Wednesday, February 13th 2013

Apple Updates Processors & Prices of MacBook Pro with Retina Display

Apple is making the MacBook Pro with Retina display faster and more affordable with updated processors and lower starting prices. The 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display now starts at $1,499 for 128 GB of flash, and $1,699 for a new 2.6 GHz processor and 256 GB of flash. The 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display now features a faster 2.4 GHz quad-core processor, and the top-of-the-line 15-inch notebook comes with a new 2.7 GHz quad-core processor and 16 GB of memory. Apple today also announced that the 13-inch MacBook Air with 256 GB of flash has a new lower price of $1,399.


The MacBook Pro with Retina display features the world's highest resolution notebook display. Whether you're reading emails, writing text, editing home movies in HD or retouching professional photography, everything appears vibrant, detailed and sharp, delivering an unrivaled viewing experience. The MacBook Pro with Retina display features flash storage that is up to four times faster than traditional notebook hard drives, and delivers improved reliability, instant-on responsiveness and up to 30 days of standby time.

Pricing & Availability
The updated MacBook Pro with Retina display and MacBook Air models are available today through the Apple Online Store (www.apple.com), Apple's retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers. Pricing details, technical specifications, configure-to-order options and accessories are available online at www.apple.com/macbook-pro and www.apple.com/macbookair.
Add your own comment

215 Comments on Apple Updates Processors & Prices of MacBook Pro with Retina Display

#1
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Apple flaming in 3.....2......1
Posted on Reply
#2
Fourstaff
by: TheMailMan78
Apple flaming in 3.....2......1
Pretty hard to flame Retina Display if you ask me.

As usual, if people feel like flaming there will be prizes, top one being a permanent ban from TPU ;)
Posted on Reply
#3
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: Fourstaff
Pretty hard to flame Retina Display if you ask me.

As usual, if people feel like flaming there will be prizes, top one being a permanent ban from TPU ;)
1,400 bucks for a 13" screen? Question is how can you NOT flame. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#4
aayman_farzand
I want one...but at this point I see no reason to move from my 2011 MBA.
Posted on Reply
#5
Darkleoco
by: TheMailMan78
1,400 bucks for a 13" screen? Question is how can you NOT flame. :laugh:
That $1,400 is more than I paid for my Asus G75 and thats with a 17" 1080p display, i7-3610QM, and a gtx 660m. At some point people are going to realize all they are paying for with Apple is a brand. Not to mention why would I want a retina display on a laptop? Apple needs to quit pushing their over-hyped displays into all of their products especially a 13" laptop :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#6
Fourstaff
by: TheMailMan78
1,400 bucks for a 13" screen? Question is how can you NOT flame. :laugh:
Find me a 13" 2560x1600 laptop cheaper than 15 Benjamins. Oh right you cant :p
Posted on Reply
#7
Dos101
by: Darkleoco
That $1,400 is more than I paid for my Asus G75 and thats with a 17" 1080p display, i7-3610QM, and a gtx 660m. At some point people are going to realize all they are paying for with Apple is a brand. Not to mention why would I want a retina display on a laptop? Apple needs to quit pushing their over-hyped displays into all of their products especially a 13" laptop :shadedshu
If my G73 had the same build quality and and unibody aluminum body as the MBP I'd pay extra for that.

Lots of people who do things with photography and video would benefit from the Retina display, that's why you'd want it on a laptop.
Posted on Reply
#8
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: Fourstaff
Find me a 13" 2560x1600 laptop cheaper than 15 Benjamins. Oh right you cant :p
Why do you need 2560x1600 on a 13" display? Sounds to me like Apple got a good deal on some displays and are making a killing on people that apparently don't know what they are doing or looking at? ALSO its not like the GPU in that thing can even PUSH anything at 2560x1600. Would be good to watch blu-rays on it.......oh wait THERE IS NO OPTICAL DRIVE.

by: Dos101
If my G73 had the same build quality and and unibody aluminum body as the MBP I'd pay extra for that.

Lots of people who do things with photography and video would benefit from the Retina display, that's why you'd want it on a laptop.
13" for image manipulation and or video editing? :laugh: :roll:
Posted on Reply
#10
Darkleoco
by: TheMailMan78
13" for image manipulation and or video editing? :laugh: :roll:
This. It would hardly be practical to try and do image manipulation or video editing on a 17" laptop let alone one of their 13" toys. It's not about cramming as many pixels into your display as possible it comes down to is it practical and the real answer in this instance is no.
Posted on Reply
#11
Fourstaff
by: TheMailMan78
Why do you need 2560x1600 on a 13" display? Sounds to me like Apple got a good deal on some displays and are making a killing on people that apparently don't know what they are doing or looking at? ALSO its not like the GPU in that thing can even PUSH anything at 2560x1600. Would be good to watch blu-rays on it.......oh wait THERE IS NO OPTICAL DRIVE.
I certainly dont need 2560x1600 on a 13" display, but I am sure there are people out there who will need them. This product caters to those people, not people like me who is fine with 1366x768 on 15". Blu-ray? Well given that Blu-ray is only capable of doing 1080p those people who prefer to watch movies on their laptop screens will be better served by buying other native 1080p laptops which come with a blu-ray drive. Simple.

