Any chance of a MacBook Extreme?

[shakenmartini]

512mb 8800 GTX
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T8100 2.1GHz
2GB RAM
Intel Turbo Cache Memory 1GB
120GB 7200 RPM SATA
2x Dual Layer Blu-ray Disc Writer

MPB's can be configured wtih 7200 RPM drives (200 GB)

Battery Life is less than 60 minutes running these Alienware rigs with any pro Apps (real world). BluRay playback is less than 30 minutes (real world). MPB can run 2-3h running Pro Apps (real world).

Power Bricks and weight of the alienware is almost 2X a MBP. You've never seen a power "brick" until you've seen a desktop replacement laptop power brick.

Also last I knew, these high-end desktop replacement rigs do not sell very well, so why would Apple want to compete in a poor PC market?

8800 GTX would be nice if its power consumption is fine. If not for CS3 (even video) the MPB is pretty snappy. Most slowness with Pro apps seems to be poor software coding, not a hardware limitation.

Also Apples product lineup is setup so that if you are a Pro, you will have a Mac Pro on your desk and a MacBook Pro to take with you. Since these are business write-off expenses cost is really not an issue. The cost is also in line with regular MB owners who want a speed increase and bigger screen.

 

[masse]

yeah but in a roundabout way I'm trying to agree that there isn't much reason for apple to include a top of the line GPU because a great deal of macbook pro users don't need anything better than midrange, and many more don't need anything better than integrated graphics. Sure you have your power users and gamers, but its a much smaller percentage. If including a better GPU and making the case bigger would sell more laptops and make more profit than I'm sure they would do that.

 

[Standard]

The OP's example of a gaming rig isn't. You are paying currently for specks that the mbp had 2 years ago. That isn't a good trade-off to professional users. And I'll say it again: HD editing is cpu intensive, so it would be worse with that slower processor.



Why should they? The current ones sell very well. And you'd make the entire machine bigger just to accommodate a bigger gpu that most people wont utilize? The problem tends to be (in my opinion) that gamers just get stuck on statistics and fps numbers without being concerned for real-world performance.

As Standard pointed out, you can play almost anything with current mbps. None of you "I want more gpu"ers are giving a compelling case as to why Apple should do that, what the real benefit would be, and why that would be a good financial and marketing desicion. All you think is "its not the same product number in the high-end portable gaming stations, so it must be terrible, and Apple should build me my dream machine if I'm going to pay them 2-3K!"*

*granted, just my observed opinion.

Exactly, that is why I am stressing he learns how to tweak his games to achieve optimal performance. Like I said, the benchmarks for my iMacs 2600 HD 256mb fail miserably with Crysis, but I have invested some hours to tweak my config files that give me optimal performance and visuals.

On a side note, Crysis Warhead will be released within a few months, the visuals are stunning BUT Crytek has spent more time on optimizing their graphics engine for lower end machines. They claim a $600 computer will be able to run it on high settings so...don't count the MacBook Pro out for gaming. Yixian, I've already proved to you that it indeed can handle the latest games on more than acceptable settings.

There's also the fact that many gamers have upgraded their systems over the past year. The Crytek team wants to dispel the myth that Crysis or Warhead requires a high-end, expensive system to play. So they ran the Warhead demonstration on a $652 PC built with parts purchased online. Performance was astonishingly smooth and fluid even with a high level of graphical detail.

- http://pc.ign.com/articles/884/884351p2.html

Keep in mind that driver optimization is still being improved upon from the major developers, both GPU distributors and game developers.

 

[zsft]

The OP's example of a gaming rig isn't. You are paying currently for specks that the mbp had 2 years ago. That isn't a good trade-off to professional users. And I'll say it again: HD editing is cpu intensive, so it would be worse with that slower processor.



Why should they? The current ones sell very well. And you'd make the entire machine bigger just to accommodate a bigger gpu that most people wont utilize? The problem tends to be (in my opinion) that gamers just get stuck on statistics and fps numbers without being concerned for real-world performance.

As Standard pointed out, you can play almost anything with current mbps. None of you "I want more gpu"ers are giving a compelling case as to why Apple should do that, what the real benefit would be, and why that would be a good financial and marketing desicion. All you think is "its not the same product number in the high-end portable gaming stations, so it must be terrible, and Apple should build me my dream machine if I'm going to pay them 2-3K!"*

*granted, just my observed opinion.

