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" MBPs - Core 2 Duo vs. Core i3 Processors
- Thread starter neteng101
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, that's you. Don't try and force everyone to stick with a ******** GPU for your CPU spec whoringness.
I suggested i5 because some people think that i3 is too slow. And MBP13 does not have to be that slim. And there is that great 13" Sony VAIO Z which is 1.3" thick but offers i7 and discrete graphics with 1GB VRAM.
And look at it's price/battery with those options.
I really don't think Apple is going to copy a competitor when it has it's own unique package. Especially since Apple is making bank. Obviously they are doing something right.
Is this thread C2D vs i3? MBP vs other comps? Get it right.
Stop posting up Geekbench scores for "systems".
If you're comparing processors, apple could have done much better.
CPU benchmarks:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
P8600 1611
i3 330M 2031
25% more! That's a HUGE difference.
I'd sacrifice 2 hours for that 25% improvement.
the 13" is now not a Pro. Sorry.
Should go back to the name coined in late 08', unibody Macbook.
Stop posting up Geekbench scores for "systems".
If you're comparing processors, apple could have done much better.
CPU benchmarks:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
P8600 1611
i3 330M 2031
25% more! That's a HUGE difference.
I'd sacrifice 2 hours for that 25% improvement.
the 13" is now not a Pro. Sorry.
Should go back to the name coined in late 08', unibody Macbook.
Oh great. Another name whore. Get a life, 'Pro' is a marketing tactic.
Seriously, lets see what a 25% improvement can do with a 90% reduction in GPU.
And I assume that we, as consumers, should be happy with Apple products as long as they make huge money. What is wrong with Apple fans? Why do they always think about Apple first and only then about themselves?
Because we don't want a 1.3" laptop? We like it at .95". We also like it at $1199. And we like 10 hour batteries. If we wanted all that, we would go ahead and buy a VAIO Z.
What the hell are you talking about 90% reduction? The Intel HD graphics are on par with the Nvidia 9400m. Plus, what's stopping Apple from putting a dedicated GPU in the 13"? Heat and space? Give me a break...there are smaller dedicated solutions out there, it would have just cut into Apple's huge profit margins if they actually offered something half decent.
Damn man, get your facts straight before you RAGE!
AMD processor with integrated ATI graphics maybe? Read front page news.
Now that would scare me.
So let me get this straight. You would accept the 9400m quality performance for a cpu that was a bit faster? The 2.4 C2D while old is still no slouch and the 320m is alot faster than the 9400m. This combination is better than simply sticking an i3/i5 and going with the intel integrated graphics.
So far NOONE has shown me a competitive laptop 13 inches or smaller with discrete graphics + 7 plus hours battery life + core i5 or i3 for that matter + a well designed case for $1200 or less.
I edited my post, but I'll reiterate: There are laptops with less volume than the 13" MBP that have dedicated GPUs. Sure they may not be 1" thick, but it's not like the GPU itself is 1" tall or something. Not only that, but Arrandale takes up less space overall than a C2D chipset.
I honestly don't care though, I'm not buying a 13" mbp because it doesn't meet my needs. If others want to buy it, good for them. But if they feel the need to justify their purchases against everyone else, then maybe there's an issue there.
Jesus man, calm down. I just said his 90% figure was way off, no need to imply that I said something that I didn't. Quite frankly, all of the MBPs suck ass in terms of GPU.
The ArsTechnia article I read said that Apple didn't want to sacrifice the battery for a dedicated GPU (they'd have to make the battery smaller to fit it). I think what they should have done is sacrifice the SuperDrive for the GPU.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/why-the-13-macbook-pro-didnt-get-a-core-i5-upgrade.ars
No space for the heatsink or the die. MBP15/17 has at least twice the cooling (two sets of fins and two fans) compared to the MBP13.
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Pro-15-Inch-Unibody-Core-i5-Teardown/2212/2
I guess you can reduce the battery space and come up with some better thermals, but then after all that effort we'd end up with a computer similar to the competition.
