
The 2012 Non-Retina MacBook Pro Is Still the Best Laptop Apple Sells - franky303
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-2012-non-retina-macbook-pro-is-still-the-best-laptop-apple-sells
======
veidr
I 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 windshield covered in grime and
birdshit.

~~~
raihansaputra
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.

~~~
veidr
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" 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...

~~~
raihansaputra
yep. shame about them axing the 17 inch one.

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.

~~~
veidr
Yeah, I thought I had the sweet setup with my old 4K monitors. I tried a 27"
4K but 4K just isn't enough, so I returned it for a pair of 24" 4K monitors.

Intuitively, I expected 5K at 27" to be roughly the same as 4K at 24". But,
nope. It's _dramatically_ better than 4K at 24". I had them side by side in a
3-monitor setup for a time, but within about 30 seconds I though, _ugh, I can
't even stand to LOOK at these barbaric 4Ks ever again!_ and I unloaded them
on craigslist.

But don't take my word for it; every Apple store has a 5K 27" iMac on display.

It doesn't actually look crisper to my eye than a "retina" MacBook Pro -- the
huge difference, though, is that the 17" 5K panel is awesome at its native
resolution. On the MBP you definitely need to use the "scaling" feature, which
while much better than the sad old low-res generations of displays,
nevertheless does add some fuzziness.

5K at 27" is the best thing readily available today, and I am not sure it
needs to get much better than this (if at all) for the resolution of my
eyeballs.

Spending $1500 for a computer monitor does kind of suck though, so yeah
there's that, still... :-/

~~~
raihansaputra
Since the 5k iMacs went in my local stores, I always fiddle with them and be
amazed at the oh-so-sharp and huge real estate to play with. I just replaced
my ruined mba to a 13" rmbp and the difference is so worth it, but still, as
you said, i need to use the scaling feature. I think there is a way to use the
retina display on it's native res, but the text will be so unbearably small.

Yeah. The cost is still prohibitively expensive to have a desktop-sized
display. I mean, FHD took years to be the standard (although i prefer 16:10).
We'll have 8k computer displays released before 5k becomes the standard.

------
ctvo
You 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/Intel-
Core-i7-3520M-Proc...](http://ark.intel.com/products/64893/Intel-
Core-i7-3520M-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz)

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...](http://ark.intel.com/products/91167/Intel-
Core-i7-6567U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz)

~~~
PhantomGremlin
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 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.

~~~
ctvo
> 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_.

> 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.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
_Emphasis mine. Can you cite a source for the above?_

When I say something like "I'd venture ..." then my "source" is simply my
opinion. Nothing more rigorous than that.

 _You get a better display, better battery life, in a smaller form factor that
weights less_

Yes, together that list of items can make for a compelling upgrade. But (IMO!)
CPU and GPU performance improvements are less important than the other stuff
you mention.

------
derptacious
Usually I don't care about these predictive tech articles: "oh what would this
company do next?!" But this somehow seems important because as consumers as
individuals and as companies we want to promote the right technology for our
future. Buying into another generation of one line of technology can really
skew where you'll end up if you wouldn't have known you would be even further
off mark in the following generation...

------
auggierose
Whaaaaat? The only thing I miss about the 2012 one is my 17-inch screen. Bring
back my 17-inch Macbook Pro and I am happy.