Chill son, I didn't make any market analysis whatsoever. I'm just saying they could do this as a possibility in response to the gamer's demand. But of course all computing companies are companies nonetheless and just want profit, who cares about what people think if it pays well. A simple cashflow analysis will reveal it isn't worth it. I'm very well aware of this reality and it's a good thing, drives the economy. I'm on summer break, away from my last year of college and my already finished economics degree, lets not start an academic debate please.

EDIT: BTW besides that, I agree with you, sorry if that came out rude in any way. A little note on running Crysis and Call of Duty 4 on max though...probably get satisfactory results, but not the best. Especially deep in battle w/ smokes/particles etc. And RTS...Star Craft 2! I'd be mad if I buy a MBP in August and I can't play it at native and with almost everything turned up...lots of Korean friends you see...

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Just look half of the threads in this forum. Its like every 15 year old of the upper middle class HAS TO HAVE a macbook pro.

QFT-

Most teens I know whose parents bought their rigs (not the ones who actually need/can use such power) bought it to "future proof" their lil'uns by giving them features they will probably never use.

However

IMO, the op has a point.

As I've said in other threads, the difference between a Macbook and a Macbook Pro are minuscule in my opinion. True, the MBP has a graphics card, back lit keyboard, FW 800, dual link DVI and some other items, but thats about it.

Now, i'm not saying that a Macbook is on par with a Macbook Pro considering the above options,

but the core components, CPU, memory, hard disk, and GPU availability are a joke.....

When I think of A Macbook Pro I think of a direct correlation between their Pro applications and the machine. They should have given it to the Final Cut/Logic/* Quality Engineers and saw what they considered should be in their machines to make it fly.

It does pull its weight, but not as much as it could.

2.4 ghz on the low end? Why not 2.6 ghz standard? Even if this tops off the Penryn mobile range ( I THINK ), why couldn't this be standard?

2 GB OTB? Silly. How many members over here have upgraded to 4 gigs within 1 year of ownership? Myself and a few others had our machines on for less than an hour in "stock" configuration before we installed our ram , quickly provided from newegg at a fraction of the costs.

5400 RPM hard disk? The difference may be small, but again, i'm looking at the MBP from a Apple Pro Application perspective. Final Cut Pro and other apps would benefit from the reduced seek time.

The GPU. I'd probably need to do a little bit of research on my own, but lets assume the Macbook Pro was not designed for gaming. Fair enough, especially considering apple could care less if you run Boot Camp or not. Now, Shake and after affects (the only two I could find) benefit from OpenGL acceleration, which the GeForce firmware is "kinda" good at, but the Quadro cards/firmware are "really" good at.
Even Quartz Extreme (google it) makes us of a subset of OpenGL commands for their main execution.

If this was destined to be a workstation class machine (and looking from their ads, it is) , why can't we get a workstation class GPU, to go?

Then again, the price of all these goodies would be considered rediculous and probably a good alibi for apple to sit on, and I probably wouldn't want to pay the costs either.

Oh well.

 

[Standard]

QFT-

Most teens I know whose parents bought their rigs (not the ones who actually need/can use such power) bought it to "future proof" their lil'uns by giving them features they will probably never use.

However

IMO, the op has a point.

As I've said in other threads, the difference between a Macbook and a Macbook Pro are minuscule in my opinion. True, the MBP has a graphics card, back lit keyboard, FW 800, dual link DVI and some other items, but thats about it.

Now, i'm not saying that a Macbook is on par with a Macbook Pro considering the above options,

but the core components, CPU, memory, hard disk, and GPU availability are a joke.....

When I think of A Macbook Pro I think of a direct correlation between their Pro applications and the machine. They should have given it to the Final Cut/Logic/* Quality Engineers and saw what they considered should be in their machines to make it fly.

It does pull its weight, but not as much as it could.

2.4 ghz on the low end? Why not 2.6 ghz standard? Even if this tops off the Penryn mobile range ( I THINK ), why couldn't this be standard?

2 GB OTB? Silly. How many members over here have upgraded to 4 gigs within 1 year of ownership? Myself and a few others had our machines on for less than an hour in "stock" configuration before we installed our ram , quickly provided from newegg at a fraction of the costs.

5400 RPM hard disk? The difference may be small, but again, i'm looking at the MBP from a Apple Pro Application perspective. Final Cut Pro and other apps would benefit from the reduced seek time.

The GPU. I'd probably need to do a little bit of research on my own, but lets assume the Macbook Pro was not designed for gaming. Fair enough, especially considering apple could care less if you run Boot Camp or not. Now, Shake and after affects (the only two I could find) benefit from OpenGL acceleration, which the GeForce firmware is "kinda" good at, but the Quadro cards/firmware are "really" good at.
Even Quartz Extreme (google it) makes us of a subset of OpenGL commands for their main execution.

