Another Look at Apple's Core 2 Duo Choice for New 13-Inch MacBook Pro

[dsprimal]

shipping?

does anyone know if apple or fedex (whatever company apple chooses for deliveries) 2-3 day shipping goes through the weekend?

My order says "Ships: April 30 - May 6" The 30th is this friday, and i paid the $18.00 for 2-3 day delivery. Will they deliver just on Friday then hold it in a fed ex warehouse over the weekend? or will they continue deliveries on saturday/sunday?

Reason being, i don't see the purpose of paying a premium if the deliveries going to stay idle in a warehouse for 2 days....kinda defeats the purpose of 2-3 shipping huh?

Thanks in advance!

 

[John.B]

I think the 13-inch with a 10-hour battery and a 2.66 C2D is a damn nice machine. The graphics are pretty good and for people that travel a lot, this machine is ideal.

I just can't justify the additional $300 for the upgrade from C2D 2.4GHz to C2D 2.66GHz on the 13" MBP. Especially since the first thing I'd do is rip out the hard drive and put in a 500GB or 640GB drive instead.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

... Apple's excuse for not upgrading the 13" (to i5 processors or discrete graphics or giving it an expresscard slot) is that they can't fit everything in and maintain the battery life. The solution is to ditch the optical drive since it is becoming less relevant every day. For as often as I use it, I'd rather buy an external and use the space in the computer for something else. If they could fit discrete graphics, an i5, an expresscard slot (or alternatively USB3, eSATA, or LightPeak), 2 hard drives, and a high res matte display (1440x900 or 1680x1050 or more), that would be the ideal computer for me, and I would pay a lot of money for one.

Personally, I like big screens and lots of pixels, so, I'm not quite where you are on this. However, I do agree about the drive. As often as I use any of my drives on all my different laptops, I would happily give up the built-in drive-- as long as the external drive is bootable (I do want that). That would free up a lot of space for more battery and better cooling.

 

[John.B]

Personally, I like big screens and lots of pixels, so, I'm not quite where you are on this. However, I do agree about the drive. As often as I use any of my drives on all my different laptops, I would happily give up the built-in drive-- as long as the external drive is bootable (I do want that). That would free up a lot of space for more battery and better cooling.

But they already have a small 13" laptop without an optical drive in the MBAir. It'll be interesting to see how that will eventually get updated for Arrandale (for starters it needs 4GB of RAM).

 

[Eric S.]

Did you check the source from the article I linked you to? The word "may" was simply added by the journalist. The entire article was just commenting on a chart from Intel. In that article it may seem like speculation but the fact that the entire article was written based on a chart throws all of that out of the window.

Where does it say it was from Intel? The article says the chart is from "Chinese website INPAI.com.cn." The article only refers to the fact that "Intel sketched out its strategy" for the Core brand. And if you follow that link, all it says is that Lynnfield will be branded i5 and i7 and Clarksfield i7. Those are correct, and in fact are just about the only thing that the chart gets right except for Bloomfield which had already been released at the time. So that chart looks like mostly totally bogus speculation to me.

In any case even if the chart were genuine it wouldn't matter. It would only say, since most of the brand names are wrong, that Intel had changed its brand name strategy in the 10 months since the article. We would need something that shows current plans.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

... rumors last year that Core 2 would be rebranded ...

How about "i1"?

In any case, I don't see what the big deal is about the 13" C2D. I'm writing this on a C2D and there are 4 C2D's within a 20 foot radius at the moment. Until this year, they were considered pretty darn fast. I think everyone understands that all other things being equal, Nehalem chips are faster. But, Intel did not make it very easy to combine Nehalem with the graphics you want. Seems like a smart choice for a low-power compact laptop.

My biggest second-guessing of Apple is that I think all new Macs including MBP's should all have 8 GB minimum. A lot of image and video processing happens on Macs, amateur and professional (Macs are very popular with people who like to do their own family and friends movie editing, etc., not to mention Aperture, Final Cut, Logic, etc.)

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

But they already have a small 13" laptop without an optical drive in the MBAir. It'll be interesting to see how that will eventually get updated for Arrandale (for starters it needs 4GB of RAM).

Unfortunately, it is missing way, way more than the optical drive. The point is to keep all the other stuff (10/100/1000 Ethernet, 2 USB ports, 800 Mbps FireWire), increase battery life, and improve cooling, etc.

 

[aiqw9182]

Where does it say it was from Intel? The article says the chart is from "Chinese website INPAI.com.cn." The article only refers to the fact that "Intel sketched out its strategy" for the Core brand. And if you follow that link, all it says is that Lynnfield will be branded i5 and i7 and Clarksfield i7. Those are correct, and in fact are just about the only thing that the chart gets right except for Bloomfield which had already been released at the time. So that chart looks like mostly totally bogus speculation to me.

