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

I want a 13" with a better CPU

Z

zagu

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Sep 8, 2010
13
0
Finland
Meh, I'm an eager mac convert-to-be (long time Linux user after getting fed up with Windows, now wanting to try something new again) but I want a 13" MBP. My current laptop is a 15" one (some crappy HP "entertainment notebook" from a few years back) and it's just way too damn big. My work laptop is 14" and is actually pretty close to perfect in size, so I'm hoping one more inch less would be the sweet spot for me.

However, I'm not about to shell out 1200 eur (why on earth does a $1200 laptop cost 1200e in here anyway.. that's more like $1500. Am I paying $300 extra just for the local keyboard?) for a core 2 duo laptop.

So I wait and hope the next version will be good news for me (without also loosing any GPU power).

That's all, and hi.
 
We have 23% VAT (ALV) in here so everything costs more if you haven't noticed yet. Also, in US the price doesn't include sales tax which is, depending on state, about 10% so that will be added to the prices. It's annoying that Apple has raised the prices but what can you do? People still buy their stuff.

Sandy Bridge is looking promising and it should find it's way to 13" too (mobile C2Ds will be EOLed in Q1 2011). Even the IGP is looking great
 
Same here. I'm really trying to get my head around the size of the 15" just so I can get a better CPU but loved my 13"'s portability (kinda the whole point of the thing).

What's even more annoying is that Apple lowered their prices. The insurance on my stolen 13" (unibody MacBook) pays out, with depreciation recovery, to get me a new 13" (unibody Macbook Pro) with similar specs but I gave nearly 15" money for it before the price drop.

I still haven't decided...
:(
 
codymac said:
Same here. I'm really trying to get my head around the size of the 15" just so I can get a better CPU but loved my 13"'s portability (kinda the whole point of the thing).

What's even more annoying is that Apple lowered their prices. The insurance on my stolen 13" (unibody MacBook) pays out, with depreciation recovery, to get me a new 13" (unibody Macbook Pro) with similar specs but I gave nearly 15" money for it before the price drop.

I still haven't decided...
:(
Click to expand...

well what are you trying to do with the mbp? in other words, do you NEED the i5/i7 power for your type of usage? if you dont need, and provided that you really want portability, i'd go with 13"
 
Hellhammer said:
Sandy Bridge is looking promising and it should find it's way to 13" too (mobile C2Ds will be EOLed in Q1 2011). Even the IGP is looking great
Click to expand...

oh, i read somewhere a little while back that apple was considering AMD Fusion etc. has apple settled on AMD or Intel? but if apple continues with intel, i second what you said.
 
joniepoo said:
oh, i read somewhere a little while back that apple was considering AMD Fusion etc. has apple settled on AMD or Intel? but if apple continues with intel, i second what you said.
Click to expand...

There was a rumor that Apple was discussing with AMD but that same rumor has been around for years. Only time will show us but at least I'm not believing on that since Apple has had good relations with Intel which is the leader of the CPU market so why would Apple switch to inferior manufacturer?
 
joniepoo said:
well what are you trying to do with the mbp? in other words, do you NEED the i5/i7 power for your type of usage? if you dont need, and provided that you really want portability, i'd go with 13"
Click to expand...

Yeah... and then the question becomes: do I actually want a laptop I can work on or just for convenience away from home, which is sort of what the 13" was relegated to.

Portability is about to loose out in this battle.
;)
 
I love the title to this thread... "I want a 13" with a better CPU"

Does a better CPU run hotter? Does it suck up more power? Does it by their law require the use of in-house integrated lousey graphics? Does it have issues of hardware freezing due to graphic switching? Does it offer marginal gains in real world tests? Will it allow you to brag to other because it's the newest (not best) thing out?

If you've answered yes to any of the above, then the i-series chip is for you. Yes I realize you can shave a few minutes from encoding hours of videos, or save a few seconds importing 1,000's of RAW image files, but do you do any of those things?

Intel is a monopolistic hype house who gave up developing truly next generation hardware in the name of strangle-holding the market with their vision of control. I hope Apple can break free, go to AMD, go back to IBM, Intel are ONLY in it for the $$$, not the advancement of technology.
 
Hellhammer said:
We have 23% VAT (ALV) in here so everything costs more if you haven't noticed yet. Also, in US the price doesn't include sales tax which is, depending on state, about 10% so that will be added to the prices. It's annoying that Apple has raised the prices but what can you do? People still buy their stuff.

Sandy Bridge is looking promising and it should find it's way to 13" too (mobile C2Ds will be EOLed in Q1 2011). Even the IGP is looking great
Click to expand...

The Sandy Bridge Intel IGP is crap. It's slower than the 320M, and the Intel IPG is a new GPU released in 2011 while the 320M is old tech. It barely beats the low end integrated GPU from AMD which is even more old tech.

So I don't think Apple will settle for the Sandy Bridge CPU, because you'll loose GPU performance.
 
mark28 said:
The Sandy Bridge Intel IGP is crap. It's slower than the 320M, and the Intel IPG is a new GPU released in 2011 while the 320M is old tech. It barely beats the low end integrated GPU from AMD which is even more old tech.
Click to expand...

And your source is? Current IGP is about as fast as 9400M, compare them yourself

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-HD.23065.0.html

AnandTech did some tests with Sandy Bridge IGP and it's looking great. It beat ATI 5450 in most tests and that is dedicated desktop card. And that was with desktop CPU with 6 EUs at 850MHz and Turbo was disabled and of course, beta drivers. Mobile CPUs will have 12 EUs at 650MHz and they can go up to 1300MHz with Turbo so it's expected that the performance will be better than in those benchmarks.