If this was destined to be a workstation class machine (and looking from their ads, it is) , why can't we get a workstation class GPU, to go?

Then again, the price of all these goodies would be considered rediculous and probably a good alibi for apple to sit on, and I probably wouldn't want to pay the costs either.

Oh well.

The performance on the MBP's are very good, so I do not know why you stress so much that they are negative. Out of curiosity what kind of work do you do and how intensively?

Again, the MacBook Pro is meant to be a substitute for creative professionals who own Mac Pro's. Most of these posts that speak negatively about the MacBook Pro's performance is gaming related, but yet nobody has really looked into my provided information on the topic.

 

[m1stake]

"Don't start topics when you're high" is the message of this thread.

When was the last time Apple used a flagship notebook GPU in one of its' laptops? Never. They won't start with the 3800 series. I don't know how you get low to mid range out of an 8600GT, it's THE mid range model. While it could use a GPU boost, it won't get anything through the roof. The X1600 was a solid card, as is the 8600 currently. It's no GTX 280 competitor, but it's not meant to be.

The 8600 has much lower power consumption and gives off much less heat.

But, if you want a 2.1Ghz processor getting bottlenecked by an 8800M GTX, don't worry, it's only got 45 minutes of battery life so you won't have to bother with it for long.

The trade-offs that Apple makes are sensible decisions that make the best possible product for the highest number of people, which is really what making a product is about.

 

[GGJstudios]

"Don't start topics when you're high" is the message of this thread..

LOL! And don't take product development advice from college students/gamers, unless that's your primary target market!

 

[Standard]

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=260403

D.Performance Video Cards :HFBVCL:

Now we're talking. Hardcore gamers and those looking for the best visual experience in a 15.4” or smaller notebook should target these cards. They can be found in anything from a 14” to a 17” notebook, and have ample power to play the latest games at the highest settings or close to it. Power consumption is higher than that of the mid-range cards, but still balanced. It is not hard to find a notebook with one of these cards that still has good (2.5+ hours) battery life.

From lowest to highest performance:

Quote:
Nvidia GeForce Go6600
ATI Mobility Radeon X700
Nvidia GeForce 8400M-GT
Nvidia GeForce Go7600
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600
ATI Mobility Radeon X1700
ATI Mobility Radeon X2500
Nvidia GeForce Go7700
Nvidia GeForce 8600M-GS
Nvidia GeForce Go7600GT
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600 DDR2
Nvidia GeForce 8600M-GT DDR2
Nvidia GeForce 9500M-GS DDR2
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600 GDDR3
Nvidia GeForce 8600M-GT GDDR3
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650
Nvidia GeForce 8700M-GT
Nvidia GeForce 9650M-GS
The Nvidia 9500M-GS and the 9650M-GS are not actually anything new, merely die shrinks of the current 8600M-GT and 8700M-GT respectively; everything else down to the clocks themselves are the exact same. They are nothing to get excited about and offer basically no performance increase over the existing cards. Why Nvidia is passing them off as a new generation is unknown.

The 8600M-GT is significantly faster than the 8600M-GS - the main difference between them is that the -GT has double the stream processors. See benchmarks for these cards here. Both of these cards are DirectX 10 compliant. The Nvidia 8400M-GT is in a different class than the 8400M-GS because it has a 128-bit memory bus. It is a fast card, just under the Go7600/X1600.
I have classified the 8700M-GT as a performance card because it has a 128-bit memory bus. A true high-end card has a 256-bit bus. Even though it outperforms high-end cards like the Go7900GS in synthetic 3DMark05 benchmarks, it will most likely fall behind it in high-resolution gaming performance.

For a comparison between the Go7600 and X1600, see this thread.
The ATI Radeon X1700 and GeForce Go7700 are only found in a select few notebooks at the moment. The X1700 offers near-identical performance to the X1600; read more about it here. The X2500 is the same card as the X1700 except it has a different name - ATI obviously did it for marketing reasons. Don't be fooled. The GeForce Go7700 is without a doubt faster than the X1700, although not by a huge amount.

The card isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

 

[t0mat0]

<snip>Apple does not offer a high end laptop.

Depends on your definition of high end. Quality? Gaming potential?

Apple with the desire to use multiple cores and multiple processors to their potential, and also using GPU for general purpose computing, indicates that as an offshoot of that, Apple may very well be shifting to adding better graphics cards in, which seems your main gripe. Apple is unlikely to make a chunky old laptop just to make it a gaming laptop.


