling my thumbs

I didn't say it was useless. I can see the benefit of USB 3.0, but for me it would be in a rare case like yours, when someone brings over a drive and I need to copy the data off as quickly as possible.

 

[runawayprisoner]

One can always run at half-res (1440x900) and just pretend the whole "retina" thing never happened. The 650M should be fine there with medium settings in most games.

In a way this new laptop has two "native" resolutions. I suppose other screens can do similar things in theory, but 960x540 (for a 1080p screen) isn't practical.

Half res on this screen is actually better than native 1440 x 900 because it means there are 4x more sub-pixels for every pixel on the screen.

With a proper scaling algorithm, it'll look better than a native 1440 x 900 screen.

 

[jalaram]

As rumored, the internal design is largely inspired by the MacBook Air, and as such, it will be difficult (if not outright impossible) to do any simple repairs. Glued-in batteries, soldered RAM, and yet another custom SSD module form factor mean upgrades are not in the cards.

Ars link

No surprise I suppose.

 

[joshhedge]

One can always run at half-res (1440x900) and just pretend the whole "retina" thing never happened. The 650M should be fine there with medium settings in most games.

In a way this new laptop has two "native" resolutions. I suppose other screens can do similar things in theory, but 960x540 (for a 1080p screen) isn't practical.

My mid 2008 MBP with a 8600GT handles games at that resolution with medium settings - 20-30fps. This 650M should easily make good high settings at 30+ FPS at this resolution.

 

[Childs]

Way to miss the point I made before the conclusion you bolded and like any OS X enthusiast rely on the old OS X is UNIX argument (actually OS Xs kernel is XNU, which stands for "X is Not Unix", and is compatible with Unix) whenever someone suggests a possible inferiority of OS X, EVEN IF I was referring to the entire computing industry as a whole(in every single paragraph where I mentioned "bad direction").
EDIT: I guess the entire computing industry does include Apple and so it includes OS X, so I can see why you replied about OS X.

OS X has been UNIX certified since 07.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/08/mac-os-x-leopard-receives-unix-03-certification/

 

[Dominato3r]

I didn't say it was useless. I can see the benefit of USB 3.0, but for me it would be in a rare case like yours, when someone brings over a drive and I need to copy the data off as quickly as possible.

Yea it's a rare occurrence but both of us were thinking the same thing... That USB 3 could have helped.

Sad thing is that had the files been hosted somewhere I probably could have downloaded them faster than USB transfer

 

[boomhower]

I use USB 3 a lot to transfer files. I'm really hating the way the SSD is in this. If the older macbook pro's had USB 3 I'd get a refurb but as it is the cost between the two new ones are so close the retina still seems to be a better value since I would have to buy and SSD for other one anyways.

 

[cheez]

I feel inclined to make a new thread because now it's no longer a rumor.

And the specs are drool-worthy
Display: 15.4" 2880 x 1800 (wow!)
CPU: Intel Core i7 quad-core (2.7GHz w/ Turbo to 3.7GHz)
RAM: up to 16GB DDR3 1600MHz
GPU: nVidia GeForce GT 650M
Storage: 768GB flash (likely 512GB SSD + 256GB SSD configuration, but wow!)
Ports: HDMI + USB 3.0 + Thunderbolt x2 (wow!)

0.71" thick and about 4.5lbs (hm... doesn't look like it underwent that much of a diet).

I planned to skip, but... why, oh why do they have to make it look so... awesome!?

Edit: $2200 and up!

Wow impressive.

But I'm afraid the video playback will not be so good. It will look blurry or too soft.



Nevertheless, it would be a nice toy to get hands on. I think 1280x800 is sufficient for all HD needs.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Ars link

No surprise I suppose.

That's a pretty big deal IMO.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I for one am a bit underwhelmed. I was really hoping for something more like the old form factor (room for large ports -- it's not like 0.95" thick and 5.6lbs is too bulky while 0.8" thick and 4.5lbs is not), with Retina Display, no optical drive, with a 32GB or 64GB caching SSD built-in and a spot for a 2.5" drive, plus real SODIMM slots. Bring that in under $2500 and I would be selling my 2011 MBP and lining up for one. As it is, I'm a little "meh" and definitely don't feel any need to ditch my current MBP.

The way the Retina resolutions are implemented is also a little strange, and I don't think that for my needs (Word, Excel, coding) I would really get any improvement over the 1680x1050 that I've got already. I don't think that I would like to trade off a higher "real" resolution for a working resolution of pseudo-1440x900. Of course, for photography the retina display would be awesome, but I need the usable pixelspace for my day job.

I'm also disappointed that the whole line isn't making the Retina transition at once, and that the 13" is still stuck with dual-core i7s and 1280x800 while the 13" Air has had 1440x900 for years now. The 13" just doesn't get any love. Before I bought my 15" MBP, I was seriously considering a 13" (my last laptop was a first-gen MacBook and I liked the added portability) but the lack of a higher resolution killed it for me.

 

[Steelbom]

This is an amazing laptop. Though my next system will be a 27 inch iMac w/ 5120x2880 resolution and a 7970M xD

 

[Childs]

The way the Retina resolutions are implemented is also a little strange, and I don't think that for my needs (Word, Excel, coding) I would really get any improvement over the 1680x1050 that I've got already. I don't think that I would like to trade off a higher "real" resolution for a working resolution of pseudo-1440x900. Of course, for photography the retina display would be awesome, but I need the usable pixelspace for my day job.

