News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über Notebook relevante Dinge disuktieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Warning - while you were reading a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Taiwan
 - November 03, 2014, 06:53:09
Specifications ERROR:
:: Display
13.3 inch 16:10, 2560x1440 error (2560x1600 ok)
Posted by Msata
 - September 05, 2014, 18:30:00
All these people here and elsewhere who insist that the word "pro" should only be applied to the dedicated GPU, quad-core 15" are missing the point. The 13" rMBP tests as fast as the 2012 15" MBP with dedicated GPU - every couple years new computers with lower specs blow away the previous "best." Only in the case of previous versions of the MBP being sold with only 4GB of RAM did I agree that the term "pro" was a misnomer (8GB/256GB are minimums for sure).

I have recently bought a refurbished 13" rMBP with dual-core i7, 16 GB RAM and 500 GB SSD - this machine is totally pro!
Posted by nuna
 - August 24, 2014, 13:06:47
 As the first Mac with an ultra high resolution IPS panel, the value of the 15-inch rMBP was obvious, but these days the market demands extreme portability. http://bestapplecases.com/best-macbook-pro-13-inch-cases/
Posted by jedics
 - May 25, 2014, 10:37:33
I kind of wonder if this should be compared to ultrabooks being called a 'pro' by apple and the fact they have the air. It should have a dedicated graphics card and a quad core to be called a "PRO" imo.
Posted by steepan
 - April 03, 2014, 19:31:33
Quote from: Dmitry Odin on February 09, 2014, 18:31:27
Hi, NBC!

How did you manage to get such performance in 3DMark06? I'm getting just about 5-6k points and it seem to be issue of drivers under windows or kind of, as soon as gaming performance is better under OS X than in windows with the same game. I checked FPS in StarCraft 2 under both OSs and it is about 35-40 under OSX and stable and is about 20-25 under windows and drops to 5-10 periodically. Altering options in Intel graphics control panel helped a bit but with all setgings set to better performance still can not get 7k of 3DMark06 points in windows. Please advise.

Thank you in advance!
Posted by Mikkjal
 - April 02, 2014, 19:51:08
I am completely amazed by the detail and thoroughness of this site's reviews. Thank you so much for an outstanding depth of analysis. You've just answered 90% of all of my questions in one fell swoop. Thanks!

-Mikey
Posted by Brian
 - March 20, 2014, 13:25:35
Hi Klaus
Great article, loads of information. I love the MacBook Pro but personally I would opt for the 15 inch Pro followed by the 13 inch Air rather than the 13 inch Pro. I'm glad to see you included a section of reparability, it's true the MacBook Pro is a nightmare to repair it's such a shame Apple are preventing people from doing repairs or even upgrades. I write occasionally for iPad Repair and obviously it's the same issue with the iPads but it's getting to the point were not much can really be done to solve a problem. When my any Apple product now you have to plan what you will be doing in 2 year as if your workload increases you can't upgrade.

Best wishes
Brian
Posted by Dmitry Odin
 - February 09, 2014, 18:31:27
Hi, NBC!

How did you manage to get such performance in 3DMark06? I'm getting just about 5-6k points and it seem to be issue of drivers under windows or kind of, as soon as gaming performance is better under OS X than in windows with the same game. I checked FPS in StarCraft 2 under both OSs and it is about 35-40 under OSX and stable and is about 20-25 under windows and drops to 5-10 periodically. Altering options in Intel graphics control panel helped a bit but with all setgings set to better performance still can not get 7k of 3DMark06 points in windows. Please advise.

Thank you in advance!
Posted by Boris_Akunin
 - January 03, 2014, 04:55:59
Thank you for a thorough review (as always)!

BUT:
"Battery runtimes are certainly a highlight of the MacBook Pro Retina 13. (...) The Retina is only beaten by the 11-inch and 13-inch MacBook Air and far ahead of the next notebooks in line"

You have also reviewed the obvious competitors (Thinkpad X240 & T440s, thanks for those reviews, too!) and this statement is only true for the battery options you tested. When you test notebooks with replaceable batteries, you often use one of the smaller battery options for your runtime tests. The Macbooks' runtimes are quite impressive but if the "next notebooks in line" get a fair chance (the largest battery option), they are much less unique than your reviews make it appear...

You tested the Thinkpads (X240 & T440s) with the smallest battery option (48Wh vs 72Wh in the  MBP):

MB Pro Retina 13" (72Wh, not replaceable)
Idle: 25h 35min
WiFi Surfing: 9h 29min

Thinkpad T440s (24+24Wh, one battery replaceable)
Idle: 11h 08min
WiFi Surfing: 5h 57min

Thinkpad x240 (24+24Wh, one battery replaceable)
Idle: 13h 41min
WiFi Surfing: 7h 56min


If we extrapolate those numbers to the Thinkpads' largest battery option (96Wh), things look rather different:

Thinkpad T440s (24+72Wh, one battery replaceable)
Idle: 22h 16min
WiFi Surfing: 11h 54min

Thinkpad x240 (24+72Wh, one battery replaceable)
Idle: 27h 22min
WiFi Surfing: 15h 52min


These numbers are only approximations but it's quite clear that the Thinkpads would handily beat the MBP in a fair comparison. They'd also beat the MacBook Air 13" and the X240 could even beat the Macbook Air 11". And the Thinkpads' batteries are replaceable on the fly!

The MacBooks are among the best notebooks out there but they don't deserve the hype.
If you could re-test the X240 and T440s with better specs (1080p IPS-screens, 24+72Wh batteries), that would be great!

Posted by neurotopia
 - December 29, 2013, 20:19:59
yeah, in terms of bias, i'm a little underwhelmed.  the ativ book 9 plus doesn't get as hot as the apple in this review -- yet, in the temperature category, it is rated LOWER.  this detracts from the credibility of reviews and is a practice that notebookcheck should seriously re-evaluate. 
Posted by Jonas Hand
 - December 02, 2013, 13:05:44
Be aware of the WiFi-problems with this model though! I have spent way to much time on this...had it replaced 3 times. Still doesn't work... One of many threads:
https://discussions.apple.com/message/23700197#23700197
Posted by PabloC
 - November 25, 2013, 12:37:28
How are the final scores created here?
At 91% and at 1.56kg this thing is heavy yet is rated at 91% final average score.

Seems awfully strange and perhaps a tad apple biased. The Samsung ativ book 9 plus has 3200x1800 resolution and obviously much higher resolution yet only gets 87% and yet this apple screen is much lower resolution and also gets 87%.
Very weird scoring going on here.
Posted by AlexanderDahlAwesome
 - November 19, 2013, 23:44:29
Are you gonna test and review The top spec 15" rMBP as well? Id love to See that, since your reviews are always The most thorough ones...
Posted by Juan Jose Vila
 - November 16, 2013, 09:16:05
Your test in the MB air 11 With i7 showed better battery life than i5 so what do you think will happen here with  the MB pro?
Posted by Redaktion
 - November 05, 2013, 06:15:04
Thank you Haswell. Intel's latest processor generation is finally available in Apple's Retina MacBooks and results in significantly improved battery runtimes. Our in-depth review determines the performance of the new components.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Apple-MacBook-Pro-Retina-13-Late-2013-Notebook.105035.0.html