I'm inclined to agree that it might be a good idea for Apple to elliminate the SuperDrive from the 13inch MBP, for the same reason they decided to leave it out of the MBA. Doing so would certainly reduce the MBP's weight, which would be a good thing.LoganT said:
No reason why Apple can't stick in a dedicated GPU in with it too. The ATI 5450 should have the same power consumption as the Nvidia 320M, yet it slightly outperforms it.
Actually Intel is still producing Dual-Core T4xxx series that Dell sells in their budget laptops.
Apple was smart on their updates.
95% of the potential MacBook Pro 13" customers won't notice (and don't care about) the difference between the Core 2 Duo and the i3 or i5.
It won't make a difference in email, web surfing, iPhoto, iTunes, Word, Excel, PowerPoint etc.....Facebook, MySpace, Twitter......
Another important thing to these customers is playing back video and web video, which means a better graphics card.
Also, these 95% of consumers would prefer the extra battery life to a minor speed increase. It's the other 5% that are here on Macrumors whining about the update
Why are people who claim they are not even interested in the 13" MBPs whining abt the lack of upgrade in this thread?
Apple has picked their target market, deal with it.
Actually Intel is still producing Dual-Core T4xxx series that Dell sells in their budget laptops.
Apple was smart on their updates.
95% of the potential MacBook Pro 13" customers won't notice (and don't care about) the difference between the Core 2 Duo and the i3 or i5.
It won't make a difference in email, web surfing, iPhoto, iTunes, Word, Excel, PowerPoint etc.....Facebook, MySpace, Twitter......
Another important thing to these customers is playing back video and web video, which means a better graphics card.
Also, these 95% of consumers would prefer the extra battery life to a minor speed increase. It's the other 5% that are here on Macrumors whining about the update
Why are people who claim they are not even interested in the 13" MBPs whining abt the lack of upgrade in this thread?
Apple has picked their target market, deal with it.
totally agree
The only reason C2D is acceptable is because Apple wouldn't put a dedicated graphics card in with a Core i3/i5 CPU in the 13" MBP. If you all could have a C2D plus 320m or a Core i3 plus 330 GT, I think you all would choose the dedicated graphics. Since Intel is forcing its GMA IGP and chipset on Core i-series CPUs, it is really killing the graphics capabilities in Macs. Even the 15" MBP is using either an Intel HD at a 60% performance hit from the 9400m, so when the Intel HD GMA is running on the 15/17" MBPs their graphics are running at about 1/4 the capability of the 13" MBPs.
The point is there is a terrible problem with Intel forcing its worthless GMA IGP on the CPU. It is too bad Apple cannot find a way around this now. At the end of 2010, the Intel roadmap calls for ceasing all C2D production. Very soon Apple will have to find a new solution that gets rid of the Nvidia 320m GPU/chipset. At that time, what does Apple do?
I agree the C2D with the 320m is a much better solution than a Core i3 with only Intel HD GMA graphics. However, why not cut out the worthless optical drive and put a dedicated graphics card in the 13" MBP? I know it's going to affect battery but wouldn't people prefer dedicated graphics to an optical drive and an extra hour of battery?
The point is there is a terrible problem with Intel forcing its worthless GMA IGP on the CPU. It is too bad Apple cannot find a way around this now. At the end of 2010, the Intel roadmap calls for ceasing all C2D production. Very soon Apple will have to find a new solution that gets rid of the Nvidia 320m GPU/chipset. At that time, what does Apple do?
I agree the C2D with the 320m is a much better solution than a Core i3 with only Intel HD GMA graphics. However, why not cut out the worthless optical drive and put a dedicated graphics card in the 13" MBP? I know it's going to affect battery but wouldn't people prefer dedicated graphics to an optical drive and an extra hour of battery?
The foregoing is a good executive summary of why Apple stuck with the old Core 2 Duo chip for the 13 inch MBP rather than upgrading to the i5 or i7. I am beginning to give some credence to the rumor that Apple will shift to AMD to supply its CPU chips next year.
What do you run on your laptop? This configuration (an i5 w/ the HD graphics) would result in lesser performance for applications that use any significant degree of graphics. See the Ars Technica article previously posted on this thread for an analysis of that.
The application I can see for this would be serious technical computing/number crunching...but if you're doing that, why would you do it on a 13" MBP? Just curious what application set this configuration would make sense on...