I'm looking to buy a new DAW laptop and as the Windows-based laptop market still seems problematic, I figured it's safer to continue with a MBP. What I'm thinking then is whether I should get a retina or a non-retina one - this thread is intended to discuss the differences between the two and the advantages /disadvantages of each.

At first I was very sceptical about the retina model, as I didn't see much advantage in the screen for anyone who doesn't work in photography. However, I've heard two arguments that have made me reconsider: 1.) the retina display reduces eye-strain; 2.) running the display in a resolution higher than the 1440x900 feels practically like working on a bigger screen. Can anyone comment/back up/refute these claims? Is it actually better for the eyes? Is the computer still usable with a higher resolution with an average eyesight, or do things get uncomfortably small?

However, there are of course other differences. If I'd go for the non-retina model, I'd probably get the higher-end 15-inch 2.6 GHz one, which is $2,199 but if I went for the retina one, I'd probably get the cheaper 15-inch 2.3 GHz model, which would also be $2,199. The highest-end Retina one just seems too damn expensive at $2,799, where the only key differences seem to be the 2.6GHz processor and 512GB flash storage (instead of 256GB).

One key consideration is: how big is the practical performance difference between a 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz) and a 2.6GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz) processor? Another one is: how big is the practical performance difference (in daw-usage) between a 7200-rpm hard drive and the flash storage the retina has? Bearing in mind that since the Retina one I'm considering only has 256GB flash storage, I would anyway have to keep all my samples/recordings (as well as most media content etc) on an external hard drive.

Here's a brief summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the Retina model as I see it:

RETINA'S ADVANTAGES:

- Retina display (better anti-aliasing, possibility for a higher resolution, less eye-strain?)
(- Possibility for 16Gb of RAM (non-retina maxes out at 8GB))
- Flash storage is faster - faster general usage?
- Smaller and lighter (2kg vs 2.5kg and 1.8cm thin vs. 2.4cm)
- HDMI-port and two Thunderbolt-ports (no HDMI and one TB in non-retina).

RETINA'S DISADVANTAGES:

- Retina display eats more battery (although as it has a bigger battery, practical battery-life is probably the same)
- Retina display / the used antialiasing / the higher-resolution image-content etc eats more memory / CPU?
- Smaller amount of storage space (the cheaper one has only 256GB of flash storage)
- No Superdrive disc drive (not a big deal for me personally)
- No FireWire or Ethernet port
- No audio line-in port
- Unfixable, un-upgradeable. Battery cannot be replaced or RAM added by user
- Less CPU power for the same money ($2199 model has a 2.3GHz i7 as opposed to the 2.6GHz i7 in the non-retina)

Most of these specs can be found here. In Macworld's benchmarks, the difference between the 2.3GHz retina and the 2.6GHz non-retina seems quite small in most cases (except that in disk-based activities the retina one obviously outperforms). However, the 2.6GHz non-retina model clearly outperformed the 2.3GHz retina one by a large margin in the Portal framerate test, raising the question whether the 2.6GHz non-retina model would still be the most appropriate DAW.

Anyway, any comments/thoughts/user-experiences/references etc are much appreciated!
Last edited by visa tapani on Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:28 am; edited 1 time in total

The retina screen is indeed amazing. I don't know that it really offers much in the way of audio benefits, especially since no audio app I know of is retina optimized. It does seem to be easier on the eyes though.

As for the processor, IMO right now the RAM amount and the drive is more important. You most definitely will notice the difference between a 7200rpm drive and an SSD. There's simply no comparison. So definitely go SSD if you can, regardless of which model you choose.

The non-retina MBP is also easier to upgrade. You could buy the regular setup, and then easily upgrade the memory to 16GB and the SSD later on. You can't touch any of that on the rMBP. Something to consider. Also, it's not true that the non-retina maxes out at 8GB; OWC sells 16GB kits, and they work just fine. You just can't order it from Apple that way, that's all.

The Portal framerate really has nothing to do with a DAW; don't base your choice off of that, unless of course this machine will be doing double duty as a gaming box.

For me, I'm sitting back for the time being. My personal Mac is 3 years old and getting a little long in the tooth, but with an SSD and 8GB of RAM it's more than suiting the current need for recording. I'd rather wait until the second gen of the retina stuff.

Thanks for the point of view, Polaris!

Thanks for pointing out the OWC RAM-upgrade - in that case RAM is not a deciding factor between the models. Does anyone know where in UK/EU to get 16GB memory compatible with the new MBPs? Although I'm imagining that 8GB would be in fact enough for my work - I don't use a lot of sample libraries, so most of the sound files I use appear as clips on audio tracks and thus, I believe, are streamed directly from disk.

So the flash/SSD drive is a bigger deciding factor, then. I suppose the difference between a 7200RPM drive and an SSD is noticeable primarily when doing explicitly disk-based activity (reading/writing to disk) and in the speed applications open up with. However, do you think there would also be a difference when working in the DAW, even if all the audio/sample material is read from an external hard-drive? I think if I'd go for an SSD/flash -based disk, it would be better to go with the retina model - at least upgrading the non-retina model with an SSD through Apple is unfeasibly expensive, as pointed out by this article. In that case I suppose it would be better to get a third-party SSD disk after the purchase, but then it wouldn't be covered by Apple's warranty.

That's true, a third party SSD wouldn't be under warranty. However in the case of OWC's SSDs (which I use on my Macs as well as the hundreds I support) they come with a 3 year warranty, and they're super easy to swap out if there's a problem. I'm not sure if they're available in the UK though.

And I yes, I think SSDs are still beneficial, even if you're loading off of external drives. The overall system responsiveness is well worth it, and if you ever want to record without external drives, it's fantastic.

