The next-gen MacBook Pro with Retina Display Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 23, 2012 4:14 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
- Apple
- MacBook Pro
- Laptops
- Notebooks
The Design
The problem with being on the forefront of design is every iteration is expected to significantly outdo the one before it. The unibody MacBook Pro design took build quality to a new level for Apple. By constructing all parts of the machine that you generally interact with out of the same piece of aluminum, Apple significantly reduced the amount of flex and creaks you’d encounter during normal use.
The next-gen MacBook Pro chassis doesn’t revolutionize the design, but it does make some significant evolutionary improvements. The most tangible impact as I’ve already mentioned is the reduction in size and weight of the machine. At its thickest part, the 13-inch MacBook Air is actually a little thicker than the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro. Unlike the MacBook Air however, the rMBP does not feature a tapered design. Instead you get a constant thickness which is definitely reminiscent of the previous design.
The backlit keyboard and glass covered trackpad remain, although the key travel has been reduced somewhat - likely to help thin down the chassis. It's not worse, just different in my opinion.
The reduction in thickness also comes at the expense of a missing optical drive and no mechanical storage. Once again Apple has opted to use its own custom form factor and custom SATA connector for the NAND based storage in the rMBP. You’ll hear no complaints from me on the move away from mechanical storage as I’ve been recommending SSDs as upgrades for the past few years. The battery continues to be integrated but it’s no longer easily user removable as the custom cells are now glued to the chassis. A few years down the road your rMBP will have to take a trip to the Apple store (or a clever third party service center) to get its battery replaced.
The MacBook Pro with Retina Display, Image Courtesy iFixit
This is the first Pro appliance that Apple has ever produced. The CPU, GPU, DRAM, battery, display and, for now, the SSD are either non-removable or at least not user-upgradeable. On a $499 iPad that’s one thing, but on a $2199 professional notebook that’s a completely different matter. I can even make an exception for the MacBook Air as it is more of a consumer device, where computing needs have largely slowed down over the past several years. But for a professional machine, to have such a fixed configuration seems very worrisome.
| MacBook Pro with Retina Display Comparison | |||||
| 15-inch Mid 2012 MacBook Pro | MacBook Pro with Retina Display | ||||
| Dimensions | 0.95 H x 14.35 W x 9.82" D | 0.71 H x 14.13 W x 9.73" D | |||
| Weight | 5.6 lbs (2.54 kg) | 4.46 lbs (2.02 kg) | |||
| CPU | Core i7-3615QM | Core i7-3720QM | Core i7-3615QM | ||
| L3 Cache | 6MB | 6MB | 6MB | ||
| Base CPU Clock | 2.3GHz | 2.6GHz | 2.3GHz | ||
| Max CPU Turbo | 3.3GHz | 3.6GHz | 3.3GHz | ||
| GPU | Intel HD 4000 + NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M | ||||
| GPU Memory | 512MB GDDR5 | 1GB GDDR5 | |||
| System Memory | 4GB DDR3-1600 | 8GB DDR3-1600 | 8GB DDR3L-1600 | ||
| Primary Storage | 500GB 5400RPM HDD | 750GB 5400RPM HDD | 256GB SSD | ||
| Optical Drive | Y | Y | N | ||
| Display Size | 15.4-inches | ||||
| Display Resolution | 1440 x 900 | 2880 x 1800 | |||
| Thunderbolt Ports | 1 | 2 | |||
| USB Ports | 2 x USB 3.0 | ||||
| Other Ports | 1 x Firewire 800, 1 x Audio Line in, 1 x Audio Line out, SDXC reader, Kensington Lock slot | SDXC reader, HDMI out, headphone out | |||
| Battery Capacity | 77.5 Wh | 95 Wh | |||
| Price | $1799 | $2199 | $2199 | ||
Apple has definitely made accommodations to make this unupgradeable reality more palatable. Sure the primary silicon is fixed, but all Retina MacBook Pro configurations ship with a minimum of 8GB of DDR3L-1600 memory. The only available upgrade is a move to 16GB, which will surely suit most needs for at least a few years to come (if not more).
The SSD is physically removable although there isn’t presently a source of 3rd party upgrades. I suspect we will see some in the future although there are always concerns about any legal claims to Apple’s unique form factor and physical interface. Apple’s concession here is it offers as much NAND as is physically possible today: up to 768GB if you’re willing to pay the handsome upgrade fee.
We’ve long given up on upgrading mobile CPUs or GPUs, and more recently abandoning the removable battery in favor of increasing capacity and reducing form factors is a trade off we’ve accepted as well. Apple has tried to help on the memory and SSD sides but the whole package is still very...fixed.
