The Retina MacBook Pro 13”

http://patrickbgibson.tumblr.com/

by tomdale • 14 years ago

126 109 14 years ago

patrickbgibson.tumblr.com

mtgx• 14 years ago

The 13" Macbook Pro with retina display is proof enough that Apple will waste no time switching to ARM for Macs. They simply care about other laptop qualities a lot more than about total horsepower. If it's just "good enough" or even slightly underwhelming in terms of performance, it doesn't mean they will not do it.

nsxwolf• 14 years ago

You draw that conclusion because of the video performance? I'm not following. The CPU performance wasn't even mentioned in the article. Is it a step backward from the 13" MBP?

kylec9• 14 years ago

According to Apple both variants of the 13" MBP use the same CPUs - either a 2.5GHz i5 or a 2.9GHz i7 - so I imagine the CPU performance is identical between the two. Of course, there might be a bit of a CPU hit for apps having to deal with the retina display, but I suspect that the GPU plays more of a role there.

chucknelson• 14 years ago

Well, for some the display quality over performance trade off is worth it, while for others (like the author here), it's not.

Haswell will most likely handle the retina resolutions just fine. The iterative polish that Apple is known for will not be lost on the retina MacBooks.

ROFISH• 14 years ago

The reason why I bought it is because it's Apple's cheapest laptop with two monitor outputs. I can hook up three additional screens to do programming/Photoshop/whatever.

You can't do two/three (native) screens on an Air or even the non-Retina MBP. (You can with USB, but it's laggy and there's no USB 3 things for Mac.)

jonknee• 14 years ago

Underpowered with one screen, I'd love to see it with 3...

kylec9• 14 years ago

Whether it's "underpowered" depends on what you're doing, I'd say. Writing text, looking at photos, watching videos, browsing 99% websites, etc it performs just fine, and I'd venture to say that that's probably what most people will be doing with the machine. I had mine hooked up to 2 30" monitors the other day and it worked great.

the_mitsuhiko• 14 years ago

AFAIK the 2012 air supports more than one external monitor when daisy chained.

kingnothing• 14 years ago

You can do 2 daisy-chained Thunderbolt displays with the non-retina MBP just fine.

jedahan• 14 years ago

Typing from a 13 rMBP purchased today. Hopefully its an upgrade from my 2010 mba 13" but from the sounds of this review I'll probably be returning mine too in a few weeks, as I have a similar workload as the author. Thanks for writing the review.

kylec9• 14 years ago

I think the author's primary complaint was that it wasn't worth the premium; if you've already bought it, haven't you already made that decision?

Yes, it's not completely smooth scrolling The Verge (something that, as a Verge reader, I didn't even notice until it was pointed out), but personally I'd rather have that amazing screen for looking at text and photos and watching videos instead of having 60fps scrolling on a 1440x900 screen.

robryan3• 14 years ago

Scrolling issues seem more like a software issue, sure there are a lot of pixels to move around but the retina stuff is pretty new. I doubt that the software is at the limit of what the hardware can do.

litwack• 14 years ago

If you're going to return it, you have 14 calendar days, not a month, as I too initially presumed.

johansch9• 14 years ago

The downgrade from 1440x900 UI/chrome resolution to 1280x800 is what kills it for me. This is the first review that I see addressing this issue; I was beginning to think I was the only one noticing this glaring issue.

(The 15" MBP retina display suffers from the same issue.)

X-Istence2• 14 years ago

I was under the impression that the 15" Retina MBP had a native resolution of 1440 by 900.

johansch9• 14 years ago

It has a "UI resolution" of 1440x900, yes. But the way the chrome in OS X is designed, 1440x900 is suitable for a 13" screen, not a 15" screen.

The previous high res option of MBP 15" had a resolution of 1680x1050. This (doubled) would have been a good resolution for the new 15" MBP retina display.

kylec9• 14 years ago

If you need more screen real estate, you can change to a different scaled resolution in the System Preferences. If you need it, you can go with an effective 1440x900 or even 1680x1050 resolution. It's not an integer mapping between virtual pixels to real pixels like it is with 1280x800, but it looks almost as good - and better than a native 1440x900 or 1680x1050 display.

johansch9• 14 years ago

Font rendering looks quite crappy in anything but exact 2x resolution doubling mode. I haven't looked into it, but suspect that subpixel rendering is disabled.

peloton2• 14 years ago

Is there a performance and power consumption impact to changing to a different scaled resolution or is it negligible?

polshaw• 14 years ago

Absolutely this. I see very little point in paying a hefty premium for such a great screen to then be limited to such a tiny area of real-estate; or to have to sacrifice (much of) the beauty of the screen if you set it up for a reasonable real estate. Even before considering the struggles of the iGPU on such a high end machine.

