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

Apple Launches MacBook Pros with Thunderbolt, Quad Core CPUs, AMD GPUs

Stef4n said:
I was just expecting a higher screen res, a better GPU or a SolidState.
And what did I get? A thunderbolt... :(
Click to expand...

I get a thunderbolt every time I touch my aluminium keyboard in the winter :D for free!

(All those, who think this is an euphemism, I'm talking about static electricity, not the thunderbolt I was born with.)
 
Not a bad update. This is the first time ever that a Mac portable is carrying quad core procs. But my 17" i7 that I bought last April is still a workhorse. I'm eager to see the next revision if they do a complete overhaul. Should be interesting.
 
How is it in the 15" Model an upgrade to 128 SSD IS 100 and for a 256 ITS 500 thats A 5X INCREASE IN PRICE FOR ONLY DOUBLE THE storage. This seems really really high to me.
 
I am pulling my friggin hair out! I was set on getting a 13" MBP but after seeing that the 15" has Quad Core, and I am only $100.00 shy on money, I would be a fool to get the 13" now. $100.00 away from glorious rapture.

I CAN NOT STAND IT! Somebody give me a tranq dart please!
 
I really don't understand why the 13" is such a second class citizen. I really wanted to get a new 13" laptop. Now they are forcing me to get either not get one or to lug around a bigger 15" one. That is much more expensive.
Why can't they just, even as a BTO option, offer a discrete graphics card, higher resolution screen* and a matte screen. I would've bought one instantly. I have no use for a big laptop like the 15" or 17" ones.

And it's not just the gamers that want/need serious graphics cards. Aperture uses that card, CS5 uses that card and a ton of other apps use it as well.

I don't buy the "there is no space in the 13" rethoric for one bit. Especially with Sandy Bridge where the integrated graphics are on the same die as the CPU.

For everthing else it's a great update. I just don't get why the 13" is such a second class citizen. Not everybody wants a big laptop like the 15"/17", but they do want the power.


*the lack of a higher res screen is the worst part, why doesn't the 13" have one if the MBA has one ?? It makes ZERO sense. Especially because they're not offering it as a BTO.
 
So technically SSD's would make everything faster (faster access to program files cache ex...) but how much faster. I'm a 3D designer and I'm looking at getting the 15 2.2 but I'm wondering if upgrading to a 256 SSD is worth it. For 3D work and Intense Photoshop work what difference will an SSD make besides quicker startup times? Thanks!
 
Well, no new 13" MBP for me.

No Antiglare, and no higher resolution.

Why is it that they can't offer the antiglare option on the 13"? I can't stand the glass screen and those black mirror borders.
 
JSmoove05 said:
How is it in the 15" Model an upgrade to 128 SSD IS 100 and for a 256 ITS 500 thats A 5X INCREASE IN PRICE FOR ONLY DOUBLE THE storage. This seems really really high to me.
Click to expand...

Because SSD prices are still really high...
 
franky303 said:
b) having quad core CPUs also on 13" for additional money would really have been cool!!!!!! in days of parallels and vmware, anything below 4-core is out of discussion for me and many others.
Click to expand...

this is very important point. i can bloody feel when vmware is running on my mbp. 4 cores would be handy, so would be higher res on 13". i'll wait for next update. don't want bigger laptop, 13" is just right for me
 
Who got an actual 10 hours of battery life? If this is a realistic 7 hours out of a QUAD core notebook, then that is impressive. No one is ever happy it seems like. You get standard i5s in the 13" with an option for the i7, then you get STANDARD QUADS in the 15" and 17" and no one is even a little happy about it. What happened to all those people that said "If they don't put quads in this refresh I'm going to go buy something else." Now it's "Oh my, look at that battery life. I'm going to go buy something else." Good lord, please do go buy something else. This is ridiculous. Good job Apple, I think you did well.
 
tkirmani said:
So i was just curious to know if the new quadcore i7's are actually sandybridge because far as i know intel sandybridge is only dual core.

I contacted apple and they actually told me that they are NOT sandybridge processors. It is an equivalent to it. Not only that but also said that the names for processors are only for PC and not mac. Apple do not get their processors named!

ANY THOUGHT!? should this effect anyone from buying it?!
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: They are Sandybridge architecture CPUs..
 
Went to Apple store, they have the standard 15" in stock, but no custom HDD, I wanted the 500GB 7200rpm.

I ordered mine online.

MBP 15.4/2.0/CTO
2.0GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200
8x Double-Layer SuperDrive
MBP 15"HR Antiglare WS Display

Ships March 1-7. Can't wait. :cool:
 
Though I will not be buying one of these (new iMac last August), I just wanted to weigh in on the discussion regarding price/features. Peopler brings in this "I can get a $600 Hackintosh with better specs!" argument, but fail to realize that if we keep the argument to legit purchases, things are very different. Leaving Hackintosh out of things, let's say you pay for the $1800 MacBook and the $600 PC laptop. Most people I know complain about shoddiness of these PC laptops, the OS that runs on them, and that they have to replace them more often than not. I keep my Macs for somewhere near 4-5 years, on average. Most people I know cannot keep their PCs going for more than two (not including the super geek fix-it-alls, obviously). Thus, they will spend an average amount of money per year either equivalent to or more than me, depending on the model. For instance, I have my Dad my 2006 17" MBP last august when I got my new iMac. There is not a thing wrong with it, and it performs most normal tasks as quickly as the day I bought it. That's a lot of mileage for an almost 5 year-old machine.

My point is this: if you are Mr. super cool "ive got to have it all, best features from Apple, everything I want right now for the same price as PC-makers"...it's just not happening. You are on the fringe, updating your hardware to the cutting edge over and over all the time. Most people do not do that. While your complaints are probably valid from a hardware cost point of view if you were to upgrade that often, that simply is not the case for most people. The dollars work out to your advantage with Apple products vs. others if you consider long-term viability and resale value.
 
arthurwellsley said:
to anyone in the uk.

The 17" is £2,099.

Book easyjet flight to geneva on the morning of 24th march 2011 (fly to switzerland a non - eu country, flight costs £22.99 (leave uk 8.30am). Pick up tax free 17" at luton airport duty free shop for £1,679. At geneva airport get rid of all packaging , load laptop with software and a few bits of work, slide into previously empty bag, fly back to luton at 4.15 pm from switzerland on easyjet for £15.99. Costs of flights, flight taxes, sandwich drinks etc. Approx £50. You lose a day messing around and save £370.
Click to expand...

:d:d:d:d:d
 
TigerWoodsIV said:
I heard somewhere that those chips jump from 256 to 1 gig, could be wrong...
Click to expand...

If this is true, then Apple should have chosen a different GPU chip.


gnasher729 said:
Upgrading from a 2006 MacBook with 32 bit Core Duo is pointless if you don't use the CPU power. On the other hand, you don't need _one_ program using four cores; if you have four programs that each use one core then all four cores are used. And software that needs the processor power _will_ be multithreaded nowadays. So many people will be very happy with this. And I'd love to have half the power at home that I have at work, instead of one quarter only :D
Click to expand...

Good point about multi-tasking. I stand corrected.


AxiomaticRubric said:
Just checked the Apple Store on this one... a 500Gb 7200 rpm hard drive can be selected as an option at no additional charge.
Click to expand...

Only on the top-end 15" MBP and then Apple drops the HDD from a 750GB 5400RPM HDD to a 500GB 7200RPM HDD; otherwise, Apple still charges $100 to upgrade to a 7200RPM HDD. At that price, I can almost buy TWO 500GB 7200RPM hard drives. My point is that ALL MBPs should come with 7200 RPM HDDs in their original configuration, even if Apple only differentiates the models by capacity. WD is slated to release a 750GB 7200RPM hard drive, if it is not already available, and other manufacturers (e.g., Hitachi) are releasing drives in the same capacity in the near future.
 
So I'm guessing the rumored feature I was most excited about, the system residing on a 16GB SSD drive separate from the main HDD, was just that, a rumor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back