MacBook currently: Intel GMA X3100 graphics processor
MacBook Pro - Nvidia GeForce 8600M-GT (highlighted in the list).

ATI Mobility Radeon X1600

From lowest to highest performance:

Low Performance

Nvidia GeForce Go6600
ATI Mobility Radeon X700
Nvidia GeForce 8400M-GT
Nvidia GeForce Go7600
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 - MacBook Pro Early 2006, and Late 2006
ATI Mobility Radeon X1700
ATI Mobility Radeon X2500
Nvidia GeForce Go7700
Nvidia GeForce 8600M-GS
Nvidia GeForce Go7600GT
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600 DDR2
Nvidia GeForce 8600M-GT DDR2
Nvidia GeForce 9500M-GS DDR2
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600 GDDR3
Nvidia GeForce 8600M-GT GDDR3 - Mac Book Pro Early 2008 (DirectX 10 compliant)
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650
Nvidia GeForce 8700M-GT
Nvidia GeForce 9650M-GS*

Higher Performance

Seeing as Apple seems to be holding off the MBP refresh till Q3 08 lets say (Nehalem for starters), they may well get a bump in cards. Will MacBooks move from Integrated graphics cards from Intel - we'll see. They had the Intel GMA 950 in early 2006, and then in late 2007 the Intel GMA X3100. Seeing as Intel is working on Larrabee etc, i'd imagine Apple will keep with integrated chips for MacBook, as the chips will be getting better.

 

[Yixian]

Nobody knows the power consumption of the Mob HD3800 yet, but everything else is completely practical for the MBP. The TDP will probably be greater than an X1600 but probably only a watt or two above the 8600M GT.

 

[ManWithhat]

And RTS...Star Craft 2! I'd be mad if I buy a MBP in August and I can't play it at native and with almost everything turned up...lots of Korean friends you see...

You're talking about Blizzard game . . . they optimize their game engines to hell. I doubt you'll have the slightest problem with runing any upcoming Blizzard game on high (with the possible exception of the unannounced MMO their developing).

Also, the physics engine they're using relies more on CPU than GPU, and the graphics aren't that intense.

 

[Yixian]

You're talking about Blizzard game . . . they optimize their game engines to hell. I doubt you'll have the slightest problem with runing any upcoming Blizzard game on high (with the possible exception of the unannounced MMO their developing).

Also, the physics engine they're using relies more on CPU than GPU, and the graphics aren't that intense.

It has a raft of DirectX 10 effects, but yeah these can be turned off.

 

[zioxide]

512mb 8800 GTX
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T8100 2.1GHz
2GB RAM
Intel Turbo Cache Memory 1GB
120GB 7200 RPM SATA
2x Dual Layer Blu-ray Disc Writer

You forgot the 15 minutes of battery life. (just long enough to fry an egg on the thing after all of the heat generated by that 8800gtx)

Turbo cache is pretty useless too.

 

[NovemberMike]

What I don't understand is why apple is using consumer graphics cards in a business oriented laptop (if it really is one). The Radeon and GeForce lines are designed for games, which require that the image being shown on screen be processed rapidly, be able to support large textures, etc. If they are going for performance in professional applications, you would think they would opt for the FireGL and Quadros lines, which emphasize performance and precision in the areas that things like AutoCAD need.

 

[anmoldagreat]

if you want a gaming laptop then switch to the dark side and take your pic

for all needs of the average high-end mac user: a mbp is extreme enough.

 

[zioxide]

What I don't understand is why apple is using consumer graphics cards in a business oriented laptop (if it really is one). The Radeon and GeForce lines are designed for games, which require that the image being shown on screen be processed rapidly, be able to support large textures, etc. If they are going for performance in professional applications, you would think they would opt for the FireGL and Quadros lines, which emphasize performance and precision in the areas that things like AutoCAD need.

Anyone doing that is going to buy a Mac Pro.

 

[greenythebeast]

Yixian, I'm sorry but you came to the wrong forum to complain about this sort of thing

 

[Yixian]

You forgot the 15 minutes of battery life. (just long enough to fry an egg on the thing after all of the heat generated by that 8800gtx)

Turbo cache is pretty useless too.

It doesn't get any hotter than the 1" aluminium MBP, and the battery life can be extended hugely using the "stealth" feature.

 

[Standard]

Anyone doing that is going to buy a Mac Pro.

Exactly, people need to realize that the MacBook Pro is an aid to your powerful desktop.

 

[InLikeALion]

Exactly, people need to realize that the MacBook Pro is an aid to your powerful desktop.

I don't know why you say that. It can be. But the MBP is a lot of designers, photographers, and developers only machine. The designers/developers behind the Virb social network just got rid of all their mac pros and switched to mbp's.

