Skip to main content

Inside Apple's 13-inch Retina Display MacBook Pro

Apple gave us a quick peek at the inside of its new 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display during its event in San Francisco on Tuesday. However, if you thought the tech world would be satisfied by that, you've got another think coming. No, we wouldn't be enthusiasts if we didn't want to see every aspect of the MBP 13-inch with Retina splayed out under the cold, harsh lighting synonymous with a great tear down.

 

iFixit took it upon themselves to pick up one of these machines and tear it asunder. It seems Apple is still determined to discourage folks from getting inside its gadgets. iFixit reports it took five different screw drivers to perform the tear down (a 5-point pentalobe, a Phillips 00, and T5, T6, and T8 Torx screwdrivers).

But, enough about how they got in, what did they find when they did? First, there's the bits we already know about: the 13.3-inch 2560x1600 pixel (227 ppi) Retina display Apple proudly boasted about on Tuesday, along with the 2.5 GHz Core i5, Intel HD Graphics 4000, 128GB/256GB of flash, 8GB of DDR3L, Thunderbolt, USB 3.0, and HDMI I/O. Then there's the nitty-gritty that Apple didn't bother talking about on stage on Tuesday: that SSD is a Samsung MZ-DPC2560/0A2 unit and the RAM is Hynix H5TC4G83MFR DDR3L SDRAM. There's also an Intel BD82QS77 platform controller hub, an Intel DSL3510L Thunderbolt controller, a Texas Instruments Stellaris LM4FS1AH microcontroller with integrated ARM core, an SMSC USB2512B USB 2.0 Hub Controller, a Cypress Semiconductor CY8C24794-24L programmable SoC, a Maxim MAX15119 Apple-specific IMVP7 CPU/GPU power controller, a Cirrus Audio 4206BCNZ audio controller, and a Texas Instruments TPS 51980.

Overall, the MacBook Pro 13-inch with Retina display scored a two on iFixit's repairability scale. And yes, that scale is of the one-to-ten variety, ten being the easiest. Head on over to iFixit for the full gallery and details of the teardown.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback           

  • emperor piehead
    do you even need 2560x1600 on a 13in. screen anyways? With my 1366x768 laptop i can't notice really any pixels.
    Reply
  • wildkitten
    Emperor Pieheaddo you even need 2560x1600 on a 13in. screen anyways? With my 1366x768 laptop i can't notice really any pixels.I would imagine video and pictures would look much crisper and vibrant on it.
    Reply
  • N.Broekhuijsen
    wildkittenI would imagine video and pictures would look much crisper and vibrant on it.Pictures, maybe. Video? Pointless waste of time. Highest resolution you can find movies these days are 1080p, with the odd exception. It won't be for another few years before we actually get 2k or 4k video as market default. Until then, such a resolution on such a tiny screen is just a waste of time and money. I've got nearly that resolution on my 27 inch screen and with that it does serve a purpose, but that's because you can actually read text at the normal DPI settings, so you actually have added screen real estate.
    Reply
  • esrever
    Emperor Pieheaddo you even need 2560x1600 on a 13in. screen anyways? With my 1366x768 laptop i can't notice really any pixels.people paid for the ipad's retina display which is smaller than this.
    Reply
  • panini
    How come this got a 2 and the 15" got a 0?
    Reply
  • bryonhowley
    So when one of the ram chips go bad you though the whole laptop out and buy a new one!
    Reply
  • wemakeourfuture
    Emperor Pieheaddo you even need 2560x1600 on a 13in. screen anyways? With my 1366x768 laptop i can't notice really any pixels.
    it's basically a 1280 x 800 display just with twice the ppi than normal laptops. You can adjust the screen resolutions to get different sort of effects.

    Saw a friend's 15" Retina (2880 x 1800) which basically becomes 1440 x 900 with twice the ppi (220) than most laptops.

    Viewing pictures, looking at text looks way nice and sharper.
    Reply
  • alidan
    xbeaterPictures, maybe. Video? Pointless waste of time. Highest resolution you can find movies these days are 1080p, with the odd exception. It won't be for another few years before we actually get 2k or 4k video as market default. Until then, such a resolution on such a tiny screen is just a waste of time and money. I've got nearly that resolution on my 27 inch screen and with that it does serve a purpose, but that's because you can actually read text at the normal DPI settings, so you actually have added screen real estate.
    with gpu driveing the video, you can get a decent upscale, not as good as a pre bake but still decent.

    that said, photos, good, but on a 13 inch that 2560x1600 is wasted, and the fact that the whole thing is cheaper than most decent 2560x1600 monitors for the pc is an insult to injury on our part.

    esreverpeople paid for the ipad's retina display which is smaller than this.
    that honestly annoyed me even more than this... WHY CANT WE GET THESE RESOLUTIONS ON THE CHEAP YET?

    Reply
  • yobobjm
    I feel like with intel hd graphics 4000 this basically can't do anything graphically intensive at that resolution.
    Reply
  • The Retina looks great for photos and text. Can't imagine what else.

    Checked out the one on display at Best Buy. Went to view the sample photos, and the first thing it did was tell me "Generating high-res thumbnails, please wait". I just walked away

    Laptops aren't ready for 2560x1600 displays yet, unless you don't need to do anything productive with them other than read. Just get a freaking iPad
    Reply