In any case even if the chart were genuine it wouldn't matter. It would only say, since most of the brand names are wrong, that Intel had changed its brand name strategy in the 10 months since the article. We would need something that shows current plans.

"Intel sketched out its strategy" isn't good enough for you? The information was from Intel. I don't know what more convincing info you need. I said the technical info was correct. I never said the dates or names were correct. Those are both subject to change and irrelevant.

Yeah, the only problem with that is the technical side still hasn't changed meaning that's it's still more than likely that Core 2 Duo will get re-branded as i3. If they bunched all of the Arrandales as i3 with a bunch of Penryn chips whats stopping them from still doing that? Absolutely nothing. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Eric S.]

"Intel sketched out its strategy" isn't good enough for you? The information was from Intel.

The only information from Intel in that article was that they would use the names i3, i5, and i7, and some examples about Lynnfield and Clarksfield. The rest appears to be made up by the Chinese web site.

I never said the dates or names were correct.

But we're talking about the names; that's the whole point. You said C2Ds would be rebranded as i3. There's absolutely no proof of that here, just speculation.

I don't know what more convincing info you need.

Something more than this, that's for sure.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Err, yes, that's what I said, that you need 64bit apps for the apps (them) to utilize the extra RAM.

Lots of 64-bit apps out there now. Commercially, some of the recent Adobe professional apps; Handbrake, R; lots of Macports have been updated, including Gimp, VLC, not to mention all the basic apps that Apple now ships, and at least one professional app- Aperture 3. What isn't 64-bits yet? Microsoft Office, Apple iWork and iLife, many professional apps. Still, there are actually lots of 64-bit apps out there now, so, I wouldn't use the argument "there are no 64-bit apps" as a reason not to get 8 GB. (Money is a more potent argument.)

 

[aiqw9182]

The only information from Intel in that article was that they would use the names i3, i5, and i7, and some examples about Lynnfield and Clarksfield. The rest appears to be made up by the Chinese web site.

Yeah, all of those made up technical specs came from a Chinese web site that just magically happened to come true.

But we're talking about the names; that's the whole point. You said C2Ds would be rebranded as i3. There's absolutely no proof of that here, just speculation.

You are acting like the Arrandale i3's were just suddenly wiped off the face of the planet. There is still an Arrandale i3 which would still fit in that chart. Like I said, names are subject to change over time. The Core 2 Duo and the Arrandale i3 are not radically different. I don't see why this is so hard for you to believe.

 

[Eric S.]

Yeah, all of those made up technical specs came from a Chinese web site that just magically happened to come true.

Once again, we're talking about the names.

You are acting like the Arrandale i3's were just suddenly wiped off the face of the planet. There is still an Arrandale i3 which would still fit in that chart. Like I said, names are subject to change over time. The Core 2 Duo and the Arrandale i3 are not radically different. I don't see why this is so hard for you to believe.

Fine, names change over time. Show me something that says that Intel at this time plans to rebrand some C2D processors as i3. Something current, not from 10 months ago. Something that reflects information from Intel, not from a Chinese web site. Lacking that, it may or may not be true, but it's just speculation.

And BTW, Nehalem/Westmere and C2D are what I would call substantially different.

 

[aiqw9182]

Fine, names change over time.

Glad that we got that out of the way.

Show me something that says that Intel at this time plans to rebrand some C2D processors as i3. Something current, not from 10 months ago. Something that reflects information from Intel, not from a Chinese web site. Lacking that, it may or may not be true, but it's just speculation.

And BTW, Nehalem/Westmere and C2D are what I would call substantially different.

Last year isn't current enough for you in the world of CPU chips? Give me a break. I don't feel like digging around on Google because there's not any accurate way to find something that specific without getting a bunch of random articles for pages and pages. If you don't want to believe it with the given information that was all correct barring a couple of names(and and it is a couple when talking i3, there is still an Arrandale i3) then be my guest. It's pretty clear you aren't convinced enough with the fact that the information on the chart was from Intel just because they shuffled the names around at a later time.

Oh and performance wise, the Arrandale i3 and C2D are not that different in performance. So much so that the average end user would not notice the increase making it perfect for a rebranding.

 

[chatin]

Go with Intel

Core 2 is still one of my favorite Intel chips of all time. When they did the public benchmark in fall of 2006 that blew AMD64 away it was clearly a chip to be reckoned with.

