Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
11.6" MBP (what do you think?)
- Thread starter mcman77
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
which is definitely not a Pro.
Now thats what the Air is.
Fewer ports, lighter and smaller than 15in, and underclocked
Only difference would be GPU and a quad core instead of dual.
The Mac community seems to long for a true successor to the 12" PowerBook G4, but neither the 13" MBP nor the 11.6" MBA quite fits the bill. However, a modern 12" MBP seems redundant, given how close it would be to those two machines.
As stated, the Macbook Pro 15's motherboard is already quite small, and can perfectly fit into the chassis of a 11" Air, but do notice that the motherboard does not include space for either a soldered-on SSD or a hard drive. Factoring in the hard drive or SSD means the battery is barely bigger than the optical drive. Realistically that means you'll be lucky to even get 3 hours on battery out of power-hungry components. A Macbook Pro getting even lower battery life than a Macbook Air is not a good sight to see.
Even if Ivy Bridge drives power consumption down, you're still looking at roughly 20W+ for the equivalence of a high-end Sandy Bridge right now. Assuming that even that is scaled down further so they can have a 12W CPU, you're still looking at a 5W headroom for a dedicated GPU, and 5W is just not enough thermal headroom for a dedicated GPU that's faster than Intel HD 4000. In fact, my guess is that it would take a 15W GPU to surpass Intel HD 4000 cleanly, but 15W is already very close to the limits that an 11" body can take in terms of thermal, and leaves little room for a much more powerful CPU.
There is always something that has to give. I don't think this idea would work at all. What might work is if Intel was to give up and allow third-parties to develop their own chipsets for Ivy Bridge, which would then allow a powerful integrated AMD chipset + GPU to take over.
Never mentioned anything about a SSD + HDD
Better you voted no then.The CPU will also be a LV like in the pros, RAM will be expandable and so will SSD as appose to being soldered. The web cam can be HD. Bigger thicker battery. Aaaand you got yourself a Pro
Please read the thread, we already stated the CPU W and how the size of the motherboard will be less to compensate the bigger battery etc.
Please read my response again. It's not as simple as saying Apple can use low power components and get away with it. Plus Intel might not be willing to produce such a chip. Do notice that Sandy Bridge's lowest power CPU still uses 17W. If the trend continues, you'll only see faster Ivy Bridge chips at 17W.
And just the CPU alone doesn't solve the problem. There's the GPU as well. I'm sure you have heard complaints about the AMD Radeon HD 6490M in the MBP 15" this year? It's a power-saving GPU, but it still sips a rough 15W on average, or a max of 20-22W under max load. That's still a far cry from the high-end Radeon HD 6750M, which sips 25W on average and loads at roughly 40W. But you need at least the 6490M to really see a difference with Intel HD 4000 if the new Ivy Bridge GPU really is 2x as fast.
The Powerbook G4 12" example doesn't really work here because at the time, the concept of an integrated GPU wasn't as advanced as today, and even now, the integrated GPU in a 2010, 2011 Macbook Air is certainly no slouch. Most of the time, the situation is more a problem with slower memory access speed and slower CPU than it is with the GPU now, and I don't doubt Intel HD 4000 would just make it better.
The things I've made bold will prohibit it from being considered a "Pro" machine. I, for one, need FireWire and would not buy Mac without it. There's nothing "Pro" about an underclocked laptop with almost no professional ports. There's Thunderbolt, but because this theoretical MBP is underclocked, there's not enough available power to justify the purchase of a TB peripheral.
The web cam can be HD. Bigger thicker battery. Aaaand you got yourself a Pro
Seriously? An HD webcam contributes to making it a Pro machine?! The FaceTime HD camera isn't even actually full HD. I never use my iSight. Even the MBAs have a FaceTime HD webcam.
Having a FaceTime HD webcam is just standard across all Apple's laptops, it contributes nothing towards being a "Pro" machine.
I'd agree with that sentiment. As powerful as can be in a package as compact as can be without sacrificing anything is truly what a Pro should be.
The concept of a 11.6" MBP, while nostalgic (who here doesn't remember the 12" Powerbook?), sounds like too much of a compromise when considering the state of modern computing.
The concept of a 11.6" MBP, while nostalgic (who here doesn't remember the 12" Powerbook?), sounds like too much of a compromise when considering the state of modern computing.
Exactly. Plus, just like the 13" MBP, the 12" PowerBook G4 wasn't really a true professional machine, not like the 15" and 17" PowerBook G4s weren't.
The 13" MBP is already a pretty significant compromise in performance. Why do we need to compromise it more?
I think the idea is that quite a number of users (I want to avoid generalizing age group here) simply want something to play games on with the beautiful and a durable design of a Macbook, so while doing that along with some other regular tasks, they wouldn't need more performance.
