“Exactly one month ago, we noted the presence of a ‘MacBookPro10,2’ entry in the Geekbench results database, suggesting that a 13-inch version of the Retina MacBook Pro is indeed in the works, as has been rumored for October,” Eric Slivka reports for MacRumors.
“Following the original entry, a second MacBookPro10,2 has now appeared in the results database, with the data bearing very strong similarity to the original entry but with some differences that suggest this entry may also be legitimate,” Slivka reports. “Geekbench results have on several occasions revealed upcoming Mac models, most recently in mid-May with the MacBookPro9,1 that turned out to be the non-Retina 15-inch MacBook Pro upon its release the following month. Notably, an iMac13,2 entry that also appeared to be legitimate surfaced around the same time, but Apple has yet to release updated iMacs. ”
More info, including specs and benchmarks, in the full article here.
13″ mbp retina…
My wallet just got scared.
Unless the 13 inch MacBook Pro Retina has a separate video card like the 15 inch model so it works with Final Cut Pro, I’m not interested. I would love the portability but I’m unwilling to give up the capability.
Whatever it’s going to be, I wish they would announce it so I could get on with my decision and purchase.
Why would you run FCP on a 13″ screen? Do you enjoy squinting?
Hello Montex,
You’re correct that FCP on a 13 inch screen would be an unpleasant task, Retina or no Retina, but I would run FCP when an external monitor was available (or even two external monitors) – plus I would retain the portability of a 13 inch for day to day use.
The 15 inch is too large for real portability but it has the video power to drive FCP and 2 external monitors.
In my dreams an 11 inch Air would be able to run FCP plus a big monitor or two, but we’re not there yet.
Actually, FCPX on a 13″ MBA is quite usable, at least for doing rough cuts or small projects. The main sticking point there is fast-enough mass storage for anything sizeable.
IMHO they never should’ve called the 13″ Macbook a “Pro” since it lacks a discrete GPU. A backlit keyboard and casing/styling was about the only difference between a 13″ MB and MBP, and those things do not a “Pro” machine make.
That said, I’m not sure you can fit a good GPU onto a 13″ Intel motherboard–not one that handles graphics so much better than the built-in HD4000 that it’s worth including, anyway. Then you have to deal with heat (13″ only has 1 fan, 15″ has two).
The iPad seems to have kick-ass graphics, and drives a 2048×1536 screen (vs 1280×800 internal, and higher resolutions on external) without needing fans. It’s too bad you can’t just merge the two…
That’s an interesting idea though; what if the new 13″ MBP is run on an A5X processor instead of Intel? There’d be enormous compromises though, not sure Apple would do that just for improved graphics.
And where is my 30″ MBP?
I want my 13″ iPad!
Apple is going metric: I’m predicting a 300mm (11.8″) iPad deluxe (300mm) to complete the set 100mm (3.9″) iPhone, 200mm (7.8″) iPad (kidsize iPad), and 250mm (9.8″) iPad. This leaves a slot at 150mm (5.9″) for a new iPod touch / gameboi (I’d buy one!).
By the very nature of having a retina display, wouldn’t that require a dedicated video card? I thought I read where the video card in the 15″ was pushed to its limits, I cannot imagine the intel gpu being able to handle it.
yeah, and still can not match Windows 8 benchmark
True, Windoze can display a blue screen of death in an instant…