The 2012 Non-Retina MacBook Pro Is Still the Best Laptop Apple Sells
motherboard.vice.com
The 2012 Non-Retina MacBook Pro Is Still the Best Laptop Apple Sells
1–10 of 13 posts
Re: The 2012 Non-Retina MacBook Pro Is Still the Best Laptop Apple Sells
#2Re: The 2012 Non-Retina MacBook Pro Is Still the Best Laptop Apple Sells
#3Re: The 2012 Non-Retina MacBook Pro Is Still the Best Laptop Apple Sells
#4Some people cannot perceive the difference. What I think is interesting is that others think they can't see any difference, but in fact they can, if you actually test them (we did this at work a couple years ago). But they don't care at all.
And then others (like me) cannot stand to use a low-res screen. It works but it's like driving a car with a filthy windshield covered in grime and birdshit.
Re: The 2012 Non-Retina MacBook Pro Is Still the Best Laptop Apple Sells
#5I think high-res ("retina") screens are an interesting line. Some people cannot perceive the difference. What I think is interesting is that others think they can't see any difference, but in fact they can, if you actually test them (we did this at work a couple years ago). But they don't care at all. And then others (like me) cannot stand to use a low-res screen. It works but it's like driving a car with a filthy wi…
Re: The 2012 Non-Retina MacBook Pro Is Still the Best Laptop Apple Sells
#6> An extra $150 gets you a 2.9 GHz dual core Intel i7 processor, which puts it on par with many of Apple’s newer (and more expensive) laptops.
The integrated GPU has improved dramatically, power consumption has improved, performance has improved in the latest generation i7s. A little disingenuous to say performance is on par.
The i7 they're referring to:
http://ark.intel.com/products/64893/Intel-Core-i7-3520M-Proc...
This is the expected CPU in this year's rumored MBP (point remains for the current generation MBs):
http://ark.intel.com/products/91167/Intel-Core-i7-6567U-Proc...
Re: The 2012 Non-Retina MacBook Pro Is Still the Best Laptop Apple Sells
#7You can't upgrade the CPU. > An extra $150 gets you a 2.9 GHz dual core Intel i7 processor, which puts it on par with many of Apple’s newer (and more expensive) laptops. The integrated GPU has improved dramatically, power consumption has improved, performance has improved in the latest generation i7s. A little disingenuous to say performance is on par. The i7 they're referring to: http://ark.intel.com/products/64893/…
The integrated GPU has improved dramatically, power consumption has improved, performance has improved in the latest generation i7s.
None of that matters. My computer is very rarely running flat out, and I'd venture the same is true 99% of the time for 99% of the people who own them.
There's no need for a faster GPU for most people. There's no need for improved performance if the computer is idle most of the time. E.g. right now my computer is drawing 8.73 Watts. Much of that is going to the display. That's pretty darn good, overall.
A little disingenuous to say performance is on par.
It's very much on par, given the way 99% of people use their laptops.
I don't know why you linked to those two ARK documents. Sure the newer chip has slightly better specs. But is the difference, in real life, between Max Memory Bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s vs 34.1 GB/s anything to be concerned about? Not for most people.
Same with the GPU. It doesn't matter that the old one is HD Graphics 4000 and the new one is Iris™ Graphics 550. Screen redraws are almost instantaneous with either. Maybe if I played the latest games I might care, but then I'd probably be using Windows for that anyway.
Re: The 2012 Non-Retina MacBook Pro Is Still the Best Laptop Apple Sells
#8I think high-res ("retina") screens are an interesting line. Some people cannot perceive the difference. What I think is interesting is that others think they can't see any difference, but in fact they can, if you actually test them (we did this at work a couple years ago). But they don't care at all. And then others (like me) cannot stand to use a low-res screen. It works but it's like driving a car with a filthy wi…
just curious, do you use the retina screen in the default display scaling or do you change it to have more real estate? i can't fathom the thought that in the default settings, the macbook air have larger real estate than the rmbp.
I use it at the max
That doesn't look quite as good, but it is still incomparably better than a low-res screen.
But I mostly use a 27" 5K desktop monitor (a Dell UP2715K, which I believe uses the same panel as the high-res 27" iMac). This is fucking the best. I used to have a pair of 24" 4K monitors, which seemed good at the time, but this is massively better.
It looks a lot better than the "retina" 15" MBP, so I think that goes to show that we still need even more pixel density before the diminishing returns really start kicking in...
At the same time, though, I am 41, and my eyesight has noticeably deteriorated (though not so much that they will give me glasses). It might be that the youth of today really need an 8K or higher resolution at 27".
But even my old-ass eyes can tell you that a 4K 27" monitor sucks. 4K is only good up to about 21" and then you start to again see the pixels. 5K really is a major step up, even though the cable is forked at the ends so it can have 2 mini-DP connectors...
Re: The 2012 Non-Retina MacBook Pro Is Still the Best Laptop Apple Sells
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
just curious, do you use the retina screen in the default display scaling or do you change it to have more real estate? i can't fathom the thought that in the default settings, the macbook air have larger real estate than the rmbp.
No, on the MBP (15" in my case; I would use a 17" if they still made that) I have to use scaling. Otherwise, as you imply, it's basically like having a super-sharp 12" screen (or something). I use it at the max That doesn't look quite as good, but it is still incomparably better than a low-res screen. But I mostly use a 27" 5K desktop monitor (a Dell UP2715K, which I believe uses the same panel as the high-res 27" iM…
wow 5k have significant differences from 4k? maybe i should try that. but again, the forked dp cables means current (mobile at least) graphical power is still sorely lacking. and i'm still waiting for the 5k to be more available and being more affordable.
Re: The 2012 Non-Retina MacBook Pro Is Still the Best Laptop Apple Sells
#10You can't upgrade the CPU. > An extra $150 gets you a 2.9 GHz dual core Intel i7 processor, which puts it on par with many of Apple’s newer (and more expensive) laptops. The integrated GPU has improved dramatically, power consumption has improved, performance has improved in the latest generation i7s. A little disingenuous to say performance is on par. The i7 they're referring to: http://ark.intel.com/products/64893/…
I have this 2012 Macbook Pro, with the i7. It's been my everyday machine for the last 4 years. The integrated GPU has improved dramatically, power consumption has improved, performance has improved in the latest generation i7s. None of that matters. My computer is very rarely running flat out, and I'd venture the same is true 99% of the time for 99% of the people who own them. There's no need for a faster GPU for mos…
> It's very much on par, given the way 99% of people use their laptops.
> But is the difference, in real life, between Max Memory Bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s vs 34.1 GB/s anything to be concerned about? Not for most people.
Emphasis mine. Can you cite a source for the above?
I linked the CPU specs because it shows the difference between what you're buying. The author stated "i7" like all i7s are the same. They're not.
The GPU is important outside of games because the display on new Macbook Pros are retina displays. What the advances in the integrated GPUs and lower power consumption leads to is the latest generation MBPrs can power a screen much higher resolution than the 2012 MBP, but still have the same performance profile (battery life, responsiveness).
To use your argument: The current generation MBPrs come with good enough specs for storage and RAM for 99% of users. No one needs to upgrade pass 16GB of RAM since it's good enough for most people or a 512GB SSD, especially when storage is being pushed to the cloud. You get a better display, better battery life, in a smaller form factor that weights less. For most people the trade off between that and the ability to open up your laptop to stick in new hardware is worthwhile.