But that's where I think they are misjudging the performance requirement of their usage. Gaming is still very demanding, and there is no way a 11.6" portable computer can fit the bill in any way. In a sense, gaming is sometimes even more demanding than professional work. I have been down that road before, so I know how it was. We have had significant advancements in mobile computing performance lately, but even that is not enough to produce such a powerful machine in such a small package.
But as for me, I'd agree that anything smaller than a 15" MBP is simply too much of a compromise. I couldn't get anything serious done in AutoCAD or Maya while on a 13" MBP. It was not even the screen. It was simply too slow.
Yeah. I've been able to get away with a 13" for now, mostly because my GPU requirements aren't very high and I have an external monitor which I use in conjunction with the MBP display. But I do feel the crunch on the few times I do some HD video editing or work in AferEffects.
Of course, that being said, I'm coming from a 1.5 GHz PowerBook G4 so ANYTHING Intel feels like blazes.
We're not talking about 17W, that is ultra low, too slow, might as well get an Air. 35W Quads that Ivy bridge will bring will do the job fine, and heat will not be a problem as it will have the thickness required to provide sufficient cooling, unlike the Air thus the 17W processor.
Valid point, and you were correct before about AMDs APU, but Apple won't go that route. The ideal solution would be AMDs A6 processors.
The point of the 11 Pro won't be to substitute a 17" MBP but instead be as powerful in said size. The thiness on the air is redundant IMO, the overall length and width is good enough.
PS You said all that in your post but still went out and bout a 13" pro? Ahh the irony.
A 11" Pro should be on par with the current 13" model.The actual purpose of the 11" would be a compromise of having two products instead of 1 for those who cannot afford it and would live happily with the consequences
Never mentioned anything about a SSD + HDD
Are you saying that your MBP 11.6" won't have an optical drive that can be swapped out for another HD?
PS You said all that in your post but still went out and bout a 13" pro? Ahh the irony.
Ah the irony of assuming you know how I acquired said 13" MBP... for all you know I was given it. Do I NEED more than a 13" MBP? For now, no. I bought what I needed, what's the problem with that?
Besides, none of the things I wrote in my post apply to the 13" MBP. It doesn't have an underclocked processor and it doesn't lack professional ports. So, what's your point? My point was with regard to the idea of an 11" MBP, but that doesn't mean that I personally need a 17" MBP. I realize that a 11" MBP wouldn't be intended to replace a 17", but you're the one who assumed I did.
My needs could be completely satisfied by the base 11" MBA and it wouldn't invalidate what I said. You're misdirecting the argument.
The main problem here is that you keep wanting to call it a MBP, when it just plain can't meet the requirements to be considered a "Pro". But if it's not a Pro, then we already have the 11" MBA. This theoretical product is redundant, given the current technology. In the future, it may not be.
Last edited:
There is no 35W quad Ivy bridge as far as I know. There are only 45W quads, which are well beyond the cooling capacity of a 11.6" enclosure.
Even the 13" MBP has some overheating problems with a 35W enclosure, I'm not sure you can get away with the same thermal envelope with even less surface area.
The only logical way to look at it is if Intel was to produce 17W quad parts, and we both know that isn't happening.
But we all know that in a Pro, the CPU is always more important, so there is no way Apple would go for any less than Intel until AMD proves that they can make faster chips. Which goes back to the previous point where Intel doesn't really provide a CPU that can fit into a 11.6" enclosure.
The actual purpose of the 11" would be a compromise of having two products instead of 1 for those who cannot afford it and would live happily with the consequences
I don't think the affordability of this theoretical 11" MBP would be any less than how much it costs currently to get an 11" MBA. In fact, it might be even more granted the fact that it has a dedicated GPU.
As some have suggested, I think you are clearly staring an Alienware M11x right down. It fits the bill, and is probably the absolute limit that one can stuff inside an 11" diagonal body, with the thickness and build quality to sustain.
If Apple ever decides to make a Macbook Pro 11", I don't doubt it would be very similar to the Alienware M11x.
As I stated before, the 11" pro should be the equivalent of the 13" pro. You own one, and find it capable, I don't know why the 11" won't have its place.
Hopefully the 13" will have a quad and gpu with the next refresh
Quad Core i7 3612QM 2.1 GHz 35 W
Quad Core i7 3612QM 2.1 GHz 35 W
Even so, that's more than what an 11.6" enclosure can handle. Again, both the CPU and GPU together should not exceed 35W, or you'll run into serious heat troubles. If the GPU is 15W, then the CPU must not exceed 20W, so even a 35W quad-core wouldn't help. You want something that runs even cooler.
Note that the 13" Macbook Pro can barely accommodate a 35W CPU alone. Adding a GPU is just asking for troubles.
