Currently Being ModeratedOct 30, 2013 6:20 AM (in response to dlqhdus86)
I have the same question.
I don't need or want the performance grunt of the 15" models and I prefer the smaller size of the 13" (I travel and work away a lot).
256gb storage is adequate for me, so I have my eye on the mid range 13" that Apple are offering (2.4GHz i5, 8GB, 256gb). Are the processor upgrades (2.6GHz i5 or 2.8GHz i7) and a memory boost to 16GB worth the extra money? I can afford both upgrades but is it overkill (especially 16GB memory), given that the integrated graphics may limit performance before the standard 8GB RAM ever does?
Please bear in mind, I am not very computer savvy (just going by what I've read on the internet and some advice from an Apple genius in store) so please feel free to correct me if any of the above is wrong?!
Currently Being ModeratedOct 30, 2013 11:30 AM (in response to dlqhdus86)
My plan is to buy the 2.4GHZ with 256 SSD and 16GB of RAM, as suggested in a couple of different places:
I am also interested in computer longevity (believe it or not, I've stretched using my souped-up eight-year-old powerbook until now--well, with the use of my wife's computer for video streaming). The 16GB RAM might be overkill, but I've found that more RAM extends the life of computers, and in this case you can't add it later (annoyingly!). It's true that Mavericks reduces RAM usage, but two or three operating systems from now and new applications...at some point, you're going to want the extra RAM unless you buy a new computer every two or three years.
On the other hand, the processor speed differences aren't that much for dual-core 13" chips and it's an expensive computer, so if you need real speed you should get the 15". If you had to do a lot of video processing on a 13", it might be worth the extra dough--I doubt it would be worth it for most people.
I'm interested in what others have to say, though, since I won't be buying one for a couple of months.
Currently Being ModeratedOct 31, 2013 2:44 AM (in response to js32)
Thanks js32, those links are helpful.
I get the impression from reading around that bumping up from the 2.4 GHz to the 2.6 GHz i5, or even the i7 is probably not worth it. The real gains come when moving to quad-core.
I want this laptop to function comfortably (on normal everyday tasks like web, mail, office, and occasional photo editing) for 5 years or more. I'd like to think the mid range 13" rMBP will be capable of this.
Currently Being ModeratedOct 31, 2013 2:54 AM (in response to dlqhdus86)
Am I right in saying Apple are likely to relesase 4K external monitors at some point soon? I wonder - would the 13" rMBP be capable (comfortable) of running that screen? Does the GPU play an important role in running external monitors?
Currently Being ModeratedOct 31, 2013 3:02 AM (in response to matt_82)
Am I right in saying Apple are likely to relesase 4K external monitors at some point soon?
Who knows? I expected one at last weeks announcements - to accompany the Mac Pro. But, no, the 13" rMBP would not be able to handle 4K graphics, whereas the new Mac Pro will.
Currently Being ModeratedOct 31, 2013 6:35 AM (in response to clintonfrombirmingham)
Would the top spec 15" rMBP be able to handle 4K or is it purely the domain of the mac pro?
Currently Being ModeratedOct 31, 2013 6:52 AM (in response to matt_82)
Strictly Mac Pro - not going to be available on notebooks for a long, long time!
Currently Being ModeratedOct 31, 2013 7:44 AM (in response to clintonfrombirmingham)
Good to know, thanks Clinton!
Currently Being ModeratedOct 31, 2013 7:53 AM (in response to matt_82)
Er, yeah. It sounds like you maybe want to do more than "occasional photo editing" and office-like applications when you are asking that kind of question. If you need to do serious graphic and video work into the future, you would want a powerful desktop or at least a machine with a discrete graphics processor and quad-core, like the 15".
Currently Being ModeratedOct 31, 2013 8:26 AM (in response to js32)
js - I think it's just my ignorance shining through - I had assumed 4K just meant a higher resolution monitor than the one Apple currently offer, but it sounds like a whole different kettle of fish.
I am wondering whether to go 13" and get an 27" external monitor to go with it, hence the question about monitors. I would like to watch HD video and do some limited photo editing (using photoshop but not huge numbers of photos - I'm generally happy just using light room or aperture most of the time), so a the external monitor is on my mind.
Currently Being ModeratedOct 31, 2013 8:45 AM (in response to matt_82)
I've had the Apple Thunderbolt Display for over a year now. I bought it because I could afford it (unlike some Eizo monitors that I would have loved to have had) and because it functioned as a good 'hub' for my late 2011 15" MacBook Pro. 4K monitors have to have video cards that will actually drive a 4K monitor and, thus far, the Mac Pro is the only announced model from Apple that has the necessary graphic cards to utilize a 4K monitor. And although there are a few cheap 4K monitors available, most good ones seem to start at $3,500 and just go higher from there.
Here's a question I was asking myself when I watched the October 22nd event -> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-10/23/4k-thunderbolt-display.
There are many, many very good 27" monitors out there. I'm pleased with what the ATD has done for me for the past year, but because it's so limited as a hub now, I wouldn't buy one right now. It's just antiquated. And too expensive compared to what's out there now. I was hoping to see two new monitors from Apple on Oct. 22nd - one a 'updated' model of the Thunderbolt and a 4K monitor for the Mac Pro.
Maybe one day...
Currently Being ModeratedOct 31, 2013 11:41 AM (in response to dlqhdus86)
It IS a higher resolution monitor, but--as Clinton says--one that most computers won't support. Right now, I believe it's mostly a standard for shooting or projecting digital cinema, etc.
On the graphics thing, though, I would be interested to know whether anyone who had bought the new RMBP had noticed any issues with the Retina screen that related to having the lowest-powered (2.4ghz) chip. It's not supposed to. However, I know that there were complaints about last year's model that suggested (other than the image retention problems that they have hopefully fixed) that there was jerkinesss/slowness/frame-skipping on the 13-inch model because the processor wasn't really adequate to the task. Supposedly, this has been solved with Iris Graphics and Haswell, but if it hasn't, that could justify the cost of bumping up the processor. Again, all reports so far say the 2.4ghz Haswell is fine--otherwise, bumping up the both the RAM and the processor would put it into the is-it-really-worth-it-for-the-price category (at least for me).
Currently Being ModeratedOct 31, 2013 11:45 AM (in response to dlqhdus86)
There are lots of new reviews of the new late 2013 Retina macbook Pro
Reviews of the new Retina 2013 Macbook Pro
Digital Trends (13") - http://www.digitaltrends.com/laptop-...h-2013-review/
LaptopMag (13") - http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/lap...play-2013.aspx
Engadget (13") - http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/29/m...-13-inch-2013/
The Verge (13") - http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/30/5...ay-review-2013
CNet (13") - http://www.cnet.com/laptops/apple-ma...-35831098.html
The Verge (15") - http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/24/5...w-15-inch-2013
LaptopMag (15") - http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/lap...inch-2013.aspx
TechCrunch (15") - http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/25/lat...ok-pro-review/
CNet (15") - http://www.cnet.com/apple-macbook-pro-with-retina-2013/
PC Mag (15") - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2426359,00.asp
Arstechnica (15") - http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/10...-pro-reviewed/
Slashgear (15") - http://www.slashgear.com/macbook-pro...2013-26303163/
The best pragmatic review of the new Retina Pro is:
Currently Being ModeratedOct 31, 2013 12:08 PM (in response to PlotinusVeritas)
Right, there's also this review in Macworld:
Annoyingly, though, they compare the bottom model (2.4ghz, 128SSD, 4GB RAM) to the "top" standard model (2.6ghz, 256SSD, 8GB RAM). As they point out, some of the speed differences relate to the write speeds of the smaller SSD, so it's hard to know whether the processor alone is responsible for a substantial performance difference, or whether it relates more to SSD size/kind and RAM. I wish they had included the "middle" model on all of their speed tests.
Of course, there is going to be some speed difference, but as you can see with Geekbench markers, the difference between the processors in the 13" pales in comparison to the difference between dual- and quad-core processors (click on the "multi-core" tab for the real speed comparison).