320M is about twice as fast as 9400M. SB's IGP will easily be 2-4 faster than the current IGP so unless the drivers will be screwed up, it's going to be at least as fast as 320M.

So I don't think Apple will settle for the Sandy Bridge CPU, because you'll loose GPU performance.
Click to expand...

High-end will likely use discrete GPU anyway so no, you won't lose GPU performance. For low-end, the SB IGP is more than sufficient. Or do you want Apple to continue using Core 2 Duo so you can 10% GPU? :rolleyes:
 
Hellhammer said:
And your source is? Current IGP is about as fast as 9400M, compare them yourself

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-HD.23065.0.html

AnandTech did some tests with Sandy Bridge IGP and it's looking great. It beat ATI 5450 in most tests and that is dedicated desktop card. And that was with desktop CPU with 6 EUs at 850MHz and Turbo was disabled and of course, beta drivers. Mobile CPUs will have 12 EUs at 650MHz and they can go up to 1300MHz with Turbo so it's expected that the performance will be better than in those benchmarks.

320M is about twice as fast as 9400M. SB's IGP will easily be 2-4 faster than the current IGP so unless the drivers will be screwed up, it's going to be at least as fast as 320M.



High-end will likely use discrete GPU anyway so no, you won't lose GPU performance. For low-end, the SB IGP is more than sufficient. Or do you want Apple to continue using Core 2 Duo so you can 10% GPU? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

In World of Conflict (medium setting);
320M = 34 fps
ATI 5450 = 23 fps

So the 320M is about 50% faster than the ATI 5450. And the Intel IGP barely beats the ATI 5450.

So the old tech 320M > Intel IGP from 2011.

edit: Source for the fps is notebookcheck. Unfortunetly the ATI 5450 was only tested for World in Conflict so only a comparison can be made for 1 game.
 
mark28 said:
In World of Conflict (medium setting);
320M = 34 fps
ATI 5450 = 23 fps

So the 320M is about 50% faster than the ATI 5450. And the Intel IGP barely beats the ATI 5450.

So the old tech 320M > Intel IGP from 2011.
Click to expand...

That's mobility 5450... And you're basing the whole performance on one, JUST ONE benchmark? Are you serious?

Did you even read what I wrote? The IGP test was done with desktop version with 6 EUs and Turbo disabled. Mobile version will have 12 EUs and Turbo enabled plus better drivers. Even if 320M was faster than ATI 5450, it doesn't matter. The IGP was faster than the ATI 5450 in most tests and again, that was with the desktop version which is worse than the mobile version.

Even if SB IGP was worse than 320M, you would still get overall faster machine as the CPU will be a huge improvement over the ancient C2D. The CPU plays bigger role for most of us than the GPU
 
Hellhammer said:
That's mobility 5450... And you're basing the whole performance on one, JUST ONE benchmark? Are you serious?

Did you even read what I wrote? The IGP test was done with desktop version with 6 EUs and Turbo disabled. Mobile version will have 12 EUs and Turbo enabled plus better drivers. Even if 320M was faster than ATI 5450, it doesn't matter. The IGP was faster than the ATI 5450 in most tests and again, that was with the desktop version which is worse than the mobile version.

Even if SB IGP was worse than 320M, you would still get overall faster machine as the CPU will be a huge improvement over the ancient C2D. The CPU plays bigger role for most of us than the GPU
Click to expand...

CoD MW2 ( Low settings )
320m: 69 fps
Intel Core i5 2400 (Sandy Bridge): 43.9 fps
ATI 5450: 29.4 fps

World of Warcraft:
The 320m is doing 100 fps on medium settings. The Intel gets beaten by the ATI 5450 in this test and both don't get near the performance of the 320m.

In World of Conflict (medium setting);
320M = 34 fps
ATI 5450 = 23 fps


edit: And I was using the ATI 5450 as benchmark, the same one AnandTech used. The 320m is 50%-133% faster than the ATI 5450. While the Intel GPU ( desktop version? ) is having difficulties with the ATI 5450.

Sorry, but for a 2011 to be announced GPU, it's weak. The current 13 inch MBP has better graphics.

edit2: AnandTech: "Our SB sample may also have been a 12 EU part, we're still awaiting confirmation." So AnandTech are not sure whether they had 12 EU or Turbo working.
 
I too would have preferred a 13" MBP with a better CPU. They're definitely coming, but I ordered a 15" as I couldn't wait and need it for University. It's sorta a bit future proof, and comparison wise i3/i5 is significantly better than it's Core 2 Duo predecessor. Maybe Apple couldn't fit it in and make it cool enough to run without any problems, but it's coming.
 
Pushkar said:
It's sorta a bit future proof, and comparison wise i3/i5 is significantly better than it's Core 2 Duo predecessor. Maybe Apple couldn't fit it in and make it cool enough to run without any problems, but it's coming.
Click to expand...

And a C2D isn't future proof as well? It runs the same native 64-bit operations.

"Significantly Better" is far from an overall 17% increase in benchmarks. When the core chips replaced the pentium series, that was significant.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/87?vs=118

You're right about Apple not being able to fit them in, with Intel refusing other companies to allow graphics solutions to their trash. You're also right about cooling too, funny how such a chip of the future can't run as cool as the chips it replaces. I guess they were too worried about getting that extra 20% out of geeky bench scores. In day-to-day tasks you would never know which chip you had under the hood, no lie. Well maybe you would, when your lap catches fire.
 
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