The 15" is much more usable (with 1440x900 X2), but i really can't see that the simple 'pixel doubling' of the rMBPs is really a proper solution for a laptop-- IMO a retina PPI with display elements equivalent to a normal screen somewhere in the 16xx-19xx (px wide) range would be ideal-- and i cant see apple (or anyone else) putting a 4K screen in a laptop in the foreseeable future.

Is anyone aware of any movement towards resolution independence in linux (or anywhere?)

petercooper• 14 years ago

I'm a bit of a "fussy arse" and I have the 15" Retina and have no such problems. Indeed, I'm surprised just how often I change resolution. High for media work, low for browsing the web.. it's a breath of fresh air.

There are some very minor aberrations (banding on certain hues, mostly) at 1920x1080 but you have to really be looking for them. And the text still looks razor sharp. So it's even better than I was expecting before I bought it.

natesm2• 14 years ago

I use the retina MBP at "1920x1200", which wasn't available on any 15" MacBook previously. I do wish this was the "native" resolution though. "1440x900" is comically large.

johansch9• 14 years ago

I don't understand why Apple went this way. They seem to prioritize chrome quality over content, in the non-2x modes.

This is really strange since text with subpixel rendering in the content area is a clear benefit, while I have yet to see an app that provides subpixel rendering of its chrome elements.

hammock2• 14 years ago

I did the napkin math because I was curious...the downgrade in resolution is equivalent to cutting the 13.3 inch screen down by 1.5 inch to 11.8 inches. (a 27% decrease in screen real estate)

randomdrake2• 14 years ago

1440 * 900 = 1296000

1280 * 800 = 1024000

1296000 - 1024000 = 272000

272000 / 1296000 = 0.209876543 ~ 21% or 0.21

13.3 * 0.21 = 2.79

13.3 - 2.79 = 10.51

That's a 10.51" diagonal.

It looks like you got 0.27 from taking the difference between the two over the 1280x800 resolution screen. Wouldn't you want to see the difference between the two over the larger one if you're seeing how much it shrunk?

cageface• 14 years ago

This new crop of machines is pretty tempting but I think it makes sense to wait until Haswell lands in the next generation. By that time a lot more applications will be updated to deal with the retina displays too.

Like a lot of Apple products that push some new hardware concept this first generation seems to have some rough edges.

rdl2• 14 years ago

Yeah, I think the MBA13 (8GB) or the rMBA15 are the two most optimal choices for "primary Apple machine for most high-end users".

Derbasti• 14 years ago

If only they sold retina desktop monitors. Without a big monitor, any amount of pixels on the laptop will only serve as an exceedingly high resolution twitter stream most of my day.

That said, I welcome they day when I can buy a >= 24 inch retina desktop monitor and I full well plan to spend a buckload of money on it as soon as it becomes available. (IF it is compatible with both Macs and other computers. That is a requirement)

Einherji• 14 years ago

I've been sitting here patiently waiting for a 5120x3200 px 27" iMac. When/if that ever happens apple can feel free to take all of my money.

jdminhbg• 14 years ago

> media-rich websites like The Verge

Well, that's one way to put it...

wazoox• 14 years ago

Well I plan to replace my Macbook with a 1920x1080 Asus Zenbook Prime... and this only confirms my choice.

jherdman• 14 years ago

Give the 13" Air a shot. It's easily the best machine I've ever owned.