Because, as I said before, I will not buy a Mac without FireWire. It's necessary for what I do. According to you, this new 11" MBP would not have FireWire. Thus, if only for that reason, I would not buy it.
In addition, it would have an underclocked processor, and the 13" MBP wouldn't, so the 13" MBP would always win out in terms of performance.
Another point that hasn't been brought up is price. What would the price of this computer be? Apple wouldn't price it at the same price of the 11" MBA, as it would eat those sales. I seriously doubt they would price it under the 11" MBA, for the same reason. The 11" MBA is $999 and the 13" MBP is $1199. So where in that range would the 11" MBP fall? And if the 11" MBP is something like $1099, why would you buy it over the 13", especially when the point of this computer is a compromise for those who can't afford a better computer? If you can afford to pay $1099 for an 11" MBP, you can afford to pay $1199 for the 13", just save up for another month or whatever. $100 difference isn't enough to differentiate the product.
Also, I find the 13" MBP sufficient for my needs because, right now, I can't afford anything better, and I got this one for $330. If I could afford a 15" MBP, you can bet I would have one, as it would make some of the things I do much easier.
Whether your laptop is 11" or 13" doesn't make a huge difference for transport, as either way it will be transported in a backpack/suitcase designed to hold bigger stuff and the thickness would be the same.
In practice, both essentially occupy the same space for transport. The main benefit of a 11" over a 13" is its weight. If you make a 11" that is gonna be thick and heavy, what's the point? It's not that much of a portable machine anymore, and you will have tiny screen space and heat issues.
As for the GPU, I don't see why you would want to game or use pro imaging applications on a 11" screen anyway. If you're gonna plug it to a Thunderbolt Display to do that kind of stuff anyway, why don't you just daisy chain an external Thunderbolt graphics card and use the 11" MBA?
That way you keep a computer that is very portable, and have all the GPU power you need when it matters.
In practice, both essentially occupy the same space for transport. The main benefit of a 11" over a 13" is its weight. If you make a 11" that is gonna be thick and heavy, what's the point? It's not that much of a portable machine anymore, and you will have tiny screen space and heat issues.
As for the GPU, I don't see why you would want to game or use pro imaging applications on a 11" screen anyway. If you're gonna plug it to a Thunderbolt Display to do that kind of stuff anyway, why don't you just daisy chain an external Thunderbolt graphics card and use the 11" MBA?
That way you keep a computer that is very portable, and have all the GPU power you need when it matters.
I think the cooling issues have more to do with Apple's exhaust design choice. Sony managed to cram a full clocked i5/i7 dual core, and a near fully clocked (~0-15MHZ less) HD6630m, into the 13.3" Vaio SA frame. It's just a slim as the MBP13. Not only that, it keeps the optical drive, backlit KB (I think it takes more space? I dunno), and high resolution display.
It also keeps the near useless hinge-area exhaust system. Yet (the SA uses a quieter fan than the SC line commonly seen at Best Buys), it can still keep both chips under 90C, clamshell mode or not, at full load. No throttling (except for a recent BIOS addition in IGP mode).
So that many powerful parts in a laptop can work, Sony has proven it can. Just have to see if Apple will go for a powerful 13" Pro again (or, if they remove the Optical bay for more battery/dGPU, I'd be all for it).
The Vaio SA actually cheats a little bit. It's not all 0.95" thin all the way. It tapers down to that thickness at the tip, but the back bulges to a whooping 1.3" to allow for more room for cooling. The Vaio Z 2010 was also the same, but instead of tapering down, it was around 1.2" all the way. In both cases, the thermal limit of both laptops doesn't exceed 50W, where they have a 35W CPU and a dGPU that's around 15W.
The thinner body of the Macbook Pro actually works against it, as it limits just how big the blades of the exhaust fan can be. That means it can't push as much air out as a thicker fan, so the Macbook has to either settle for louder fan, or less powerful components.
Like I kept saying... you either have to make it thicker, or you have to sacrifice the CPU, or dGPU. There are some cases where you just can't have your cake and eat it too. This is one of them.
Wrong. I have the Vaio SA. It does not "taper" down to the front end. It's the same 0.92" the whole way through (I don't know where you got the 0.95" and 1.3" numbers from).
At any rate, Sony has proven it can be done. You can have it all - ODD, reasonably plentiful ports, good GPU, and good CPU in an acceptablely cooled 13" frame (admittedly, I do strugle to get 5 hours of office/web work out of it). Now I want to see Apple do *something* to the MBP13" line to make it worth while. Starting with a higher res display (like the MBA13), and perhaps some form of dedicated GPU.
I want a MBP13, just not how it is right now (that, and it's a heavy pig compared to the MBA13).
Last edited: