Apple’s Next Gen MacBook Pro 2012

[Mike Halper]

I checked out the Retina at an Apple store and compared it to the non-Retina MBP with the glossy screen by turning both screens to face the door (it was bright outside). There is a big difference. I don't know about 75% less, but it's very noticeable. I still wish they had a matte option, but I ordered one fully loaded and maxed out anyway. Need the USB3 and 2nd TB port. HDMI out is a nice bonus. Also wish it had 3 USB ports instead of just 2.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I ohly had a few minutes of hands-on the other day with the retina MBP (store display model). There were so many people clamoring to get their hands on it, I couldn't do much. I'll try to check it out again in a few days. Here are my initial thoughts though:


Love the thinner and lighter design! The unibody construction for the screen is a nice upgrade too. The screen is less reflective, definitely not on par with the old matte or anti-glare screen, but I would call it a nice in-between. It was a bit glossy, but not over the top and I think it will do just fine. It's a beautiful screen to look at.

Now, in it's default or preferred mode, it operates as pixel-doubled for everything except for apps/windows that specifically support 1:1 pixel "retina" graphics. So it's like having a 1440x900 display. All your window graphics, buttons, controls, etc.. fill up the amount of space you would have on a 1440x900 15.4" display. They do offer a couple other scaling modes -- you can set it to be the equivalent of 1680 pixels across or 1920x1080 equivalent. The catch with those two modes is they are not even-pixel scaling and you start to loose sharpness on some stuff or you tend to get some odd jaggies or aliasing on any of the non-retina graphics. And you do as well on some of the retina graphics that get scaled -- window controls, etc.. The one thing to keep in mind is that even though they call this a "retina" display, the pixels are not as dense as on an iPhone. This screen is roughly 214ppi. iPhone 4 is 336ppi.

So, as wonderful as the screen is, it has a few caveats. I think I need to spend more time with it and wait for more apps to start using the retina capabilities before forming an opinion. I encourage everyone else to try it for themselves. Regardless of how the scaling works for you, it's still the best screen we've ever had on an Apple notebook. It really shines -- nice color, great contrast, fast response..

Everything else about the system is great. It's such a comfortable weight and it feels solid. Very responsive. IMO, just the integrated SSD performance, the screen and the dual Thunderbolt plus dual USB3.0 make it a worthy of purchasing. I would have bought it just for the ports, even if it still had the old screen. I can connect a REDSTATION Mini USB3.0 model, A Thunderbolt RAID and a Thunderbolt expander with a Rocket and still have Thunderbolt channels and an HDMI port free. As long as you don't need legacy connectivity, Apple has really done well here. They have a Thunderbolt to Firewire adapter coming next month for those times when you might need to connect an some older FW800 stuff.

If I could change any one thing about the system, I would also offer a 24GB or even a 32GB option for the RAM. Even with only 4 cores, there are times when 16GB is going to feel cramped if you're really serious about working in AE or other 64bit apps that can really eat RAM.


So there's my mini-review based on my couple minutes of hands-on. The store was too crowded and noisy for me to even attempt a comment on fan noise or anything like that. But I don't doubt Apple has done a great job with the new fan system.

[Mike Halper]

I was using it in the Retina mode (not scaled/pixel-doubled) and thought the size of everything was fine. Small and smaller than before, but not too small. Reminds me of the days when computer displays went from 800x600 to 1200x900 or 1680x1260 or whatever it was. You just need to get used to the smaller icons and text, but once you do and you go back to the lower resolution screens those seem so unusual. Certainly some things that aren't made for that high resolution you may need to scale, but at least you can easily change that in the preferences as needed.

I totally agree with you on the RAM. Would be nice for more and I'd gladly pay for it.

[Sergio Perez]

A nice article about the performance of the 2.7 ghz one:

http://www.maclife.com/article/featu...retina_display

[C.H.Haskell]

If you can justify the extra expense, go for it. But your tech guru guy is basically correct. For most everything you will not see any difference. Where you will see a difference is in very CPU-intensive tasks such as rendering, especially if all cores are used. The 2.7 is only 100MHz faster for its primary internal clock and in turbo mode as well, but the real advantage comes from the extra 2MB of L3 cache. This is also beneficial. In much of our R3D work we'll often see that we need every bit of CPU horsepower we can get. So, if you can swing it for this upgrade, you may as well.. In a real world sense, it only gains a few percent or so in peak performance over the 2.6GHz option and only under intense load where it can be seen. But if it shaves 9 minutes off a 3 hour render, (about 4%), it may just be worth it to you.

For those buying for R3D workflow use or other intense applications, the 16GB RAM is an absolute must-have and so is the 2.6GHz CPU. The two extras that are not necessary are the 768GB flash storage upgrade and the 2.7GHz CPU upgrade. I would go for the 2.7GHz CPU before opting for the 768GB SSD upgrade. That extra 256GB is negligible. 512GB is plenty of space to hold OS, apps and a few other rings. Adding another 256GB isn't enough to turn it into a real chunk of workspace storage or anything like that.... Now if you primarily work with audio only or smaller work that can easily fit within those confines, then it probably is a good upgrade. The 768GB is also something that should be considered for two other factors -- It can be advantageous if you will run bootcamp and keep a Windows partition on the system -- it will also be somewhat advantageous down the road in terms of resale value. I try not to think about buying for eventual resale though. If managed properly and if you're really using your systems, they should pay for themselves a few times over within their service lifespan.

Jeff, thanks for the feedback. I opted for 700+GB HDD as you mentioned for bootcamp partition. If I have a Rocket TB workflow then does that extra 4% matter? I am already pushing my film budget so every penny counts which is why i am hesitating over this tiny bump.

I also am considering the pegasus R6 since i dont see any G-tech options available.

Cheers

Clay

[C.H.Haskell]

A french apple rep just called me and gave me 5% off the order...no clue why but decided to bump up to 2.7 in that case. haha. I asked him if I would see a performance increase, his response is much life Jeffs stating that it depends on what your doing but he said there is a 15% performance in crease with ADOBE workflow and some how I have a hard time believing that but not complaining. He also mentioned that that shipping was anywhere from 4-8 weeks! Ugh...hope that is not the case, i am thick in production and need my post pipe open
yesterday. His final note being that number could change next week.

Cheers

C

[Kwan Khan]

100MHz faster base speed, 100MHz faster top turbo speeds, 8MB shared L3 cache.
Is the 2.7 worth the $190 over the 2.6? Difficult question.

The 2.7 GHz CPU option adds a < 4% increase in clock speed along with an 8MB on-chip cache vs 6MB.

Benchmarked
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150...ir-benchmarked