Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Request of 2.8Ghz Mid-2009 owners

I'm pretty sure it's the P9700 because the T9600 doesn't have Intel Virtualization technology.
 
LOL, of course the the T9600 has Intel VT. Who told you it didn't? If it didn't, then the late 2008 2.8GHz MacBook Pro wouldn't be able to run Parallels 4 or VMware Fusion. Every 45nm notebook processor from Intel has VT. It's the P9700 by the way.
 
mike1123 said:
I'm pretty sure it's the P9700 because the T9600 doesn't have Intel Virtualization technology.
Click to expand...
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLG9F
Only C0 revision doesn't list VT in support list, but AFAIK it does support VT.

mikethebigo said:
P9700. Wouldn't have gotten it if it was a T series. I really like the lower TDP despite the extra cache.
Click to expand...
Good news!
Does CPU-X work with your machine? Can you provide a main window screenshot as I'm interested in how well it detects socket info as well.
 
First of all, I was wrong. Sorry. Second of all... they are SERIOUSLY using the T's???? Damn. That sucks. Now I'm more tempted to get the 3.06...
 
mike1123 said:
First of all, I was wrong. Sorry. Second of all... they are SERIOUSLY using the T's???? Damn. That sucks. Now I'm more tempted to get the 3.06...
Click to expand...

I'm more tempted to return the unit. I'd rather run a 25 watt 2.53 13" for the increased battery and decreased heat. This SATA thing has put a sour taste in my mouth as well.
 
cpuz says my new 17" mbp 2.8 is a t9600. Is that bad, is the p9700 that much better?
 
mike1123 said:
First of all, I was wrong. Sorry. Second of all... they are SERIOUSLY using the T's???? Damn. That sucks. Now I'm more tempted to get the 3.06...
Click to expand...
That's how :apple: is working nowadays. Going with T9600 is very efficient way of wasting battery life if you ask me.
I'm a bit dissapointed as my early-2008 MPB has T9300 (2.50Ghz, 35W) and it runs really hot (combined with 8600m GT)

I had a nice plan upgrading to P9700 17" MBP with matte screen, but I'll skip this generation as well.

As long as I'm fine with external battery pack, I'll be waiting for Early-2010 Arrandale MBP.
 
What annoys me is that I now cannot get a MBP with 6MB L2 and a 25W TDP. That really stinks.


Edit: For a college laptop that I would like to perform for things like Logic, which should I focus more on? Should I just get the 2.66 (which is 25W, right?)
 
jgo78 said:
cpuz says my new 17" mbp 2.8 is a t9600. Is that bad, is the p9700 that much better?
Click to expand...
P9700 is better in terms of power consumtion. It has lower TDP due to lower voltage. Actual power consumption in real world is lower as well.
 
P is better, and I can only assume a little more expensive. Sorry Apple, I paid $2,100 for better than this.
 
mike1123 said:
What annoys me is that I now cannot get a MBP with 6MB L2 and a 25W TDP. That really stinks.


Edit: For a college laptop that I would like to perform for things like Logic, which should I focus more on? Should I just get the 2.66 (which is 25W, right?)
Click to expand...
Larger cache will give you ~7% or less performance gain in real world.

And yes, latest revision of P8800 (R0) is 25W
but there was older P8800 (E0) with 35W TDP.

E0
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLGLA

R0
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLGLR

I think that Apple may go with E0 revision as it's nicely corresponds with their current "back to past" upgrade strategy :D
 
After Apple removed the 2.8 and replaced it with the 2.93 in March, they were probably left with a stockpile of T9600s that they couldn't move so the only option was to put them in instead of the more efficient P9700. So much for being green...
 
maratus said:
Larger cache will give you ~7% or less performance gain in real world.

And yes, latest revision of P8800 (R0) is 25W
but there was older P8800 (E0) with 35W TDP.

E0
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLGLA

R0
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLGLR

I think that Apple may go with E0 revision as it's nicely corresponds with their current "back to past" upgrade strategy :D
Click to expand...

Well it's that plus the higher clock speed... What kind of battery life savings would one see with the 2.66 vs the 2.8?
 
3.06GHz is the T9900 with 35W TDP. Granted it is the fastest notebook Dual Core processor available from Intel or AMD and in benchmarks, will probably even beat the QX9300 in a few things.
 
mike1123 said:
Well it's that plus the higher clock speed... What kind of battery life savings would one see with the 2.66 vs the 2.8?
Click to expand...
It all depend on CPU load. The higher load is the bigger difference is.
My biggest complain was heat under 100% load.
 
maratus said:
It all depend on CPU load. The higher load is the bigger difference is.
My biggest complain was heat under 100% load.
Click to expand...

Hmm, well anytime I'm doing something under 100% load, chances are I'll be at a desk with a power outlet, so maybe it doesn't matter?
 
how about heat?

Does anyone have any temperature readings for this model yet?

cheers,
Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back