RyJones• 14 years ago

I'm happy with mine, as well. The battery life, especially, is impressive in day-to-day use.

ericabiz3• 14 years ago

My fiance has the 13" Air and when I got my X1 Carbon he went nuts. Once you see the difference in screen resolution, you will not want to go back to the Air. If you compare them side by side, you will see how blurry the text looks on the Air. If you have ever had an iPad 2 vs. iPad 3 side-by-side, you'll know exactly what I mean. Lenovo finally turned out an awesome ultrabook!

w1ntermute2• 14 years ago

I'd recommend the ThinkPad X1 Carbon. The screen is 14" but in the same size as a 13" ultrabook, it has the TrackPoint (although the trackpad is very good too), and it has great Linux compatibility. And then there's the ThinkPad build quality.

ginko• 14 years ago

But the X1 Carbon only has a 1600x900 resolution. While better than 1280x800, this is still too little for having 2 windows side-by-side in most cases. I know this because I have a Thinkpad T430 myself.

The Thinkpad build quality also isn't what it used to be.

ajross2• 14 years ago

The one I chose is the Sony Vaio Z -- 13.3" at 1920x1080, quad core ivy bridge, Intel graphics (important for Linux users) dual (!) 256MB SSDs. The nice feature is the flat extra battery that simply clips to the bottom, giving a total of 96WH of energy (about 7.5 hours!) while simultaneously insulating the heat sink from my lap and making the bottom surface completely flat.

Definitely recommended, though not particularly cheap.

ericabiz3• 14 years ago

I had that laptop (yes, bought very recently--not the older version, the new one) and hated it. Replaced it with a Thinkpad X1 Carbon after a few weeks. The X1 Carbon is far better. Slight downgrade on the screen resolution, but a far larger screen, which is great. And no laggy-mouse issues like I had with the Asus. The Thinkpads are just a higher build quality (they're also a bit more expensive, but worth the extra $.)

tl;dr: Get the X1 Carbon instead; you won't regret it.

dgbsco2• 14 years ago

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. My new MBPr13 is fast, gorgeous, and light. Sure it's expensive, but you get what you pay for.

dmpatierno• 14 years ago

It's not about the money. It's about performance. Speaking for myself, scroll-jitter is completely unacceptable at any price.

dgbsco2• 14 years ago

I couldn't agree more. However, that isn't the case with the new 13.

aw3c2• 14 years ago

permalink: http://patrickbgibson.tumblr.com/post/35140489041/the-retina...

niels_olson• 14 years ago

I had similar problems with my rMBP15 but I Haven't noticed them in a while. Fixed in software updates?

jzimdars• 14 years ago

I just made the same upgrade from a 2011 i7 MacBook Air to the 13" Retina MacBook Pro and I disagree with nearly every part of this review. Battery life seems on par with my Air. Performance is improved on the MacBook Pro. A good example is something like installing imagemagick from Homebrew. On the Air that resulted in max-fans, the MBP handled it without breaking a sweat. I haven't noticed any UI sluggishness. I loved my Air (like many have said, it's my favorite computer I've ever owned) but this machine is every bit as nice, feels more capable (CPU-wise) and has a gorgeous display. The only drawback is the extra weight and thickness.

mccolin2• 14 years ago

Thank you so much for writing this. I've been on the fence (fences?) deciding on the right model for a laptop upgrade. The portability of the Air? Features of the "basic" 13" Pro? The screen of the 13" Retina? The much better performance of the 15" Retina? This is the first review I've read that adequately addresses the real-world performance issues of the newest member of the lineup.

I find the pricing of the current Mac laptop lineup to be out of whack with the feature steps between each level, which makes picking the best performance and value difficult.

evanmoran• 14 years ago

If you code and/or game I'd recommend the 15" retina, it is the best computer I've ever owned and worth every penny. The screen size is useful for putting terminals next to your code editor, etc. And for gaming I was recently playing Natural Selection 2 (through boot camp) and I found I was loading new maps MUCH faster then other people. We are talking 5-30 seconds faster and in several hours of play not a single person loaded the game faster. Pretty amazing.

Lastly if you do go the Apple route get max RAM as these newest computers aren't upgradable. Good luck!

mccolin2• 14 years ago

Thanks for the info. I code and also use the machine for laying out documents, web browser, and lightweight design, etc. Mostly coding. I'm normally desk-bound, however, and am weighing the value of the Retina screen if I'm going to spend most of my time looking at an external monitor. I have, however, not heard a bad review of the 15"r.

I'm surprised to learn the machines are not RAM upgradeable. That's a major negative.

