*** The Official Macbook Pro (Q2/3 2012) Thread ***

The screen sounds amazing! I doubt they will end the 17" though as its a pretty sweet laptop and the rage really needs the different sizes...

Would be surprised they didn't bother with a gpu though, teh HD4000 doesn't seem too amazing (the HD3000 in my mbp is a bit short compared to the integrated 9400 and 9600 in my old one)
 
Izi said:
the onboard HD4000 graphics are good enough for many PC games.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/14
Click to expand...

And its still 15-40% slower then the current top GPU offerings in the 15/17" MBP's.

The CPU is at best 10% quicker according to early reviews, why would you upgrade?
For the screen? the current screen is perfectly nice enough as it is and is low enough in resolution for the GPU to actually put up a decent performance in gaming.

Double the pixels and half the GPU performance? disaster.
 
Alpherah said:
And its still 15-40% slower then the current top GPU offerings in the 15/17" MBP's.

The CPU is at best 10% quicker according to early reviews, why would you upgrade?
For the screen? the current screen is perfectly nice enough as it is and is low enough in resolution for the GPU to actually put up a decent performance in gaming.

Double the pixels and half the GPU performance? disaster.
Click to expand...

Why upgrade because something is perfectly 'nice enough'? I thought my Commodore 64 was nice enough.

The thing I am waiting for is the high res screens, resolution is everything when doing work. I'm not too fussed about games, so long as it runs QuakeLive :)
 
"Retina" displays won't come to the MBP now. It's simply too costly, and the support isn't there yet in the OS (only partial). I guess, the demand isn't there also (by this I'm not referring to forum posters).

They will keep the dedicated graphics cards, they have to. Too many people are buying these machines as their main systems with an external display. In an ideal world there would be an option to have any of the machines in the range without dedicated graphics, as not everybody needs the power, but that would be uneconomical.

The 17" dying...I'm half-half on that. It isn't a big seller and the high-res 15" doesn't really give anything up. At the same time, there are always going to be people who want the real-estate, but for the most part that is restricted to the professional markets.

Performance boosts previously shown to be a 5-15% improvement dependent on the application. No biggy.

I'm in a position to upgrade my MBP, but to be honest, I'm not going to. I actually prefer the lower resolution (**** eyes), and it just isn't worth the hassle (unless something really great comes out). Also, I'm past the whole upgrade-aholic thing, the experience is still mostly with the OS.
 
2880x1800 would be ok, provided its not just a retina same crappy real estate the 13" has now just a bit nicer looking,

id take 1440x900 over retina 2560x1600
 
Alpherah said:
And its still 15-40% slower then the current top GPU offerings in the 15/17" MBP's.

The CPU is at best 10% quicker according to early reviews, why would you upgrade?
For the screen? the current screen is perfectly nice enough as it is and is low enough in resolution for the GPU to actually put up a decent performance in gaming.

Double the pixels and half the GPU performance? disaster.
Click to expand...

Disaster for who ? Who buys a MacBook if gaming is a priority ? Many many more people use then for things where a higher screen res is far more important than 3d graphics performance
 
rogan said:
2880x1800 would be ok, provided its not just a retina same crappy real estate the 13" has now just a bit nicer looking,

id take 1440x900 over retina 2560x1600
Click to expand...

Crapy retina display? Have you seen a 3rd gen iPad? I'd bite Apples arm off for a retina display MacBook Pro. Just a bit nicer looking...pfft.

The new MBP range should be fairly predicable apart from the form factor. Discrete GPUs in all but the 13" (no space for the GPU), IvyBridge CPU and probably SSDs.

Doesn't stop wild speculation and the usual "Apple have blown it they don't care for the professionals" ****.
 
LordSplodge said:
Crapy retina display? Have you seen a 3rd gen iPad? I'd bite Apples arm off for a retina display MacBook Pro. Just a bit nicer looking...pfft.

The new MBP range should be fairly predicable apart from the form factor. Discrete GPUs in all but the 13" (no space for the GPU), IvyBridge CPU and probably SSDs.

Doesn't stop wild speculation and the usual "Apple have blown it they don't care for the professionals" ****.
Click to expand...

If they discontinued the DVD drive there'd be so much more space to put in a discreate GPU in the 13".
 
"andy" said:
Disaster for who ? Who buys a MacBook if gaming is a priority ? Many many more people use then for things where a higher screen res is far more important than 3d graphics performance
Click to expand...
Don't know if you misread his post, but nonetheless, the "retina" display means that there would be more pixels to push. Not everybody buys multiple computers for different purposes; casual gamers do exist.

LordSplodge said:
Crapy retina display? Have you seen a 3rd gen iPad? I'd bite Apples arm off for a retina display MacBook Pro. Just a bit nicer looking...pfft.
Click to expand...
Read his post again, that isn't what he said.
 
I have the 15" pro and love it, but it's used solely for DJing.

Fancy a 13" for back-up and hotels/travel.

Was quite excited by the new models, but a bit underwhelmed by this, would really like discrete graphics on the 13"
 
As has already been explained.

1) Some people like to casually game a bit.

2) Do you guys really think pushing twice the nr of pixels with half the GPU performance is going to be a good idea? even if the CPU is insignificantly quicker.
 
futuramashutupandtakemy.jpg


hmmm could be time to sell my 2009 MBP and iPad 1 and get a new one if its a hugh jump
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom