Yes I know it comes with 256, that was my bad.
I don't understand this most people thing. You are paying near 3 grand for a laptop, you have crossed the most people line.
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.
Apple Releases New MacBook Pros with Santa Rosa
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes I know it comes with 256, that was my bad.
I don't understand this most people thing. You are paying near 3 grand for a laptop, you have crossed the most people line.
Lowering the settings is not always an option. And what Turbocache does is that it basically lets the GPU access the VRAM and in addition to that, it can access the system-RAM through PCI-e in parallel. So you get more bandwidth since you have the bandwidth offered by the VRAM, plus the bandwidth offered by the system-RAM/PCI-e. And it's a lot more flexible setup, since it's transparent to the GPU and not limited to just texturing.
In short: If you got a vid-card with 10 units of VRAM-bandwidth + 2 units of system-RAM bandwidth, the GPU would have 12 units of bandwidth at it's disposal. Remove Turbocache from the equation, and the bandwidth drops back to 10 units. Not to mention the fact that Turbocache gives the GPU more RAM to play with. And all of that is a Good Thing (tm).
Faster X1600 would drain more power, while 8600M uses less than before (and I'm not even taking into account the h264/WMV decoder in 8600M that can work hard with the rest of the GPU in low power mode).
Aperture, among other apps, uses the Core Image subsystem. Core Image is, simplistically put, a bunch of image filter programs, executed by a programmable GPU where available, and by the vector unit of the CPU - where not.
About the drivers... well, I don't have the slightest idea, but my wild ass guess would be that nVidia write the drivers.
About the VRAM, again, this is a moot point. More RAM (of any kind) is always better, but, unlike the olden days when the 64MB VRAM Powerbook couldn't feed a 30" monitor and the 128MB one could, in this case the lower amount of VRAM is not a strictly limiting factor. Doubling the VRAM will give you better performance, but not better enough to justify the higher cost.
Hmm, the bandwidth isn't additive. You actually lose 8 units to access the system RAM. I would imagine the memory controller is already trying to hide latency from the GPU, adding a huge bandwidth hit doesn't seem like it would help any. More RAM is nice, but in this case you would have no choice but to lower settings be it resolution, AA, AF, and/or texture quality.
Actually, it is. That's how it might work with AGP-texturing, but that's not how it works with Turbocache and the like. Hell, 3DLabs used something similar in their hi-end Wildcat 3D-cards. they could use the local VRAM and system-RAM as one big chunk of RAM. And it was smart enough to put the most often used things in to the VRAM, but the RAM was still logically handled as one big pool of RAM.
Because iMovie does everything I need? Because it comes with the Mac and I don't need to pay more for another program? Not to mention that iMovie tasks the Mac enough that I don't think it could handle Final Cut.
The program is made by Apple, it isn't crash resistant, nor is the OS, it crashes and lost me valuable work. The OS has crashed more times than Windows ever has. Yeah, the humanity of losing work.
Awesome, I only know one person that doesn't pirate Mac software. Go me.
*new* 17" MBP
So, the only real changes to the new 17" MBP are:
* new GPU
* 2.4 MHz
* Santa Rosa motherboard (800MHz FSB)
* larger hard drive BTO option
* BTO screen option
* 4GB RAM ceiling instead of 3GB
* able to use 800MHz RAM?
Am I missing anything?
The old and new are still 2GB RAM, 160GB drive, 8X SuperDrive.
The screens (non-HD BTO option) are the same, correct?
I'm toying with getting a 17" instead of a 15" and for my needs, I'm thinking the previous model is looking like a great deal (refurb @ $2,299). If I go with a 15", I'll want the new one with the LED screen for sure.
My needs? MS Office, internet, iPhoto (6MP & 8MP images), iTunes library, dabbling with XCode, quicken (which I really do not like compared to MS Money), tinkering with Quark.
So, the only real changes to the new 17" MBP are:
* new GPU
* 2.4 MHz
* Santa Rosa motherboard (800MHz FSB)
* larger hard drive BTO option
* BTO screen option
* 4GB RAM ceiling instead of 3GB
* able to use 800MHz RAM?
Am I missing anything?
The old and new are still 2GB RAM, 160GB drive, 8X SuperDrive.
The screens (non-HD BTO option) are the same, correct?
I'm toying with getting a 17" instead of a 15" and for my needs, I'm thinking the previous model is looking like a great deal (refurb @ $2,299). If I go with a 15", I'll want the new one with the LED screen for sure.
My needs? MS Office, internet, iPhoto (6MP & 8MP images), iTunes library, dabbling with XCode, quicken (which I really do not like compared to MS Money), tinkering with Quark.
Apparently it doesn't. iMovie is meant for low-end tasks.
Seriously: If you do work on the thing, at least use proper professional tools as opposed to low-end software aimed at consumers. Final Cut Express would be a clear step upwards and it costs just $299.
And if we are talking anecdotal evidence: I only reboot my Mac for security-updates. And that means uptimes of several months at a time. There is ONE app that occasionally crashes on me (Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday), but I think that's a problem with the app and it has NEVER taken the OS with it. To be honest, I have never had OS X crash on me.
Well, you can add me, my wife, my parents, my mother-in-law, and my sister-in law. Actually, come to think of it, I don't know one person who DOES pirate Mac software.
I think the former MBPs had terrible displays, especially the unevenness of the backlight illumination. LEDs, supposedly, will make this less of an issue. Extra battery life is great, even if just a little bit of it.
AND the environmental impact of these and future notebook LCDs no longer containing mercury! That's worth a lot. So, yes, for these reasons alone, I think LEDs are great.
Don't forget that with the SR chipset, there is improved battery life, but how much of the improvement is due to the chipset and how much is due to the new displays in the 15" models is unclear. I would expect that the battery life improvement in the 17" models would be less than in the 15" models.
Nonetheless, as you say, the refurb 17" models are looking like a good deal. Out of the new models, the base config is probably the best deal.
Indeed. The uneven backlighting was the sole reason I returned my C2D MBP (and it was bad enough that the Apple Store acknowledged it was an issue and didn't charge me a restocking fee).
I also briefly owned a Sony Vaio SZ460 (gave it up because Vista was el sucko on it), and the LED-backlit screen was great...... beautiful, crisp, evenly lit, very bright, and still great battery life.
So frankly, even if the only thing that changed was an LED-backlit screen, I'd be ecstatic about this update, as it would have addressed the one failing I saw with the previous MBP.
Try again. At the current exchange rate, $2000 CDN is just under $1900 US. Of course, someone should remind Apple Canada about that...
pics anyone???
hey can anyone post more pics of the new mbp and also has anyone tested its graphic card???
hey can anyone post more pics of the new mbp and also has anyone tested its graphic card???
interesting... does that mean these new 17" MBP's (1680 and 1920HD) would likely have the same generation screen technology. I do 3d rendering and pro imaging, and this is the first i've heard about this. Maybe LED is the go.
(not many people talkin about the HDef screens)