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

Apple Releases Updated MacBook Pros With Core i5 and i7 Processors

I ordered a MBP 13" last thursday and today it got cancelled and replaced with the new model with a revised delivery time. I'm glad I didn't miss the update but it isn't a giant leap forward or an astounding upgrade that will change anything too much, on the 13" that is. In the meantime I have to muddle through with this faultering beast. Still, new MBP at the end of the month!!! :D
 
antxiko said:
i'm a programmer and i'm byuing the 13" because i need a new one now and i can't aford the 15" right now. I know whats the difference. Don't say things you don't know nothing about if you can't prove it
Click to expand...

I have no idea
a) what you're talking about
b) why I should care
c) why it's relevant.

Your a programmer... good for you. Does a faster clock speed help you code faster?
 
lilo777 said:
Intel oddities? Really? How about Apple oddities. Somehow"Intel oddities" do not limit options for any laptop manufacturer but Apple. Can you explain this?
Click to expand...

It has to do with the need to use Intel HD integrated graphics with Core iX chips - which is why you commonly see those low-end core i3 systems bundled with Intel HD graphics only. Apple doesn't offer dedicated graphics in their 13" models (I would argue that they could, but that is another debate), so for them to offer the superior NVidia graphics, they have to bundle it with the older C2D CPU's.

Honestly though, I'm curious what difference it makes for most users. The main issues with a new CPU are improved battery life and performance - if the new 13" MBP's offer pretty fast C2D's and faster NVidia integrated graphics and up to 10 hours of battery, why do people think that is so bad? What would they get with a Core i3 and Intel HD graphics that they think would be better?
 
haruhiko said:
I think you have spoken out a lot of people's feelings. But anyway, they're gonna sell like hotcakes. Apple is a consumer brand now, not really for creative professionals anymore.

Re: at what point Apple abandoned its commitment....
When it changed its name from Apple Computer, Inc. to Apple, Inc on 9th January, 2007.
Click to expand...

most people i talk to don't want to spend anywhere near $1800 plus tax for a home laptop to surf the internet, email and facebook. its possible to convince them if the specs for a Dell/HP laptop were similar to a MBP, but not now. a similar Dell is $1100 plus shipping and tax. if someone asks my advice then i have to tell them that the $700 buys you better support, better battery and better build quality while a Dell is faster with games and most of the internet video out there.
 
RAM Prices

Looks to me that getting Apple pre-installed 8 (2 x 4GB) is as cheap as getting them yourself from a 3rd party and installing them yourself. Anybody find this RAM cheaper than $200 or so for a 4 GB?
 
Yamcha said:
Is Apple Retarded? Seriously it annoys me that entry level Macbooks are still using Core 2 Duo? These are what 4 Years old!! they are soon gonna be discontinued, infact later in 2010 they will no longer be available.. Apple is clearly ****ing with customers. This is such a disappointment.. It's no surprise that Apple is overpriced, they have a much larger profit margin.. especially when it comes to laptops.. And I don't want to hear they use premium hardware, that is far from the truth.. I should know I build computers..

Anyway.. Apple needs to get there act together.. I really hope the new iMacs have Core i3/i5's.. If you know hardware then you know Core i Series are quite a bit faster then Core 2 Duo's..
Click to expand...

I agree with one exception. 13" is not an entry level. It's a smaller form factor which many people actually prefer. Just looks what Sony did with their 13" VAIO Z. It has better specs than 17" MBP.
 
I was worried I'd regret my $2700 17" MBP from last year. I don't. There are lots of things that would have made me regret it, like a significantly better graphics card or USB3.0, but the update as it stands is not a compelling one. I think a lot of people that were holding out for the update may instead opt for a refurbished 2009 model.
 
Don't care what anyone says. To have a 1680x1050 display and not be able to view my BluRay movies is criminal on a machine this price.
 
Eidorian said:
I haven't seen you in ages Zadillo. You should post more often. :D

At least we're back in a time where you can get a 15" notebook from Apple with discrete graphics under for under $1,999.

My eyes bleed on a 15.4" at 1920 x 1200.
Click to expand...

good thing windows 7 has this cool feature to make the icons bigger without messing with the resolution. why can't OS X have it?
 
Moses said:
I'll be passing on this update, for the following reasons:

1. No quad-core - for a laptop I'll need to last at least 4 years, it will need quad-core. Apple obviously doesn't feel the current quads can work in their enclosures.
Click to expand...

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/mobile/specifications.htm

There is no quad core chip with integrated graphics for graphics switching. I think that is a greater concern than the increased power consumption of the chip.

2. Nvidia graphics - the 330 is a marketing name for a core that is now several years old, but which Nvidia keeps rebranding and passing off as a new chip. No thanks. I'd rather have an ATI 5000-series chip and have to switch chips manually, please.
Click to expand...

A lot of people would not agree with you. The new ATI chips would be faster though.

3. $650 for a 256GB SSD? No thanks. Yes I could buy my own and replace it, but I'd rather Apple offer it at a realistic price.
Click to expand...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010150636 1421446019&name=256GB

4. The way these laptops were silently updated suggests to me a larger update is in the pipe.

So for now I stick with my 2006 MBP. Still in the market for a new MBP, but I can wait.
Click to expand...

The iMacs were silently updated months ago (with no updates since) with rather large changes, including a 27" version. I don't think Apple wants to hold too many media events. Keep waiting if you want, your perfect dream laptop will probably never come. There will always be something you want that it doesn't have. That said, I believe my MBP is also a 2006 version and I probably wont be updating for a while, but these specs have nothing to do with it. I'm just not in the market for a laptop right now.
 
kenstee said:
Looks to me that getting Apple pre-installed 8 (2 x 4GB) is as cheap as getting them yourself from a 3rd party and installing them yourself. Anybody find this RAM cheaper than $200 or so for a 4 GB?
Click to expand...

Newegg is ~$170 iirc. Also remember you can take the 2GB sticks and sell them to someone else lowering your overall cost of doing it yourself.
 
Yamcha said:
Is Apple Retarded? Seriously it annoys me that entry level Macbooks are still using Core 2 Duo? These are what 4 Years old!! they are soon gonna be discontinued, infact later in 2010 they will no longer be available.. Apple is clearly ****ing with customers. This is such a disappointment.. It's no surprise that Apple is overpriced, they have a much larger profit margin.. especially when it comes to laptops.. And I don't want to hear they use premium hardware, that is far from the truth.. I should know I build computers..

Anyway.. Apple needs to get there act together.. I really hope the new iMacs have Core i3/i5's.. If you know hardware then you know Core i Series are quite a bit faster then Core 2 Duo's..
Click to expand...

That's certainly true of the Core i5's and Core i7's, but I'm not so sure that's true of the Core i3. Do you have any benchmarks that show that a Core i3 is significantly faster than a C2D, especially the ones now used in the updated MBP?
 
the_wallcrawler said:
For everyone ordering the anti-glare - can't you just get one of those screen covers and then have both worlds?

Do they typically have the anti-glare in stores? I don't know the difference.
Click to expand...

1. Good idea. But, the 3rd party anti-glare filters also tend do darken the screen as well to an unacceptable level.

2. They usually have the regular NOT the anti-glare, matte finishes in the stores. For me it's no contest...anti-glare all the way. YMMV!
 
Bachi85 said:
It is so so sad.

I would have been an first-time Mac buyer, I have waited since November for a Macbook Pro 13" Update and now this ****** crap.

I am very disappointed, I have waited too long and I need a new laptop. Apple forces me now to buy a PC because I can't wait for another update circle. What a f****** crappy company. Lost a new customer right now!
Click to expand...

Bitter much? :confused:
 
MattSepeta said:
If only windows were as usable as os x.

or better yet, if only apple stopped worrying about cramming more features into their retarded toys (tamPad, itouch) they could worry about cutting the price on their real computers that people use to, you know, create stuff.
Click to expand...

Considering though they sell more Phones and iPad's and iPod's the their notebooks, why would you think different. Just asking
 
I thought I could jump onto the Mac boat.... I won't. I could actually but the pricing here in Germany(!) is ridiculous.
We have to pay 1,749€ for the cheapest 15" MBP, that's 2,376.85 $ currently. Who of you would be willing to pay that? That's more than the 17" costs in the US..
 
btrav13 said:
If I want to dual run windows 7 on a 15 inch model of the new MBP....is it worth paying all the way up to the biggest chip (i7) and 8GB of RAM or would the lowest chip (2.4 i5) with 4GB of RAM be sufficient? Or should I go middle ground and do the mid range 15 inch with 4 or 8 GB? Just need to know what my best option would be on a 15 inch to run both OSX and Win7. Thanks for anyone would would give me their honest opinion on how cheap I could come out of this.
Click to expand...

The Core i7 that the Macbook Pro uses is NOTHING special, as it's only a very fast dual core. It's basically a quicker Core i5. Honestly, I don't know if I'd be willing to spend an extra $300, the only plus is that you get 512MB video memory and a slightly fast processor. That's your call.

If it was my money, I'd buy a Dell or an ASUS at this point for around $1000, and get a 14" or 15" notebook with a quad core Core i7 processor, 4GB DDR3, 500GB 7200rpm hard drive, and 1GB dedicated video (ATI 5450/5470 for the Dell and ATI 5730 for the ASUS).

I could not justify a Macbook Pro, especially if I would be using it mostly for Windows 7.
 
Jeez Apple is just r**ing people.

This is just sad. 1680x1050? Finally after 4 years? Sorry we are at 1080 now for a 15"; and not even an i series for the 13"? Oh 256mb of Vram? LMFAOROAROAOFOSDFASFOWTFBBQ. That is all.

Hah you guys are taking it up the........yeah. Oh btw - not a troll - join date 2006. I own 2 macbooks/pro.
 
Zadillo said:
The main issues with a new CPU are improved battery life and performance - if the new 13" MBP's offer pretty fast C2D's and faster NVidia integrated graphics and up to 10 hours of battery, why do people think that is so bad? What would they get with a Core i3 and Intel HD graphics that they think would be better?
Click to expand...
I underlined the part I wanted to emphasize. I have to regretfully agree with you as well. Core i3 is rather underwhelming.

alent1234 said:
good thing windows 7 has this cool feature to make the icons bigger without messing with the resolution. why can't OS X have it?
Click to expand...
I'd be more concerned about text than icons. Changing icon size is a necessity on any modern OS. OS X has it as well.
 
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