Despite all of this my only real complaint about Apple’s fixed configuration is the $2199 spec comes with too little storage by default. If I want to carelessly use my machine and not worry about regularly deleting unused files I find that I need 512GB of storage. At 256GB it’s too easy to run out of space, particularly if I’m on the road and dealing with lots of photos and videos. If you’re like me then you’re shoehorned into getting the $2799 configuration as there’s no way to just upgrade the size of the SSD in the $2199 model. And if you’re spending $2799 you might as well get the 16GB memory upgrade, if you can convince yourself that you’re not going to buy the Haswell version next year.
Retina MacBook Pro Silicon: One Big Happy Family
Powering the Retina Display MacBook Pro is Intel’s latest and greatest quad-core Core i7. A part of the new 22nm Ivy Bridge family the Intel silicon in the system is well done as always. The default configuration ships with a 2.3GHz quad-core offering, while the upgraded option is clocked at 2.6GHz. Apple offers one more upgrade at 2.7GHz while upping the L3 cache to 8MB. Since these are i7s all of them have Hyper Threading enabled, making the major difference between parts frequency and cache size in the case of the most upgraded part.
| Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display CPU Comparison | |||||
| 2.3GHz quad-core | 2.6GHz quad-core | 2.7GHz quad-core | |||
| Intel Model | Core i7-3615QM | Intel Core i7-3720QM | Intel Core i7-3820QM | ||
| Base Clock Speed | 2.3GHz | 2.6GHz | 2.7GHz | ||
| Max SC Turbo | 3.3GHz | 3.6GHz | 3.7GHz | ||
| Max DC Turbo | 3.2GHz | 3.5GHz | 3.6GHz | ||
| Max QC Turbo | 3.1GHz | 3.4GHz | 3.5GHz | ||
| L3 Cache | 6MB | 6MB | 8MB | ||
| AES-NI | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| VT-x | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| VT-d | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| TDP | 45W | 45W | 45W | ||
| Processor Graphics | Intel HD 4000 | Intel HD 4000 | Intel HD 4000 | ||
| GPU Clock (Base/Max) | 650/1250MHz | 650/1250MHz | 650/1250MHz | ||
Turbo Boost is supported and active on all options. As always I verified its support in OS X as well as its functional operation:
889A refers to the max number of speed bins supported by Turbo Boost for 4, 3, 2 and 1 active core, respectively, in hex. For example, the 2.6GHz base clock of the Core i7 in my test system can turbo up a maximum of 8 bins with three/four cores active (2.6GHz + 800MHz = 3.4GHz), or 9 bins with 2 cores active (3.5GHz) or 10 bins (A in hex) with 1 core active (3.6GHz). Just as with previous mobile Macs, CPU clocks remain unchanged regardless of whether the system is running on AC or battery power.
Intel's quad-core 22nm Ivy Bridge
All of the CPU options feature Intel’s HD 4000 graphics, which handles the majority of graphics duties unless you fire up an application that triggers the discrete GPU. All of the rMBPs feature NVIDIA’s GeForce GT 650M equipped with 1GB of GDDR5. Apple went aggressive on the Kepler implementation and ships a full 384 core GK107 in the rMBP. The GPU clock is set at a very aggressive 900MHz with a 1254MHz memory clock. I do appreciate that there’s no variance in GPU/memory configuration across all of the Retina MacBook Pro options, it greatly simplifies the purchasing experience.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
471 Comments
View All Comments
Penti - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
W8 doesn't change anything, having one setting for Metro and one for Desktop that works just like before doesn't cut it.Spoony - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
I don't think you've been understanding what I've been saying.Quartz is a fully resolution independent drawing layer. It can map to any pixel density necessary. It is incredibly fast and flexible, especially when tied in to technologies like Core Animation, Core Image, and Core Text.
It's also worth noting that Core UI exists in OS X, and has done since 10.5. This is a vector/texture baking engine that draws all interface elements in OS X in a fully resolution agnostic way. This is a very nice, and slick piece of software.
You do make a point, Apple keeps doing this 2x scaling thing. Why?
As it turns out, U/I scaling is a very complex thing. Not only is it a bit difficult to wrap your head around, it's a bit difficult to code against. Everybody isn't about to go build vector assets for their applications. Apple has to meet developers (and its own internal application teams, probably) halfway. Thus the @2x assets. It is a somewhat limiting, although fairly consistent and simple method for enabling bitmap creation in a resolution independent interface.
So you're wrong, OS X does have (and has had) support for full resolution independence. You can scale to your heart's content, from a 600dpi printer to a 72dpi display, at any interface factor.