Gigablah• 14 years ago

> I found I was loading new maps MUCH faster then other people

This is most likely due to your SSD -- if you had a regular disk drive, you'd see the same performance hit as the others.

dikbrouwer• 14 years ago

Did you try scrolling using Safari instead of Chrome/Firefox? With the Retina display, scrolling is significantly smoother on Safari (aka it's not smooth on a 15" Retina on Chrome either).

robryan3• 14 years ago

That is a good thing, because it means that Chrome should be able to fix this fairly easily.

nickporter2• 14 years ago

This is especially apparent on pages with fixed background images. See https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=155313

it• 14 years ago

I'm not sure why he says the effective resolution is 1280x800. The resolution is 2560x1600. I just sold my 13" Air and bought a 13" rMBP; very happy with it so far.

MikeKusold• 14 years ago

It's because the rMBP uses 2 pixels to display 1px which is why fonts and graphics appear sharper.

hrabago• 14 years ago

Actually it should be 4 pixels to display 1 "point".

gnu8• 14 years ago

I seem to remember the previous 13" Macbook had graphics capability. This one doesn't. Seems like a sharp downgrade to me.

robryan3• 14 years ago

Not sure they have ever made a 13 inch MBP with discrete graphics.

RShiki• 14 years ago

No but they used to make 13" MBP with nvidia chipsets rather than intel's crappy ones. Even the 11" MBA used to have nvidia chipsets. It is a new trend with Apple to downgrade the integrated gpu (compared to the competition, and their own past products). The first incident began with the switch to MacIntels and people who liked the Mac Mini suddenly had to bear with the Intel GMA rather than ATI Radeon. Same thing happened during the switch to intel from iBook (radeon) vs Macbook (gma). TBH it feels like Apple always go for the highest margin components (low cost for Apple while still selling the laptop for a premium price) whenever they feel like they can get away with doing so.

driverdan• 14 years ago

Something is clearly wrong here. Have you updated everything to the latest version (OS X 10.8.2, latest firmware, etc)? If so and you're having the problems you described it sounds like a defective unit.

I have a 15" rMBP. It had a lot of graphical issues before upgrading to Mountain Lion. After the upgrade I only had 1 issue with bootcamp and resetting SMC solved that. I run at 1920x1200 and all natively rendered stuff (eg fonts) is crisp. Integrated video (same Intel 4000) works fine for all web browsing. I do notice low frame rates with some OS transitions but nothing on the web. I get 6+ hours of battery life easily.

smoyer• 14 years ago

I have the 15" and absolutely love it. When the machine isn't taxed, I've gotten more than 7 hours from the battery and I do quite a bit of coding and reading on it. YMMV.

auggierose2• 14 years ago

I hurried to buy my 17inch Macbook Pro for exactly that reason a week before it vanished from the apple university store. My resolution is NATIVE 1920x1200, which is better than the 1920x1200 you get on a Retina 15inch.

relix• 14 years ago

You can use an app to set the display to the native 2880x1800 resolution if you wanted to.

bnastic• 14 years ago

No, it's very clearly and visibly not, don't kid yourself. I have a 17" MBP and I compared them side by side.

auggierose2• 14 years ago

For starters, no font problems AND a bigger screen real estate. Which are the two most important aspects to me as a programmer.

SkyMarshal2• 14 years ago

>The Retina MacBook Pro 13” has an Intel HD Graphics 4000 chipset, which is rather underpowered.

Does anyone know of a 13" or smaller notebook with a good discrete GPU? The only one I know of is the Sager NP6110 [1] with a high end Nvdia GT650M.

If Sager can do it, why aren't there a lot more of these?

[1] http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np6110-clevo-w110er-p-4343.html

SoftwareMaven• 14 years ago

There is a Sony that has one. I don't know the model, but I know a previous co-worker chose it when we upgraded laptops specifically for the decent graphics card with an 11" screen for compact carrying (I was still surprised how much fatter it was than a MacBook Air, but I think that is down to the VGA port).

If you are seriously interested, drop me a line or reply and I'll track him down to find out.

SkyMarshal2• 14 years ago

Thanks, looks like it's the Sony Vaio S, several configurations offer the discrete gpu.

http://store.sony.com/c/SB-Series-Notebooks/en/c/S_SB_SERIES...

The Retina MacBook Pro 13”

Related Stories