Thanks polaris. One thing I only realized now is that a FireWire-Thunderbolt adapter hasn't been released yet (although Apple has announced one), so it's too early to say how well FW devices work with the r-MBP. This is a factor to me, as I'm using an RME Fireface 400. If a decent portable Thunderbolt or USB3 interface by a reliable manufacturer existed I could consider upgrading, but such a thing doesn't exist yet and I wouldn't really want to "upgrade" to a USB2 interface.

This means that I need to hold back at least long enough so that the adapter has been released. After that if it will be confirmed that Fireface 400 does indeed work with the rMBP, it will remain a strong option - otherwise I'd better go with the non-retina model...

afaik, the apple thunderbolt to firewire adapter is due before the end of july.

there is a fw solution available right now, altho not cheap:

http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresscard34thunderbo lt.html (together with a fw xpresscard, obviously )

most people in audio seem to be going to the non-retina MBP. I think because you can do things like fit 2 drives...change the drives add SSDs...upgrade it...and it has more usable IO out the box...

the advantage the rMBP has is its thinner size and display...none of which are 'that' relevant for audio...

In your case you will get a faster CPU and you can add in SSD also if you like for the OS...and keep the 7200 for storage...

I bought a rMBP a little more than a week ago and I returned it for a non-retina MBP. I'm a Windows user (previously using Boot Camp on my Mac), and I thought I would give OSX a try as the retina display does not work properly on Windows. In the end I decided to stick with Windows and when I tried to use the retina display on Windows it looked clearly worse than my old MBP.

Retina Pros -
Slimmer
Looks better in OSX

Retina Cons -
Looks worse in Windows scaled, at native resolution fonts get all out of whack.
Power button is where the Eject used to be (accidentally hit every single day)
Can't upgrade!

I immediately bought a HD caddy so I could put in a second drive in my new non-retina Mac, sure it doesn't look as sleek as the new retina model but I'm so glad the power button not easy to hit (imagine DJing or performing with your computer and you accidentally hit it!)

If you're ok with never upgrading and you're only using OSX then go for it.

Oh right, I had noticed this too. The biggest issue for me is not so much the price but the mobility - I regularly take my laptop out for for laptop gigs and jam sessions with just my laptop, a FW cable and my Fireface (which gets it power from the FW bus) - this Sonnet setup would add a significant burden. It's kinda vital for me also that I can power my interface from the bus - does anyone know whether using the soon-to-be-released FW-TB adapter will allow this?


There's really room for two drives? I haven't heard of this before... So if I buy the non-retina MBP with a 7200RPM disk drive, there's still room next to it to add another HD (or SSD drive) without going through any kind of complicated procedure?


Oh, this is important information to me, as I'm planning to also install Windows via Bootcamp. In fact it is less than a year ago when I moved to use primarily OSX for my audio work, before that Windows was my main platform (and I might still move back depending on the future development of the OSes). I'm surprised that the retina display caused problems in Windows. How did it look bad? I thought it would simply detect it as a plain 2880x1800 display and then you could choose any resolution (say, 1440x900) and it would scale normally like with any screen?

I agree with analogsamples; the non-retina MBP at this time really is the best way to go for an audio guy. In regards to the extra drive, you can do this:

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/DDA MBS0GB/

Then stick the old optical in a USB enclosure for when you need it. With that config, you can do things like:

1. SSD for boot, large HD for storage
2. SSD for boot, SSD for samples/files
3. Two SSD's in a RAID 0 (for speed) or RAID 1 (for redundancy)

Pretty cool stuff, and that works in the 15" non-retina, as well as the 13" MBP.

Oh wow, that looks interesting. A dual-disk setup would be nice indeed. But doesn't that cause problems with the warranty? If a say, motherboard failure would occur, I wouldn't be surprised that the Apple support would try to argue that the problem was self-caused by doing these DIY modifications...

Update: the Apple Thunderbolt to FireWire adapter seems to be finally available. I still haven't heard from anyone who has used one with a FW audio interface, though. Anyone here have any user experiences? There's a thread on it here, but still no actual user experiences posted.

One thing I'm a little confused about is whether it provides enough wattage to run an interface with bus-power. Apparently it supplies "up to 7W", but I'm unsure if this the same or less as what the native FW port supplies - does anyone know? According to the firewire tech specs at Wikipedia, the FW spec can supply "up to 45 watts" of power, but "[t]ypically a device can pull about 7 to 8 watts from the port". One of the reviews for the adapter at the Apple store claims that "I can only use it on a memory card reader because it doesn't supply enough power for my Lacie rugged hard drives."

I am away to buy one this afternoon, if the shop has any in stock. I will be able to tell you how I get on tomorrow night

Just to clear the Retina question up...

The Portal framerate test seems pretty unjust. The Retina display's resolution is several times that of the classic one, and that means exponentially more work for the GPU. A DAW wouldn't suffer as bad as a 3D game, the difference would be nothing more than what the gap in CPU power suggests.

As for resolution and screen space, I haven't seen the settings panel for Retina devices in OSX yet, but I doubt that one can expect serious screen real estate from this increase in resolution. The DPI value of Retina on the MBP is above 200, which is almost at the level of low-cost laser printers (300 DPI), and higher than most industrial printing (150 DPI).
So unless you want to use a lupe to see your DAW, I doubt the "more screen space" argument stands up to scrutiny.

And for better anti-aliasing, well with scalable content, like rendered text, the very need for anti-aliasing is gone with such a high DPI value. However, for bitmap graphics, many people complain that bitmap images and bitmapped UIs (like those in many DAWs and AUs) look less crisp, less appealing than on a regular display, because naturally the OS needs to scale these bitmaps to the higher pixel resolution, which, regardless of the algorithm used, will result in some blurring or artifacts.

Got one if this firewire deelies. Not enough power on it to run my konnekt 24d sound card.