It actually works really well. You need more resolution, go to 1920x1200. Eyes not what they used to be, you can go make things bigger. Looks the same at all resolutions as far as clarity. This is the way all monitors should be as far as scaling is concerned, and the way they were with CRTs.

 

[alkemyst]

I for one am a bit underwhelmed. I was really hoping for something more like the old form factor (room for large ports -- it's not like 0.95" thick and 5.6lbs is too bulky while 0.8" thick and 4.5lbs is not), with Retina Display, no optical drive, with a 32GB or 64GB caching SSD built-in and a spot for a 2.5" drive, plus real SODIMM slots. Bring that in under $2500 and I would be selling my 2011 MBP and lining up for one. As it is, I'm a little "meh" and definitely don't feel any need to ditch my current MBP.

The way the Retina resolutions are implemented is also a little strange, and I don't think that for my needs (Word, Excel, coding) I would really get any improvement over the 1680x1050 that I've got already. I don't think that I would like to trade off a higher "real" resolution for a working resolution of pseudo-1440x900. Of course, for photography the retina display would be awesome, but I need the usable pixelspace for my day job.

I'm also disappointed that the whole line isn't making the Retina transition at once, and that the 13" is still stuck with dual-core i7s and 1280x800 while the 13" Air has had 1440x900 for years now. The 13" just doesn't get any love. Before I bought my 15" MBP, I was seriously considering a 13" (my last laptop was a first-gen MacBook and I liked the added portability) but the lack of a higher resolution killed it for me.

a 1lb reduction is actually huge.

retina also gives much better bright light / day light performace.

with the "pro" losing optical, i see a shift to the "air" for small screens.

 

[Steelbom]

My mid 2008 MBP with a 8600GT handles games at that resolution with medium settings - 20-30fps. This 650M should easily make good high settings at 30+ FPS at this resolution.

Unlikely -- this GPU will only get about 30-40 FPS on high at 1080p in most games and even less in really heavy duty games: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html

Wow impressive.

But I'm afraid the video playback will not be so good. It will look blurry or too soft.



Nevertheless, it would be a nice toy to get hands on. I think 1280x800 is sufficient for all HD needs.

Why would video playback not be good?

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Unlikely -- this GPU will only get about 30-40 FPS on high at 1080p in most games and even less in really heavy duty games: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html

Why would video playback not be good?

I think he means when a lower res is expanded to a higher res screen. Like fullscreening a 480p video on 1080p

 

[Koing]

Not sure why people are complaining about the death of the 17"...you get more resolution with the Retina.

The 16GB ram upgrade isn't too bad but this is 2012 and you still only get a 256GB SSD drive for £1.8k

So who has ordered one?

Koing

 

[Eug]

Not sure why people are complaining about the death of the 17"...you get more resolution with the Retina.

Nobody is going to run the 15" MBP:TNG at 2880x1800. In fact, that resolution isn't even offered. The real-world native resolution is 1440x900, except in specific apps.

If you do stuff like spreadsheets, etc. the extra real estate of the 17" helps. I know a couple of people who own the 17" and one of them already emailed me wondering WTF happened to the 17".

That said, I find 17" far too awkward to carry around. For me the sweet spot is 13", at 1280x800. I hope the retina 13" will be 2560x1600, and not higher.

 

[TheStu]

Nobody is going to run the 15" MBP:TNG at 2880x1800. In fact, that resolution isn't even offered. The real-world native resolution is 1440x900, except in specific apps.

If you do stuff like spreadsheets, etc. the extra real estate of the 17" helps. I know a couple of people who own the 17" and one of them already emailed me wondering WTF happened to the 17".

That said, I find 17" far too awkward to carry around. For me the sweet spot is 13", at 1280x800. I hope the retina 13" will be 2560x1600, and not higher.

You can dial the res up to 1680*1050 or 1920*1200 whenever you want on the TNG. The only thing you can't do is run it at 2880*1800, at least not in OS X.

 

[Koing]

You can't run it at full res? WTF?

At least you can ramp it to 1920x1200 and get the same res as the 17".

Well this isn't going to impact me so much but for the guys that want to do some editing, being able to have a full 1080p video and then space for editing the time would be helpful...

It would have been nice to put to web browsers side by side or a browsers and a spreadsheet. I use to do this on my 1920x1200 monitors.

Koing

 

[TheStu]

You can't run it at full res? WTF?

At least you can ramp it to 1920x1200 and get the same res as the 17".

Well this isn't going to impact me so much but for the guys that want to do some editing, being able to have a full 1080p video and then space for editing the time would be helpful...

It would have been nice to put to web browsers side by side or a browsers and a spreadsheet. I use to do this on my 1920x1200 monitors.

Koing

On apps that support the Retina, you get full use of every pixel. Final Cut X for example has a full 1080p preview window in it now. As in the preview window is 1920*1080 pixels in size. iPhoto, Aperture, Photoshop, they all support the Retina display.

You just can't set the whole thing to always run everything at 2880*1800 in OS X. I would imagine that Windows could.

And again, you can set it to show 1920*1200 'pixels' (it apparently renders at 3840*2400 and then scales down according to Anand) so you can still do the side by side thing.