Intel graphics get a bad rap but they are fast and reliable while Nvidia has put out factory-defectives. The mobile 330's are not as fast as buggy-N would have us believe although they hopefully are more reliable than the 8600GT.

 

[DontMacTheGyver]

Oh and performance wise, the Arrandale i3 and C2D are not that different in performance. So much so that the average end user would not notice the increase making it perfect for a rebranding.

If you have software that use the additional threads of i3, there is definetely a perfomance boost.
Core2Duo RIP...

 

[aiqw9182]

If you have software that use the additional threads of i3, there is definetely a perfomance boost.
Core2Duo RIP...

Geekbench scores have already proven that the 2.13 GHz i3 is equivalent to the 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo and the higher clocked 2.26 i3 is equivalent to the 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo.

So no, there won't be a performance boost until Intel bumps up the GHz in 2011. Nice try though.

 

[DontMacTheGyver]

Geekbench scores have already proven that the 2.13 GHz i3 is equivalent to the 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo and the higher clocked 2.26 i3 is equivalent to the 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo.

So no, there won't be a performance boost until Intel bumps up the GHz in 2011. Nice try though.

Are you sure geekbench regards multi-threading? I don't think so... or are you convinced that the additional virtual cores are just good-for-nothing?

 

[aiqw9182]

Are you sure geekbench regards multi-threading? I don't think so... or are you convinced that the additional virtual cores are just good-for-nothing?

Am I sure Geekbench regards multi-threading?

HAHAHA You're seriously asking that? How about you go look up some GeekBench scores. There's a reason why the i7 iMac almost doubles the i5 iMac's geekbench score.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Are you sure geekbench regards multi-threading? I don't think so... or are you convinced that the additional virtual cores are just good-for-nothing?

Get your facts straight.

http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/

"Multicore

Whether you're running Geekbench on a single-core Pentium, a quad-core Mac Pro, or a sixteen-core Sun server, Geekbench is able to measure the performance of all the processor cores in your system. Every processor benchmark is multi-threaded and multi-core aware to show you the true potential of your computer."

Hyperthreading isn't magic fairy dust, and in some Cache heavy situations reduces the performance.

 

[aiqw9182]

Are you sure geekbench regards multi-threading? I don't think so... or are you convinced that the additional virtual cores are just good-for-nothing?

Oh and here's something for you to look at:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/899572/

 

[DontMacTheGyver]

Get your facts straight.

http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/

"Multicore

Whether you're running Geekbench on a single-core Pentium, a quad-core Mac Pro, or a sixteen-core Sun server, Geekbench is able to measure the performance of all the processor cores in your system. Every processor benchmark is multi-threaded and multi-core aware to show you the true potential of your computer."

Hyperthreading isn't magic fairy dust, and in some Cache heavy situations reduces the performance.

Thanks for the info!!

 

[DontMacTheGyver]

Oh and here's something for you to look at:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/899572/

Interesting!
But I was never waiting for an i3 in the 13" MBP, but an i5/i7 like most of my friends have in their notebooks...

 

[aiqw9182]

Interesting!
But I was never waiting for an i3 in the 13" MBP, but an i5/i7 like most of my friends have in their notebooks...

If you really need an i5 so badly then get a 15". The chances of the 13" getting anything better than an i3 are slim to none. That's just the way Apple works.

 

[DontMacTheGyver]

If you really need an i5 so badly then get a 15". The chances of the 13" getting anything better than an i3 are slim to none. That's just the way Apple works.

Due to my MB still working fine (for its age) I'll wait till the next major update. With a redesigned case + interior there are lots of possibilities, even for the 13". Apple was always good for a surprise so we'll see what happens, maybe the 13" is getting "pro" again...
Regards from Istanbul

 

[aiqw9182]

Due to my MB still working fine (for its age) I'll wait till the next major update. With a redesigned case + interior there are lots of possibilities, even for the 13". Apple was always good for a surprise so we'll see what happens, maybe the 13" is getting "pro" again...
Regards from Istanbul

Ok, well hope you have fun playing the waiting game. It's not that difficult to map out what Apple is going to do in the next update since Intel's processor specs are all over the web along with what the 13" MBP can and can't handle. I'd like to know how you think the 13" lost its "Pro" moniker. Apple simply describes "Pro" as being Firewire 800, SD Card, available 8GB of RAM and an SSD option. Apple wouldn't have put an i5 in the 13" as that's already in the 15" and they have to have a reason to upgrade. Not to mention the i processors all currently use 35 watts and the 13" uses 25 watt processors. I've already shown you why the i3 would be the same performance as the Core 2 Duo.

So tell me how Apple could've put more "Pro" into the 13". I'm begging to hear it.