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
What to Buy
I mentioned earlier that Apple mitigates risk in its designs much like a CPU maker. It’s always considered good practice to decouple major architecture changes from process node jumps (Intel’s famous tick-tock cadence embodies this). Apple similarly tries to alternate major changes to the industrial design from significant internal component changes. Although Ivy Bridge and Kepler are all new, the former is quite similar to Sandy Bridge while the latter is really no different than integrating any other discrete GPU. The more dramatic silicon departure comes with Haswell next year, and I suspect that’s why we got the rMBP this year.
In our performance investigations I mentioned that compared to an upgraded Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro (high clocks with SSD), you won’t see tremendous performance gains from the rMBP. A quick look around Apple’s website actually shows not even a single CPU bound performance comparison between the rMBP and last year’s MacBook Pro.
The logical thing to do, if you’re the owner of a recent (2010/2011) MacBook Pro, is to wait until next year at the minimum. Haswell should bring a significant performance increase (particularly on the processor graphics front) and you’ll get it in the same chassis as what you see today.
Most users however don’t upgrade annually. If you have an older MacBook Pro, the rMBP offers all of the benefits of last year’s Sandy Bridge upgrade but in a much better package, and with vastly improved thermal characteristics. If you fall into this group, the upgrade is a no-brainer. I won’t lie, the next two years are going to be tough. Haswell is looking very good, and if Intel can pull off 14nm on time, Broadwell will be even more impressive from a graphics standpoint. You can always make the argument to hold off on an upgrade as there’s almost always something better around the corner. In my opinion you really can’t go wrong picking any of the next three years to upgrade.
Should you decide to buy today, which model should you get?
As I mentioned before, the $2199 configuration is near-perfect in my opinion, save for the 256GB of NAND flash. Apple unfortunately won’t let you upgrade storage capacity on the base MacBook Pro with Retina Display so you’re left with two options: 1) live with the 256GB and hope someone will build an aftermarket SSD in the not too distant future, or 2) buy the $2799 model. While it’s quite likely that we’ll see third party SSDs for the rMBP, I seriously doubt you’ll find one with Samsung’s PM830 controller.
I do think 256GB is livable, it’s just that 512GB is so much more comfortable.
Apple has simplified things by not allowing multiple GPU options, and the CPU options are pretty cut and dry.
If you can live with 256GB of storage, the $2199 configuration is fine. Otherwise I’d go with the upgraded $2799 model.
The question of whether or not you should opt for the 16GB memory upgrade really depends on what you do with the system and how long you expect to use it. Without any form of socketed memory expansion, you’re stuck with the amount of memory you order on the system. Thankfully 8GB is healthy by today’s standards and likely will continue to be so for the next couple of years. If your present day workloads require 8GB of memory, then the 16GB option is a must have. If you’re looking at 16GB purely as future-proofing, chances are you’ll run into processor (or storage) limitations before you feel held back by memory. That being said, if you want to be kind to the next owner, ticking the 16GB box won’t hurt.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
471 Comments
View All Comments
EnzoFX - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
Tell MS to buy them then. Can you really not see how Apple forcing this, makes others want to compete?UberApfel - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
You must be new to economics.ciparis - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
Because there were so many 2800-class displays on notebooks before Apple introduced them. Or desktop for that matter.Innovating while securing your own future production capacities, even if it means others will have a hard time copying you, is a perfectly reasonable business decision.
Taft12 - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link
Perhaps they really did buy 'em all, but anticompetitive would be preventing any more factories capable of producing high-resolution displays from coming into existence. Now *THAT* would be impressive!OCedHrt - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
Already exists on PC. And in 2012 Apple introduces DPI scaling? Windows had this in XP if not earlier.Akdor 1154 - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
yes, and it STILL isn't up to par, even with Windows 7. You can see on the shots in the review how well it performs - titlebars are too small, icons are nastily pixellated (as it can only go up to 1.5x, not a round 2x), and third party support is patchy at best. (As an aside, I would be very interested in an article on the differences on high-res drawing APIs between Windows and Mac OS. )Microsoft got there first with a half-done approach, Apple polished it.
N.B. I'm a happy Windows user, but this particular piece of tech is making me quite jealous..
internetf1fan - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
" (as it can only go up to 1.5x, not a round 2x)"Anand is wrong. They looked at only the preset options given by Windows which are 100%, 125% and 150%. Had they bothered to look at the other options, they would have noticed that you can easily set the custom DPI at 200% to get a x2 behavior you want. This review is seriously shoddy.
fmcjw - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
Yes, never seen Anand totally gushing like this. It's as if he can justify all the non-upgradeable design quirks and incompatibility with existing applications, simply by gazing at the hi-res display. I don't think many can distinguish pixels on a 13" FullHD, or even an 11" 1366x768 at normal viewing distances.In his bias and self-deception he glossed over flaws and uses the resolution as the way out of every flaw. Isn't the old matte display better than the new fancy "low-gloss" glossy display? Anand failed to look into the battery type integrated, whether it's one of the 1000-cycle packs. More unforgivably, he glossed over the low color gamut aspect, omitting a common sRGB comparison table.
Until I see a demo unit, I'll stick to the view that this is just a gimmick to lock in users by favoring proprietary, Retina-optimized applications, while 95% of applications are better off in FullHD/1920x1200 on a laptop.
This review is proof that even one of the most professional reviewers can be blinded by his own self-deception and pretty looks.
themossie - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
What proprietary, Retina-optimized applications? You're already running Mac OS X, it's not gonna get any more proprietary :-)The maximum selectable resolution on the MBP Retina Display -is- 1920x1200. When you select 1920x1200, it renders at 3840x2400 and downscales the image to 2880x1800.
Can easily distinguish pixels on an 11" 768p machine - I use one on a daily basis. 13" 1080p from normal viewing distance is much harder to distinguish.
damianrobertjones - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link
"New super resolutions are coming to notebook/ laptop computers. Thanks to Apple and their forward looking business sense. Wonder when it comes to PCs..... with Windows 8?"Pointless on smaller screens.