The question is simply more complex than "does the slider work". Windows does not scale well at all, applications tear, refuse to scale, magnify far too much, render incredibly blurry images and text. The rendering layer is not versatile, nor set up for this kind of usage. Win8 improves matters, but not with as much depth as we'd have hoped.
ananduser - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link
I know that Apple's Quartz engine is scaling capable the agnostic and traditional way. Just was never good at it for extreme scenarios; a common gripe with macusers demanding better implementation. Windows' similar mechanism was always more efficient especially since Vista(XP's sucked).3rd party apps that don't scale properly have only their devs to blame. I don't know your particular app use on Windows but I can say that you gripes with it are exaggerated or maybe translated from your OSX experience. Battle of the sliders is ultimately a question of correct dev use. 3dmark for instance makes use of their own trademark GUI that does not make use of Win resources. I've always hated that. So does itunes on WIndows or Safari. These will never work right.
The 2x scaling is a rigid compromise. It achieves consistency but not resolution independence. As I said before, resolution independence does not exist as it is idealistic in theory, and abstracts constraints such as scaling factors. If Apple pushes ahead with their low/normal/high scaling presets across their entire line-up, and in the process completely eliminates the notion of changing resolution(as in picking a number from a table) they will achieve a consistent experience like on ios; and it will still not be resolution independence "from a technical pov".
I'm arguing semantics and not the MBP-R which is a spanking machine.
Spoony - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link
Lots of the software I use on Windows fails hard when you crank that slider up. Photoshop, Illustrator, SAP, iTunes (woe is me), Chrome, Office, etc... a vast majority of the software I want to use does not work correctly. Plus Win7 isn't exactly elegant about scaling artwork, even universal widgets get a little weird looking.And here I agree with you. 2x is rigid, it is not ideal, we would want to pick a resolution and then pick a U/I scaling value to get exactly the pixel density and U/I size that is ideal for our use. I would like that a great deal.
Unfortunately that's not the reality of designing interfaces today. We are moving into new territory here from an execution standpoint, and you can't just go vectorize all your assets and FP-define all of your layout coordinates and transforms overnight.
To make this work, Apple need to meet developers and users halfway. They need to make it simple for the user to select the most comfortable size for elements, while also providing a "we believe this is best" mode. They need to give developers a relatively straightforward way to develop assets for these higher resolution displays, and not force too much layout tweaking.
This is a transitional period. I believe Apple has struck a decent balance. A balance that works and will actually allow this to fly. It isn't the best of all worlds right now, but that day is coming. Certainly what Apple ships today is better than what Microsoft ships today. That difference will also be eroded by time.
ananduser - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link
I noticed Anand's review update. Windows set on 200% increase, makes the desktop similar to OSX' retina setting. And furthermore Anand also stated that under this state Windows faces the same 3rd party related issues as OSX."To make this work, Apple need to meet developers and users halfway. " One modification...Apple needs to meet "their" developers and "their" users.
"Certainly what Apple ships today is better than what Microsoft ships today."
I'm not sure you want to go far as to compare 2 different OS architectures based on high res panel support alone. This is first and foremost a subjective discussion before an objective one.
ananduser - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link
Win8 has the best high res support of the market. It's completely panel agnostic(11 inch all the way to Ballmer's wall TV). It's easy to diminish W8, but it is more of a step forward than Apple's traditional "small steps" policy.Spoony - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link
Only in Metro mode.In "old-style desktop" mode it exhibits the same problems as Win7. So it will require developer effort in the same way Mac OS X will.
Windows 8 is well known to produce very polar reactions. The direction and momentum of Metro development is highly questionable right now. There are a lot of unanswered questions and not a lot of trust in Microsoft's path.
On the flip-side, Apple is shipping a high-res hardware product today with a clear and well known path to high-res execution today. They have a defined timeline to their next OS and a price tag attached. Everything is a known quantity here, and developer support is strong.
Windows 8 will be released in the fall sometime with a presently unknown price and an unknown vector to high-res asset curation.
This is not a post bashing Microsoft or adoring Apple (none of them were). I am plainly stating the way that two different companies have tackled a very complex issue at this moment in time. I deeply hope that Microsoft, Apple, Linux, and 3rd party developers all put forward competitive support for high resolution displays because they are the future, and I'd like to enjoy them.
ananduser - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link
"Everything is a known quantity here." Apple's biggest advantage."I deeply hope that Microsoft, Apple, Linux, and 3rd party developers all put forward competitive support for high resolution displays" The potential issue is that they all put competitive efforts but different efforts. Each one goes their own way.
wendoman - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
That's why Intel QuickSync doesnt work on Mac's? LOLSpoony - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
"High-performance H.264 encoding3When you select a standard HD export setting, QuickTime Player takes advantage of hardware video encoding for optimal performance."
"Supported on the following Mac models: iMac (Mid 2011 or newer), Mac mini (Mid 2011 or newer), MacBook Air (Mid 2011 or newer), and MacBook Pro (Early 2011 or newer)."
http://www.apple.com/osx/whats-new/features.html
Apple does things when they're good and ready (for better or worse), and by the looks of things with Mountain Lion they're exposing QuickSync underneath AVFoundation or QTKit.