We just spent some time with the other major announcement from today: Apple's 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display. The 3.5 lbs machine is obviously lighter than the 15-inch rMBP but you do give up quad-core and a discrete GPU, which makes this more of an upgrade for 13-inch MBP users than an alternative to the 15-inch rMBP. It may also do a bit to tempt 13-inch MacBook Air users.

The same resolution scaling that we discussed in the 15-inch rMBP review is present on the 13-inch model, although I don't yet know the specifics about what scaled resolutions are available. The default resolution is 1280 x 800 scaled to fit the panel's native 2560 x 1600 resolution. I would guess the two higher resolution modes are upscaled 1440 x 900 and 1680 x 1050 but I'll find out for sure later this afternoon.

Check out the gallery below for more shots of the 13-inch rMBP.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • GraXXoR - Sunday, November 11, 2012 - link

    IBM had the T221 monitor out way back in 2001 (IIRC). It has 3840x2400 (That's 4 x the so called "HD" 1920x1200 resolution for the mathematically challenged) at 22.2 inches diagonal, 16x10 aspect @ 200dpi. Its panel only refreshes at 48Hz, but it's very, very usable for static documents, text and CAD.

    I have three of them. One connected to a Mac Mini, one connected to a Power Mac and one as a second monitor for my iMac 27". They were totally unbelievable until the new(ish) iPad came out earlier this year. Once you get used to Retina resolutions, it's really noticeable when you go back to sub-retina levels... It's laughable seeing a 27" 1920x1080 display after using one.

    The colour rendering and smoothness is top notch and it's literally print resolution.

    So, if they had that level of tech 10 years back, it should be possible today if they put their mind to it. The only problem is that desktop Macs account for less than 4% of Apple's total revenue, so I can't see them being very high on the agenda to be honest.
  • coder543 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    No... no 17" is expected.
  • CharonPDX - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    We've had >200 dpi for over a decade.


    They were just bulky, slow refresh rate, and insanely expensive.
  • dyc4ha - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Perhaps this is just an experiment for the form factor in anticipation of Haswell which should bring improved GPU performance
  • tipoo - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    I suspect that is why Apple was the sole customer asking for eDRAM for the Haswell GPU, so that the integrated GPUs aren't so laggy on Retina resolutions.
  • Filiprino - Thursday, October 25, 2012 - link

    What a costly experiment. Such a high resolution display with an integrated GPU from Intel means asking for problems.
  • kchase731 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Can someone please try to "pitch" me on why someone would choose the rMBP over the 13" air? especially if you add 256gb SSD and 8gb ram and the 2.0ghz COU to the air you are at the same $1699 and the air turbos to 3.2ghz not the 3.1ghz the rMBP 13" does and you have twices as much storage. yes you get more video out, and the retina display but with the way OSX (and windows) scales the retina displays i just dont see the advantage or point of this machine.
  • FaaR - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    You already answered your question; why you'd choose the rMBP is because of the retina display (primarily) and the other differences you mentioned. If that's not interesting to you, by all means don't desire it. :)
  • KoolAidMan1 - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link

    I don't see a reason, not with these price differences. The 15" rMBP and the 13" MBA make lots of sense. Apple's laptops in the middle don't make as much sense.
  • CeriseCogburn - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - link

    Why you're being selfish, think of APPL's stock pricing and it's venerated control of the top market spot !

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now