Okay im new to this so please dont shout at me... Im looking at getting a Macbook Pro for my university course. I really like the 13" ones but id like a bigger processor.. So I wondered how likely it its that Apple will bring out more of their 13" Macbook Pro laptops but with a bigger processor, like the 15.4" with 2.66GHZ, 2.8GHz or even the option of 3.06GHz.. ????
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.
13" Macbook with 2.8GHz Processor????
- Thread starter clojo88
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
After the model refresh would seem somewhat logical. Remember also that higher numbers doesn't equate to speed.
Why? The difference in speeds won't be noticed by a lot of users, unless you plan on doing a lot of rendering... and a lot of people who go for 13" don't want to do that kinda stuff so much because of the loss of screen real estate.
I just mean, if you feel like you won't get 'the best' or that you're not future proofing enough, there's not a huge difference for a lot of users
Not completely true. The P9700 is a 2.8 chip and still has a TDP of 25W.
To the OP, it's simply an issue of wanting to differentiate their product lines. They want a reason to up-sell you to the 15" or 17". The next update will probably be Arrandale/Clarksfield, which will bring along a whole new set of clocks.
But it will generate more heat than slower chips, and there is much less space in the 13" MBP than the 15" or 17".
I'm not saying that they aren't also doing it to differentiate, but heat is probably a big reason as well.
It's possible that they may give off heat, but ODMs design off of TDP, not what the chip may give off, as that varies. The reason the chip is rated at 2.8 and not 2.53 or something lower is because it exhibits better performance in testing. This would include heat production. Therefore, it's completely possible that they may produce the same heat at idle, and they will both most certainly fall within that thermal envelope.
No, the reason it is rated at 2.8 and not 2.53 is because it was precision engineered and manufactured to be 2.8 and not 2.53.
Processor design and manufacturing isn't about making a bunch of processors then determining how to rate their speed based on tests, it is a very tightly controlled and predictable process. That's why they pay their engineers and physicists the big bucks.
I am not a computer engineer, so I may be wrong but I based on information I have come across, different speeds on a line of processors are achieved by changing the number of transistors and such that they squeeze onto that chip. Which is why you pay more for faster speed: it is more expensive to manufacture.
The reason they will not put a 2.8 in the 13" is as chrmjenkins said, to differentiate product lines. Eventually I am sure there will be a bump to 2.8 or something speed-wise equivalent based on what technology is available at the time.
Unless you have a very specific reason for wanting the higher clock speed (such as daily rendering of HD video or some sort of engineering simulation programs, etc.), it probably will not make much of a difference to you.
Safari, iWork, etc. which you will be using for your university course will load just as quick (especially if you get the SSD) on any of the Macbook Pros.
Well I am going to be changing from a Sony laptop with Window to a Mac because I am going to be studying a photography degree. Now you maybe confused that I am opting for the 13" screen but I like the fact that it is smaller and more lighter for carrying around, and I am also going to purchase the 24" screen to go along with it. After what everyone has said I think I will stick to the 13" cause theres a big price increase just for a few inches.
No, this is not correct. While some tests can be run to grade the quality of silicon before it's processed, they will usually test a sample from a wafer afterward and bin the rest of the wafer based on the performance of that one or select few that they test. This is why people with the exact same rated processor can experience different overclocking results. Variations happen within even a given wafer.
It would simply be too expensive to manufacture individualized speed processors based on an intended frequency. What if half the batch you want to run at 2.8 can only do 2.5 under your conditions? In your case, they would simply toss it. Companies cannot afford to do this, as they are always trying to maximize yield. The only differences in the actual transistors is when they decide to have different levels of Cache or something similar. Often, you'll find that different chips share the same circuitry with their higher price brethren, but have had the additional circuitry actually disabled. In these instances, hackers will work to re-enable the disable circuitry to get the performance of a higher-end part.