All quiet on the western front. Apple introduced its reworked 15-inch MacBook Pro Retina last autumn. Although the entry-level price dropped a bit, we still expect a maximum amount of quality and performance for more than 2,000 Euros.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-Pro-Retina-15-Late-2013-Notebook-Review.120330.0.html
Looking at your review of the XPS15 specifically regarding Battery Runtime, I find your statement in this review:
"The Dell XPS can keep up with this performance and even beats the MacBook in two of three tests."
To be confusing. According to your review of the Dell:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Dell-XPS-15-9530-Late-2013-Notebook.107485.0.html
- Idle (without WLAN, min brightness):
14h 10min (rMBP: 14h 13min)
- WiFi Surfing
8h 50min (rMBP: 9h 11min)
- Load (maximum brightness)
2h 10min (rMBP: 3h 01min)
If I'm reading the two test results correctly, the 15" rMBP beats the XPS15 in all the battery test.
I also think it would be probably be more interesting had you tested and reviewed the base (Iris Pro only) version. That's when the actual usage of Crystalwell makes more sense. Yes, there's performance penalties but the gain in battery runtime makes it an interesting choice.
I don't understand why no other PC manufacturer will make a laptop with a decent 16:10 screen with high colour accuracy like this. I HATE 16:9 and it frustrates me that only Apple does, and I do not like Apple as a company and do not want to give them my money. >:(
Is Apple rigging the market and preventing LG/Samsung/Japan Display from selling their 16:10 "retina" panels to anyone else?
Why is the gaming performance so high???? The 750M is last generation!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with Paul4352. 16:9 is terrible for work and web browsing, which is what most people use a laptop for.
We need more 16:10's.
False advertising once again. This mac cannot possibly come close to coverung sRGB color space if it covers only 60% of adobe RGB, sRGB is 72% of NTSC which is larger than adobe RGB therefore mac retina display cannot cover more than 80% of sRGB no matter how you flip this. YOu need to change your testing methods, they are completely off.
Quote from: nonameguy on November 25, 2014, 10:01:38
False advertising once again. This mac cannot possibly come close to coverung sRGB color space if it covers only 60% of adobe RGB, sRGB is 72% of NTSC which is larger than adobe RGB therefore mac retina display cannot cover more than 80% of sRGB no matter how you flip this. YOu need to change your testing methods, they are completely off.
...you don't understand how color spaces work, do you.
Thanks for this review.
Just want to make a suggestion. I would really like to see a stress test result of only the CPU being loaded (while GPU is idle). Mainly interested in what CPU clock and core temperature will it finally stabilizes at.
I believe there are people like me whose application mostly requires only the CPU.