And that's the point. It has enough power for serious pro's to do all their work on - unless what they do is so specialized that it can only be done with the incredible power/storage etc of the mac pro.

 

[MattZani]

Well, since its a Pro Laptop, we should be having an nForce or Quadro GPU, absolutely terrible for Gaming, but sure can crunch numbers and create real time 3D Models

Basically, you want a GPU that is upto date, go get a windows machine. I'll stick here, enjoy OS X, the lower temps, better battery life, and good enough gaming performance (if i want to play PC games, i dont want to do it on the move, so i would have a Gaming PC for that, but i have a PS3 and 360 instead)

Got my point yet? The 8600Gt is the ideal GPU for the MBP atm, doesnt use too much power, and will easily handle most things, and will get along doing 3D Rendering etc, if a little slow. Its not designed to play the latest games, so why bother?

The MBP doesnt need more GPU Power, it needs more CPU Power, and a higher FSB, something thats actually useful in the industry, not at home, or slacking off at work or school.

 

[Standard]

I don't know why you say that. It can be. But the MBP is a lot of designers, photographers, and developers only machine. The designers/developers behind the Virb social network just got rid of all their mac pros and switched to mbp's.

And that's the point. It has enough power for serious pro's to do all their work on - unless what they do is so specialized that it can only be done with the incredible power/storage etc of the mac pro.

I admit that statement was bold on my part, I guess I was trying to point out that if you are looking for a powerhorse that you should look else where. But for Pro App needs these machines are quite sufficient.

 

[pdxflint]

College students are a huge market for mac laptops, and my numbers are conservative by my count. I know many (40 or so) college students with macbook pros. I know one who actually needs it (goes to film school for special effects and graphic design).

Just look half of the threads in this forum. Its like every 15 year old of the upper middle class HAS TO HAVE a macbook pro.

When I was in college, many of the apps we ran, either in the computer lab or on our own laptops, were professional in nature. Statisitics programs, Excel, Adobe Studio, Dreamweaver, Relational databases, math programs, Quark, MS Office, and on and on. You can't just assume your friends don't need something. Sure, probably they could get by with a plain Macbook, or a Thinkpad or a Dell or Toshiba, etc. But to say they don't need something that they are using is just silly. Why do people buy dSLR cameras, when they could manage for the most part with a decent point 'n shoot camera? Why should a 'non-pro' even consider better, professionally-capable equipment...? (if I'm to accept your logic)
Probably because it gives them more capacity than they think they need at the moment, yet gives them the tools to do more as they develop their skills = more useful life. So, for all your friends who bought MBPs, many of them will be glad they did later on. For me, I could have gotten by with a MB, but I appreciate the larger, brighter, clearer screen real estate, overall better design, extra ports, superior keyboard (IMO) etc. of the MBP. Even for basic tasks (non-pro) I prefer this machine - it just makes me feel more comfortable, more satisfied with the tool I'm working with. And when I need to take advantage of the better graphics power, it's there, rather than me wishing I had made the right choice. So, the extra cost doesn't have to translate into "only pros should be able to justify buying the MBP" but instead gives a more refined, more capable and overall more satisfying experience, even for regular people who prefer quality over quantity (Lexus, BMW and Audi come to mind here... )

Anyway, to each his own. I'm sure there are always folks out there who see a purchase, whatever it is - car, computer, suit, sneakers, etc - as a status symbol, and I'd agree that there are some who see a MBP as just exactly that. Apple's élan in their approach to the world of technology has been a huge part of why Apple = status in many quarters. Many folks will notice an Apple logo on a laptop, but ignore a Dell or HP or Toshiba or Fujitsu or Lenovo in a public setting. I've had people come up to me and ask "Is that the Pro?" or "did you hear what Apple's up to today?" or "How do you like your laptop?" and on and on. All my years of using an IBM thinkpad (a great laptop, BTW, unfortunately running Windows) I never once got even a single query, or approach from a stranger because they noticed my laptop. Sometimes I'm even wary about bringing out my MBP, because to me it's just a superior tool, but when folks approach me I end up sounding like some kind of evangelist... which I'm not. I'm just describing my own experiences. I didn't get it for status, but I've found that it definitely exists whether I like it or not. There has to be a reason... right?

 

[TheReef]

Gaming isn't the best in laptops anyways, the heat caused from increased GPU activity can shorten the life of your Mac.

I guess I would like a portable with high graphics performance for those rare occasions, but as I've learnt from playing games on my powerbook I will be more careful from now on.