Yes, 1fps with 2560x1600 screen is pretty useless to most, but people looking to play games should look elsewhere instead of considering MBP Retina. Well if they buy MBP Retina and attempt to game on it bless their courage (or stupidity).
Posted on Reply
#12
brandonwh64
Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!
by: Fourstaff
I certainly dont need 2560x1600 on a 13" display, but I am sure there are people out there who will need them. This product caters to those people, not people like me who is fine with 1366x768 on 15". Blu-ray? Well given that Blu-ray is only capable of doing 1080p those people who prefer to watch movies on their laptop screens will be better served by buying other native 1080p laptops which come with a blu-ray drive. Simple.

Yes, 1fps with 2560x1600 screen is pretty useless to most, but people looking to play games should look elsewhere instead of considering MBP Retina. Well if they buy MBP Retina and attempt to game on it bless their courage (or stupidity).
Also 13 inch screen at that resolution is cause for a head ache if you do not have the DPI truned up.

Also WHO would cater from having 2560x1600 on a 13" display? I cannot think of a single reason?
Posted on Reply
#13
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
my god you people are morons. honestly, go back to your troll caves.

if you don't like the retina display then don't buy it. the world doesn't revolve around your wants and needs.
Posted on Reply
#14
brandonwh64
Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!
by: Easy Rhino
my god you people are morons. honestly, go back to your troll caves.
Now this is flaming! I asked a simple question if you think we are morons then please give us a reason for what we asked.

by: Easy Rhino
if you don't like the retina display then don't buy it. the world doesn't revolve around your wants and needs.
Who said we hated the retina display?
Posted on Reply
#15
lZKoce
by: TheMailMan78
Why do you need 2560x1600 on a 13" display?
I don't know now- so many opinions. Is this a good example then?: Middle/high ranked manager on the run....try opening a couple of Excell spreadsheets to manage your data when making an analysis? - now do it on 1366x768- feel the difference? Your are an university professor on the run, writing his PhD, pls multitask on 1366x768 and write me back. I get your point that for video editting you need moar power and stuff, but sometimes, someone may be can benefit from a 13 inch hi-res display.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: Fourstaff
I certainly dont need 2560x1600 on a 13" display, but I am sure there are people out there who will need them. This product caters to those people, not people like me who is fine with 1366x768 on 15". Blu-ray? Well given that Blu-ray is only capable of doing 1080p those people who prefer to watch movies on their laptop screens will be better served by buying other native 1080p laptops which come with a blu-ray drive. Simple.

Yes, 1fps with 2560x1600 screen is pretty useless to most, but people looking to play games should look elsewhere instead of considering MBP Retina. Well if they buy MBP Retina and attempt to game on it bless their courage (or stupidity).
My point is man I work in the field where 2560x1600 is NICE to have but, at 13" its USELESS. This isn't me hating on Apple. Been using Apple since before the clone days. Older Macs were tanks and well thought out. Graphite's, Quicksilvers, Mirror Doors. Bad ASS towers. These prices for what you get now are NOT worth the money. The build quality is no where what they were 10 years ago AND now 1,400 bucks for a 13" screen? DAFUQ! Anyway that's all Im gonna say on this because a lot of people will chime in just because its Apple and cool to hate. I don't "hate" on them. I'm just sad Apple isn't what it used to be and now that Jobs is gone it will never go back.

by: lZKoce
You are kidding right? I give you a scenario or two. Middle/high ranked manager on the run....try opening a couple of Excell spreadsheets to manage your data when making an analysis? - now do it on 1366x768- feel the difference? Your are an university professor on the run, writing his PhD, pls multitask on 1366x768 and write me back. I get your point that for video editting you need moar power and stuff, but sometimes, someone can benefit from a 13 inch hi-res display.
1,400 dollars to do Excel sheets. This is why no one can afford college anymore and most professors are retards.
Posted on Reply
#17
brandonwh64
Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!
by: lZKoce
You are kidding right? I give you a scenario or two. Middle/high ranked manager on the run....try opening a couple of Excell spreadsheets to manage your data when making an analysis? - now do it on 1366x768- feel the difference? Your are an university professor on the run, writing his PhD, pls multitask on 1366x768 and write me back. I get your point that for video editting you need moar power and stuff, but sometimes, someone can benefit from a 13 inch hi-res display.
The resolution is not the issue, its the 13 inches its spread across is were we are questioning the need for it.
Posted on Reply
#18
lZKoce
by: brandonwh64
The resolution is not the issue, its the 13 inches its spread across is were we are questioning the need for it.
Aaah ok, I dunno that much. I am not rich enough to afford Apple anyway. :)
Posted on Reply
#19
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
by: brandonwh64
Now this is flaming! I asked a simple question if you think we are morons then please give us a reason for what we asked.
lol seriously? the usual suspects are in this thread trashing an apple product.
Who said we hated the retina display?
i am not accusing anyone of hating it. i am saying that if you hate it then don't buy it. maybe move on to a different thread. go help somebody with a technical problem, etc.
Posted on Reply
#20
Fourstaff
by: brandonwh64
Also 13 inch screen at that resolution is cause for a head ache if you do not have the DPI truned up.

