Earlier this month Intel introduced new models in their lineup of Haswell mobile CPUs. With the Haswell manufacturing process having matured since its initial launch, Intel was able to bump clock speeds by 200MHz on a handful of their laptop CPUs and those chips have found their way into a refreshed lineup of Macbook Pro laptops from Apple. This update brings CPU speed boosts, and more RAM in the base 13" and 15" models. The new CPU and memory specifications for Apple's new lineup are shown below.

MacBook Pro with Retina Display Lineup
Model 13-inch (base and mid-tier) 13-inch (flagship) 15-inch (base) 15-inch (flagship)
Old CPU 2.4GHz Core i5-4258U 2.6GHz Core i5-4288U 2.0GHz Core i7-4750HQ 2.3GHz Core i7-4850HQ
New CPU 2.6GHz Core i5-4278U 2.8GHz Core i5-4308U 2.2GHz Core i7-4770HQ 2.5GHz Core i7-4870HQ
New Memory 8GB DDR3L 8GB DDR3L 16GB DDR3L 16GB DDR3L

The first thing to make note of is that the CPU speed has been increased by 200MHz across the board. The highest end CTO (configure-to-order) 15" model which is not shown now comes with Intel's Core i7-4980HQ with a base clock of 2.8GHz and max turbo clock of 4.0GHz. The other important thing to note is that the amount of RAM in the entry-level models has been doubled from 4GB to 8GB on the 13", and from 8GB to 16GB on the 15". This is a change that is nice to see brought to the 13" Macbook Pro with Retina display. Originally the entire 13" line had 8GB of RAM and the 4GB model was introduced to reach a lower price point during Apple's Haswell refresh. Now the entry level model once again has 8GB of RAM like the higher end versions.

The new models are available to purchase now on Apple's website for the same prices as the previous generation and are all available to ship within 24 hours.

Source: Apple Online Store

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • QuantumPion - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link

    I wish they would make a model with a graphics card like a GT 860M. I always wondered why apple's desktops and laptops were always to anemic in the graphics department, even though they have a "best regardless of price" mindset in most other areas of their designs.
  • Klug4Pres - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link

    More like "gimped regardless of price".

    Apple has often produced sleek devices, but actual features are generally quite limited and expensive, while expandability and platform longevity have always been weak points.
  • hlovatt - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link

    Compared to PC vendors they seem good value, e.g. Dell New XPS 13 for same RAM same SSD but slower processor, 1080 screen, and lesser construction costs the same as the entry level MBP 13. So why are you "gimped" by Apple.

    PS Remember you are on a site were people know what they are talking about, you are not on DailyTech.
  • shouwow - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    +1 and let's not forget superior build quality.
  • Klug4Pres - Friday, August 1, 2014 - link

    What's interesting to me is that the statement I responded to, which asserted that Apple had a "best regardless of price" mindset, is actually equally absurd as my own comment.

    Yet, apparently to counter someone's absurd positive statement with a negative statement is more unacceptable.
  • repoman27 - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link

    Well, you can get the 15-inch model with a GT 750M. The GT 860M draws ~50% more power, which is probably a deal-breaker in such a compact form-factor. Apple has a highest TDP given the smallest chassis mindset.

    @Klug4Pres When you leave comments like that, it feels like you're either parroting some frequently reiterated sentiments or just trolling. Perhaps you could explain how platform longevity compares between products from various vendors, the underlying causes, and how this might affect the end user?
  • Klug4Pres - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    I know it wasn't a very constructive statement, but I do feel quite strongly it is the case with Apple products in general. I agree, people on this site are well-informed, and therefore they will already have a lot of experience and information that will allow them to judge the matter, irrespective of one-liners from angry internet types such as myself.

    Do we have the space for a full analysis of this here? No.

    For what it's worth, I would say that the Macbook Pro product line is actually among the better conceived and better value products in Apple's entire history. However, in my opinion there is an unhealthy focus on "thinness" at the expense of functionality and user-upgradeability, e.g. there is no ethernet port, storage options are very limited, and it is hard to replace internal components. Furthermore, the first models suffered from performance issues, as the graphics hardware was not well-matched to the demands of the retina display. Recent models do not have an option for a matte screen.

    The 13-inch models have displays that suffer from color accuracy and image retention issues, which is unfortunate considering the strong market for Apple among professional photographers and other image workers. They are also underpowered, having no quad core option.

    Anyway, you know my opinion. In general, I favour open hardware and software standards, and user-serviceability, ahead of industrial design. Apple is a company that does not favour these things.
  • MykeM - Saturday, August 2, 2014 - link

    Check the reviews on Notebookcheck on both the 2012 and 2013 13" rMBP. Like AT, the guys at Notebookcheck do thorough reviews including measuring the display capability.

    Both the mid 2012 and late 2013 Retina models render the full sRGB gamut. The 2013 also has one of the most accurate colour reproduction out of the box: pre-calibrated Colourchecker DeltaE value of 1.87. Compare that to 8 on the QHD+ XPS15.

    Image retention issue is more persistent in the larger 15" rMBP although that seems less so with the late 2013 model. The 13" rMBP , however, has had less of issue with image retention even in the 1st generation.

    Here's Notebookcheck Top 25 Notebook display and both rMBP are rated not only among the best displays reviewed but the most accurate colour right out of the box:

  • Andrew Lin - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link

    Most of the information i've seen says that the GT 860m power consumption is on par with the GT 750m, if we're talking about the maxwell version (which i think everyone is). Maxwell 860m definitely does not draw 65+ watts, which is what it would be at if it indeed pulled down 50% more power as you claim. You also have to remember that Apple customizes the clockspeeds and thermal configurations on their machines, and the new maxwell architecture is much more efficient than the old kepler.
    But even still, they could have at least put in an 850m, which has a lower TDP and a good amount higher performance than the existing 750m, which is just the same as the 650m.
  • Kevin G - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link

    Pretty decent refresh. There are a few configurations where I wouldn't be tempted to custom configure. It has been awhile since Apple had a default config that I didn't want to change in some way.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now