Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
:mad::mad::mad::eek::eek::mad::mad::mad:

The rating for processsors is in Ghz not GB and the rating for cache is in MB!
GET IT RIGHT!! :mad::mad:!!!!!!!!!



:mad::mad::eek::eek::mad::mad::mad:

SOMEONE ELSE AS WELL, GET IT RIGHT YOU LOT!!!!! HARD DRIVES IN GB, PROCESSORS IN GHZ, CACHE IN MB, MEMORY IN GB!!!! :mad::mad:!!!

Dude. Calm down. It's all good. :)
 
Yes, I know how it sounds, sorry about that. :) But what I mean is that people always seem to set a standard for 'how many GB's they should have', while that hardly relates to what they actually do with a computer. First find a legitimate reason to complain - don't start by always wanting more.

I wasn;t giving u crap or anything :p Honestly though regardless of the awesome rating system here (thumbs) LOL

The higher end models should have 8GB's People paying that much usually are doing video or photo work (high end perhaps) 8GB's standard is helpful for that. I guess newegg it is for them.

Oh and RECORD....BREAKING....PROFITS!!!!

Apple needs to stop being female organs and charge 3k for the 2499, and 1499 standard for the 13' and 2499 for the 15'. You guys are lucky I am not CEO I would rape your wallet harder than they already try to do. Odd Jobs didnt try it, he had to know he could. And give me thumbs downs, stop being lazy.
 
95% of statistics are made up on the spot.
True. :) It's not a statistic, it's a percentage representing my estimation as a reseller.

But OK, I might be wrong to have criticized the first post. It would be nicer to have 8GBs standard in your Mac. It's more and can be used.
 
The upgrade for the high-end 15" is only 0.1GHz and a slightly faster GPU. In my opinion, the high-end 15" and 17" models are the least impacted from the new refresh.

I would be a lot more bothered if I purchased a base 13" since they also increased the HDD capacity. And I would be the most bothered if I had purchased the base 15" model since the 256MB 6490M was severely lacking compared to the 6750M.

Agreed. I think Apple was correcting a wrong here with the 256MB 6490M. That just doesn't mesh with a "pro" 15" laptop.
 
Minor boost followed by major update, as someone pointed out earlier. This makes current models a "safer" buy for anyone on the fence, if they're unable to wait for the major update.

Of course, the bulk of the market doesn't think this way. They'll buy Macs regardless. The Air is an especially attractive option.
 
That's like saying you want a MBA. But faster? The latest model is really competing with MBP already!

yep, 4 cores would be nice. I'm a web developer and having 2 extra cores helps a lot when testing IE on Win in VMWare.

my 2009 MBP got new life earlier this year when I replaced HDD with SSD - huge difference, huge, huge, huge.

but I'd like to have a laptop which looks and weighs like Air, with the same 13" screen (it's higher res than current 13" MBP) and ThunderBolt for external disk(s) - for photos, I already moved them to my external FW disk but could be quite interesting to see (if any) performance difference if a external SSD drive is connected via ThunderBolt.

So yeah, pretty much as you said, I want quad core Air. But if you remember when they re-introduced Air, they said "This is the future of MacBook" so I believe that next year all laptops from Apple will look like Air (wishful thinking, I know).

No need for optical drive any more (MAS does the job) and that space could be used in Pro models either for larger battery or additional cooling or both.
 
It should make a difference to any user.

What exactly do you do where the HD 3000 makes any difference whatsoever to you?

In case you don't know HD 3000 does not support OpenCL nor does it do well at all with 3D. Since some very basic libraries from Apple make use of OpenCL when it is available you loose out on that acceleration. The general 3D suckage is another valid issue.

I'm actually surprised that someone would even ask the question. Intel has never been known for its GPUs.
 
Lame - the 6770M is just a slightly faster clocked 6750. The difference between the two is minimal.
 
Anybody calling this update "uninspired" or "disappointing" hasn't been paying attention to Apple's strategy over the past 4 years.

Exactly.

This is a better mid-life upgrade than most but major updates twice a year never happen. It doesn't help that there are rumour threads in the forums misleading people.

This is quite a nice upgrade.
 
Apple must have other things up their sleeve to not count this as an upgrade worth mentioning...

BTW, those upgrades are actually good!
 
:mad::mad::mad::eek::eek::mad::mad::mad:

The rating for processsors is in Ghz not GB and the rating for cache is in MB!
GET IT RIGHT!! :mad::mad:!!!!!!!!!



:mad::mad::mad::eek::eek::mad::mad::mad:

SOMEONE ELSE AS WELL, GET IT RIGHT YOU LOT!!!!! HARD DRIVES IN GB, PROCESSORS IN GHZ, CACHE IN MB, MEMORY IN GB!!!! :mad::mad:!!!
Son, you need to breathe.
 
You need to go to a benchmarking site.

Can someone tell me how the newer HD 6750M with 512 MB GDDR5 and the older HD 6750M with 1 GB DDR5 compare, especially for running games?
Is the 512 MB DDR5 much of a difference? If not, my next Mac will be 400 dollars cheaper! (difference between the 2199 dollar version and the 1799 dollar version, don't care much about HDD space.)

It depends upon the game, you need to compare bench marks for you specific set of games. In general though go with the extra.
 
Sata 3 ssd ?

I have not read the 5 pages of post so I don't know if someone asked about this :

Does anyone know if they have upgraded the SSD to SATA 3 (6G) ?

Because that would be a good thing to upgrade...
 
Not that bothered about the cpu bump (0.1ghz isnt worth it) but a bit gutted my 2 month old 13 MBP doesnt have that 500GB hdd, :( Trust me to buy a MBP the year Apple does a mid cycle refresh
 
ahh so whenever you buy a MBP or something you should pretty much wait till the "minor updates" [if they are rumored].. i wish i bought this one instead of my 2010 C2D with 250 GB storage :p but i doubt it would have happened, probably would have just bought the 2011 MBP when it first came \out haha
 
For perspective I have a 2007 2.4 GHz Santa Rosa 17" MacBookPro 4 GB DDR that has a 7200 rpm hard drive that is almost full. I maxed it out at the time of purchase with every option under the sun and it cost about $4400 to make that happen. A current Gen MacBookPro matched to give the equivalent (well closest possible) spec would cost me A$2954 to make it happen (not including a complete pimp out of all the options available though).

Last week I needed to install Visual Studio 2010 for work purposes but rather than buy a new drive, open up the laptop, swap the drive and reinstall the OS, restore existing data and get the machine's environment setup completely how I like it again urghhh; I simply bought a W7 i3 laptop as a supplement.

For $399 I got a brand new Lenovo Thinkpad G570 with Core i3 2.1Ghz, 4 GB DDR3, 640 GB 5400 rpm HD, ATI 6370 1 GB Graphics and a slather of other hardware features. It's very solidly built, robust and partially metal and just perfect for running as a development environment. Not a beast in comparison to the i7's but a strong indicator of how Apple's pricing structure is at a premium when we can get deals like this being so close to Asia with a strong Australian Dollar.

I still prefer using my Mac for everyday tasks though and will have to do something about the storage issue soon :)
 
Those upgrades are good if I never upgraded my current one to 750GB HDD and 8GB RAM. The only thing different than mine is the 0.1 GHz processor bump.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.