Apple Releases Updated MacBook Pros With Core i5 and i7 Processors

[once]

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

The Core i7 620M has a 35 W max TDP; the 720 and 820 have a 45 W max TDP. Check out the Core i7 720M in the HP Envy 15 if you want to see how that works out.

Also, I'm not clear if you were talking about those CPU's using 45nm instead of 32nm as a positive or what.

I expect apple to figure out how to use the fastest intel chips better than PC laptop manufacturers do.

and I was talking about 32nm as being the odd man out in the i7 family.

but the most blatant way the 620M is really just a wolf in sheep's clothing, is it's just a dual core cpu. .....like core 2 duos

and wouldn't you agree the dual-core aspect of this cpu is it's most distinguishing feature?

 

[mosx]

OK, seriously, what are you waiting for then? Haven't you already placed your order for the fabulous 6.5 pound Toshiba with a quad core i7 and a 1366x768 15.6" res screen and a ~2 hour battery life?

Actually, the Toshiba I linked to has a 16" 16x9 display. The MBP has a 15.4" 16x10 display.

16x9 is ALWAYS better than 16x10. Always.

Don't forget that PowerBooks used to weigh more than 6.5 pounds Apple has lightened the MacBook Pro by removing features and using increasingly lower and lower end internal hardware.

A 1 pound difference in systems rarely carried by hand means absolutely NOTHING when I'm getting so much more for my money and saving more money in the long run.

And who said 2 hour battery life? In my real world experience, systems like that get 3. But, again, in the real world, when has someone ever been away from a plug for more than a couple of hours? And, as I've stated before, PC batteries recharge extremely fast. Also, PC notebooks have a neat feature called a "user replaceable battery". Thanks to that, my current 15.4" almost 3 year old HP notebook with dedicated graphics can last LONGER away from a plug than any current MacBook.

 

[Maserati7200]

i've been following tech for almost 20 years and i can't remember the last time a new computer product cost more than the last generation it replaced. Apple innovated again.

The base 15" last year only had a 9400M, no additional 9600GT. Now the base has a 330M, a dedicated card like the 9600GT

 

[lilo777]

The base 15" last year only had a 9400M, no additional 9600GT. Now the base has a 330M, a dedicated card like the 9600GT

And? In real world (i.e. PC world) with each year, you get better specs AND better prices.

 

[Zadillo]

I expect apple to figure out how to use the fastest intel chips better than PC laptop manufacturers do.

and I was talking about 32nm as being the odd man out in the i7 family.

but the most blatant way the 620M is really just a wolf in sheep's clothing, is it's just a dual core cpu. .....like core 2 duos

and wouldn't you agree the dual-core aspect of this cpu is it's most distinguishing feature?

Apple does a fair amount as it is, but there are certain physical limitations that I don't think even they can do anything about, and I'm pretty sure there's only so much that can be done with the form factor they've chosen. Most of the machines I've seen with Core i7 720's that don't have serious heat issues are generally in somewhat thicker form factors than what Apple makes.

For what it's worth, I don't necessarily agree with this - I wish Apple was not so obsessed with having this single 1" thick form factor, as it would be nice if they could just make an alternate form factor 17" model without some of the same constraints.

But anyway, I'd still say overall performance in demanding CPU-heavy tasks is still its most distinguishing feature, personally, not the fact that it's dual core instead of quad core.

 

[once]

And? In real world (i.e. PC world) with each year, you get better specs AND better prices.

buying a mac has never been about benchmarkable bang for the buck. you're gonna get ripped off price wise for the amount of perf you get. (compared to PCs)

it's a good thing osx kicks so much ass. but damn, if hackintoshes were easy to make, omfg apple would lose a ton of their hardware sales.

it's true apple makes a beautiful laptop. but pc hardware value combined with osx would be amazing.

 

[vipergts2207]

I expect apple to figure out how to use the fastest intel chips better than PC laptop manufacturers do.

and I was talking about 32nm as being the odd man out in the i7 family.

but the most blatant way the 620M is really just a wolf in sheep's clothing, is it's just a dual core cpu. .....like core 2 duos

and wouldn't you agree the dual-core aspect of this cpu is it's most distinguishing feature?

Odd man out or not, I hope you realize 32nm is better than 45nm. You do know that right?

 

[Zadillo]

Actually, the Toshiba I linked to has a 16" 16x9 display. The MBP has a 15.4" 16x10 display.

16x9 is ALWAYS better than 16x10. Always.

Don't forget that PowerBooks used to weigh more than 6.5 pounds Apple has lightened the MacBook Pro by removing features and using increasingly lower and lower end internal hardware.

A 1 pound difference in systems rarely carried by hand means absolutely NOTHING when I'm getting so much more for my money and saving more money in the long run.

And who said 2 hour battery life? In my real world experience, systems like that get 3. But, again, in the real world, when has someone ever been away from a plug for more than a couple of hours? And, as I've stated before, PC batteries recharge extremely fast. Also, PC notebooks have a neat feature called a "user replaceable battery". Thanks to that, my current 15.4" almost 3 year old HP notebook with dedicated graphics can last LONGER away from a plug than any current MacBook.

16:9 is not ALWAYS better when you are talking about a 15.6" screen with a 1366 x 768 resolution.

You are right, if you are rarely going to carry your laptop around in your hands, the weight issue is not important.

But that is not an argument unique to the MBP. You could argue that anyone who buys the Sony Vaio Z is insane because you can get better specs in a package only a bit larger and a few pounds heavier.

But, shockingly, some people buy the Vaio Z - because for some people, what it offers IS of value.

Again, you seem to think that your own particular needs dictate what should matter to other people as well.

Personally, I do not want to carry a 6.5-7 pound laptop with significantly lower battery life. It is also true that you can carry around external batteries, but of course that adds to the travel weight too.

Anyway, again, I don't know why you're continuing to argue about this. It's very clear what things are and aren't important to you, and that the Toshiba fits your bill perfectly.

So why don't you just buy the Toshiba? Or are you also hoping to convince everyone here that that Toshiba (or other similar systems) are what they should choose and they are wrong to want a MBP?

-Zadillo

 

[xbjllb]

I've been visiting Mac Rumours for what seems like forever now, but this is the first time I've ever felt compelled to bitch about something in the forums. Actually, this is the first time I've ever really felt compelled to bitch at Apple, period.

I've been using Macs for about 8 years, after having to lean Shake for a job. As soon as the Intel Macbooks came out, back in the summer of 2006, I shelled out about 1200 bucks and bought a shiny, white, Core Duo Macbook (and then I upgraded the ram and hard drive to 2 gigs/100gigs).

Cutting the long story to a very short one, now it's 2010, Apple has discontinued Shake, seems to be discontinuing Final Cut Pro, and has effectively urinated on it's costumers looking for a serious upgrade to replace their half-working computers (in this case: me). I can't believe that in 4 years, all they can offer is nothing short of a minor spec update... basically doubling the processor speed, ram and hard drive of my machine, adding a graphics card but removing the firewire port in the process.

I don't want to rant on too much about this, because everyone here has heard a variation of this before but this is, in a word: ********. At this rate, it'll be 16 years before they put a terabyte drive in their cheapest laptop, and all of their proprietary software will exist in their App store for their mobile devices, and they won't even bother making anything for their computer line. Photoshop works just as well on a PC, Nuke is cross-platform, Avid has retaken the world, and Aperture just isn't that great.

It's really depressing to watch the company leverage down costs for their iPads, while refusing to do the same for their Macbooks. I have no idea at what point Apple abandoned it's commitment (maybe it never had one?) to "creative professionals" - dumb as that term is - but after years of using Macs, I can't think of one decent reason not to switch back to PCs.

At least let's wait until the iPad crashes and burns so we can REALLY kick Wille Wonka when he's down and we at least have a chance to oust him out of the company for good.

Hello! Windows!

For many of us, Windows is not an option.

For many MORE of us, Mickey Mouse, who runs the Apple asylum now, is insuring Windows is the ONLY option.

not expected a mobile nuclear power plant, or a oLed screen. But at least a bluray, and 1080p to 15" line, weak update.

You'll get your Blu-ray all right... when you pry it out of Jobs' cold, dead, fingers.

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!

Hi. Welcome to Apple. Please, buy one of our overpriced iPads that doesn't display websites properly.

Isn't that empty space where a video should be cool? Yes, it's a new feature. Why, yes, it does cost extra. Why no, you can't disable it to lower the price. Come now, this is APPLE, after all.

Total fail. No anti-glare option on the 15" without their stupid "hi-res" screen (which is an extra $150)? NOBODY WANTS GLOSSY SCREENS!! "Hi-res" screens in 15" make things way too tiny to read.

Horrible update. Total and complete failure on Apple's part.

Look Dude. We need to get down on our knees and give thanks that Lord Jobs deigned it ok to actually let the market decide whether glossy screens are the pieces of shyt we've said they were FROM DAY ONE, on ANY model at ANY price point.

I'm just grateful for the crumb of finally having an option. Something Crapple (or Mappel, if you prefer) is not too fond of since the return of Mickey Mouse as CEO.

Blimey! Apple really is directing its attentions elsewhere in terms of products!!

This was an excellent opportunity to implement a few vital needs for its pro users.

But I have a sneaky feeling that Apple would be annihilated if they were to add blu-ray to a laptop before adding it to their Mac Pro line!

Anyway, I'm not going to state the obvious facts of the way Apple has begun treating its loyal customers (I can give examples but I really don't fancy getting blitzed by the Fan Boys!)

Apple needed to implement Blu-ray across the entire line TWO UPDATES BACK to even be able to claim to be "cutting edge" with a straight face.

 

[once]

But anyway, I'd still say overall performance in demanding CPU-heavy tasks is still its most distinguishing feature, personally, not the fact that it's dual core instead of quad core.

I meant it's most distinguishing feature compared to other i7's is that it's the only i7 that's still a dual core.

but yeah that would be awesome if apple added another form factor. I'm sure it will still be stylish and there's no way we would mistake it for a bulky dell.

 

[once]

Odd man out or not, I hope you realize 32nm is better than 45nm. You do know that right?

hhaha yeah looking back at that post it was really confusing what I was trying to say. I was listing in notepad all the unique things about the 620 and I just copied and pasted it into the post.

I guess I shoulda made it clearer that in my opinion the unique downsides far outweigh the 32nm or power perf. but that didn't really come out in that hastily launched post.

 

[JTStarkiller]

Hey, do you guys think the hi-res version of the 15" (which costs $100 more, and is 1680 instead of 1440) on the online store will be available in the Apple retail stores? I called two -- one said they didn't have it, but the second guy seemed kinda clueless. He was like, "yeah, we should have 'em."

Is this mainly just a configure to order feature, or should I take my chances at that second store? It's kinda far. Thanks.

 

[ecapdeville]

Not true. I use my 13" for CS4 (and soon CS5), Logic Pro / MainStage, and in a pinch Aperture ("pinch" only from the display not being the best).

And, there are tens, maybe hundreds like me out there !!!

Here!

But to do that I´m using my 27" imac i5... my 13" MBP its just a backup...

 

[ryero]

Has anyone ordered it online?
When they say 1-3 days shipping.
Does that mean they'll start shipping it within the next 1-3 days or it'll arrive to my front door in 1-3 days?

I'm going on a business trip on Saturday, so I'll need it by Friday.
If I order it today, I wonder if I'll get it by Friday.

 

[Zadillo]

I meant it's most distinguishing feature compared to other i7's is that it's the only i7 that's still a dual core.

but yeah that would be awesome if apple added another form factor. I'm sure it will still be stylish and there's no way we would mistake it for a bulky dell.

Ahh, gotcha. Yes, I'd say the dual core nature of it is one of the most distinguishing factors over the other mobile core i7's, but I'd also argue that 35W max TDP vs. the 45W max TDP is very significant as well (and the 32nm vs 45nm aspect).

But anyway, the larger point is a discussion about Apple's relatively limited number of systems and form factors and price points. I've pointed this out elsewhere, but I wish Apple wasn't reluctant to make a 13" MBP at a Vaio Z pricepoint with a Core i5 and GT330M, for example. Or to consider some thicker cheaper form factors that would give them more flexibility.

But clearly, the PC world is the way to go if you want a lot of diversity of choice in terms of specs and form factor. With OS X you are of course basically stuck with what you have to choose from (not getting into the hackintosh discussion here, of course), so if the various specs don't fit your needs, you're better off in the PC world where you are much more likely to find some manufacturer who will make something that fits your needs (from el cheapo $500 laptops to $3000 high end mobile workstations).

The only thing that gets me is that this hasn't been new, so i'm not sure why everytime there's a Mac hardware upgrade we get these long convoluted threads where it is treated as some shocking news.

 

[Queso]

damn it's honestly a rebadged core 2 duo again hhahah.

Oh dear. I suggest you go and read up on the differences between the Nehalem and Penryn architectures and interconnects. QuickPath and HyperThreading, better power efficiencies, better virtualization support. Seriously, go and Google it.

 

[0098386]

Aw man, I blinked and missed this.
Still these updates aren't making me want to upgrade my 2008 13" Macbook. The graphics+battery life are pretty outstanding but there other than that it doesn't look to be that much better. They still only have 1 audio port which I couldn't do with.

 

[Hal Itosis]

When you do the math and look at real world, non-synthetic benchmarks, the quad core Core i7 running 8 threads at a lower clock speed is a good 25% faster than the dual core Core i7 running 4 threads at a higher clock speed.

Oh and it's $1300 less.

For $2,200 I demand the BEST for my money. Not something that looks pretty but doesn't get the job done as fast or as good as systems costing well less than half as much.

Once again, dual core runs cooler and the battery lasts longer.

Here are the benchmarks showing what Mac users gain from the previous model.

I know you want that Camaro with the super-charger so no one can doubt just how hot you are... but other people may have other considerations.

 

[Eidorian]

Ahh, gotcha. Yes, I'd say the dual core nature of it is one of the most distinguishing factors over the other mobile core i7's, but I'd also argue that 35W max TDP vs. the 45W max TDP is very significant as well (and the 32nm vs 45nm aspect).

Do you believe Intel is going to shrink Clarksfield to 32nm in the Qx40M vs. the older Qx20M line?

The only thing that gets me is that this hasn't been new, so i'm not sure why everytime there's a Mac hardware upgrade we get these long convoluted threads where it is treated as some shocking news.

It's predictable but it can be rather fun to discuss.

 

[DakotaGuy]

I assume you don't own a large HDTV or a BD player or you wouldn't be saying that. BD provides an awesome picture and sound experience.

 

[knownikko]

16x9 is ALWAYS better than 16x10. Always.

WTF are you smoking? Less resolution is better? Less vertical real estate is better? For what?

 

[once]

But clearly, the PC world is the way to go if you want a lot of diversity of choice in terms of specs and form factor. With OS X you are of course basically stuck with what you have to choose from (not getting into the hackintosh discussion here, of course), so if the various specs don't fit your needs, you're better off in the PC world where you are much more likely to find some manufacturer who will make something that fits your needs (from el cheapo $500 laptops to $3000 high end mobile workstations).

yeah you're right. TDP is very important for a laptop. I guess I just didn't weigh it as important when I'm already consigned to getting a beefy 17" that I hope is the ultimate powerhouse. I would assume there's enough space to build in sufficient cooling. which brings us back around to your point on form factors.

I totally understand it's tough for apple to take on the entire industry. And some of the form factor diversity comes from different companies making different models.

Perhaps I'm very narrowminded in the way I pick a laptop. I go back and forth between dells and apples hhaha. If I can't afford a $3000 17" mbp, I go back to the insane power out of a dell for $1000.

OSX has a lot to do with this. I'm more interested in the OS and what I can do with it, than strictly the beautiful form factor of a sony or apple.

That's why I would consider the ultimate laptop to be dell hardware w/ the greatest specs, but running osx86. I'm just frustrated that, price aside, I want my apple 17" mbp to beat out or come close to dell performance.

 

[organerito]

provided by the state via your taxes

yes, but at least everyone gets health care. I have lived in the USA, France and now I live in Canada. There are many good things about a socialist approach in government. Living in the USA is great, but is not that great compared to France or, specially, to Canada.

 

[mschipperheyn]

Dead on

Maybe I am an idiot, but I have a 2 year old 17" MBP 2.6 Core Duo w/ 4GB of ram.

Am I missing something, or are the processor speeds and spec's basically unchanged over the past 2 years?

I'm actually not trying to be cynical or passive aggressive - I am seriously curious? Are these quad core? Why is the new MBP an improvement? Why would you NOT buy a used 18 month old laptop for 1200 bucks?

Nope. You're dead on.

 

[Hal Itosis]

I assume you don't own a large HDTV or a BD player or you wouldn't be saying that. BD provides an awesome picture and sound experience.

But that's the whole point isn't it?

Blu-ray on anything **less** than a 42-inch screen isn't "all that and a bag of chips."

Only children who use their Macs for nothing but games and movie-watching are all worked up about Blu-ray. Blu-ray... on a 15" screen??? Gimme a break. Don't you spoiled brats have some homework to do? Instead of hanging out here whining all day, maybe you could get an engineering degree and beat Apple/Jobs in the computer industry.