Also WHO would cater from having 2560x1600 on a 13" display? I cannot think of a single reason?
Just increase font size, simple. Mac is not Windows where if you change the font size it screws everything up.

I don't know who needs 2560x1600, but laws of economics states that if there is a product at a price there will be a number (including 0) of people who will need/want it. The best I can do is those graphic designers who needs a mobile platform (obviously TMM is not included), or someone who cannot stand shitty resolutions (I have had "arguments" with people who apparently can't stand 1366x768 and would prefer 1920x1080, I believe same reasons apply for people going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1600).

Finally, laptops need to stop embarrassing themselves when compared to smartphones, SGSIII has 1280x720 4.8". Yes you don't hold your laptop as close to your face as your phone, but lets not go there.
Posted on Reply
#21
brandonwh64
Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!
by: lZKoce
Aaah ok, I dunno that much. I am not rich enough to afford Apple anyway. :)
This is the only reason I ask, I am not flaming or saying down with apple but I am questioning their need for such a large resolution on a tiny screen size. I could imagine they could turn the DPI up but then it would not be worth the added resolution size get my argument?

by: Fourstaff
Just increase font size, simple. Mac is not Windows where if you change the font size it screws everything up.

I don't know who needs 2560x1600, but laws of economics states that if there is a product at a price there will be a number (including 0) of people who will need/want it. The best I can do is those graphic designers who needs a mobile platform (obviously TMM is not included), or someone who cannot stand shitty resolutions (I have had "arguments" with people who apparently can't stand 1366x768 and would prefer 1920x1080, I believe same reasons apply for people going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1600).

Finally, laptops need to stop embarrassing themselves when compared to smartphones, SGSIII has 1280x720 4.8". Yes you don't hold your laptop as close to your face as your phone, but lets not go there.
Understandable but still wouldnt that be a waste of resolution on that tiny 13 inch screen if you still have to increase font size to see it which takes up more and more of the screen?
Posted on Reply
#22
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
by: Fourstaff
Just increase font size, simple. Mac is not Windows where if you change the font size it screws everything up.

I don't know who needs 2560x1600, but laws of economics states that if there is a product at a price there will be a number (including 0) of people who will need/want it. The best I can do is those graphic designers who needs a mobile platform (obviously TMM is not included), or someone who cannot stand shitty resolutions (I have had "arguments" with people who apparently can't stand 1366x768 and would prefer 1920x1080, I believe same reasons apply for people going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1600).

Finally, laptops need to stop embarrassing themselves when compared to smartphones, SGSIII has 1280x720 4.8". Yes you don't hold your laptop as close to your face as your phone, but lets not go there.
funny how people argue "need" on tpu. you don't need water cooled 4.5ghz processors and 2x titan gpus but you have them. hypocrits...

(not you fourstaff, just in general)
Posted on Reply
#23
Prima.Vera
by: TheMailMan78
Apple flaming in 3.....2......1
Second one:

Any games except Crazy Birds can you play at that resolution without having a slideshow?? ;)

by: brandonwh64
Also 13 inch screen at that resolution is cause for a head ache if you do not have the DPI truned up.

Also WHO would cater from having 2560x1600 on a 13" display? I cannot think of a single reason?
Agree with you, buy I think Apple has a different DPI scaling system than the crappiest ever used by M$. I might be wrong...
Posted on Reply
#24
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: Easy Rhino
funny how people argue "need" on tpu. you don't need water cooled 4.5ghz processors and 2x titan gpus but you have them. hypocrits...

(not you fourstaff, just in general)
Yeah? Look at my rig. You see any OC or anything? Everything in it was planed out for budget and purpose. Why can't you just admit 2560x1600 at 13" is USELESS FOR ANYTHING.
Posted on Reply
#25
brandonwh64
Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!
by: Easy Rhino
funny how people argue "need" on tpu. you don't need water cooled 4.5ghz processors and 2x titan gpus but you have them. hypocrits...

(not you fourstaff, just in general)
Honestly I do not see a need for that either. 4.5ghz nowadays is more for fun cause a stock 3770K will do everything you need it to do at stock clocks alone. The need for two titans... yea thats pretty ridiculous.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment