Apple Releases Updated MacBook Pros With Core i5 and i7 Processors

[Kristenn]

So in feburary 2009 my parents finally bought me a new Macintosh for school because my iMac G3 started... really... well not booting right.

They paid.

$2,517

For.

2.53 GHz Core 2 Duo Processor

4GB DDR3 RAM

4 to 5 hour battery

250GB 7200 rpm HDD

256MB shared Nvidia Geforce 9600 M

512MB dedicated Nvidia Geforce 9600 M GT

Apple remote

iWork 09.

OS X 10.5.6

And now in April 2010 for the same high end MBP

$2,417.00

For.

2.66 Ghz Core i7 processor

4GB DDR3 RAM

8 to 9 hour battery

500 GB 7200 rpm HDD

Intel HD graphics 256 MB shared

Nvidia Geforce GT 330 M 512 MB dedicated

Apple remote

iWork 09

OS X 10.6.3


$100 dollars cheaper for the high end 15 inch that would completely smoke my MacBook Pro?

Don't know what all the complaining is about =/ Sure, no blue-ray and USB 3 but COME ON!!

It's $100 dollars cheaper than a computer a little over a year old and its like.. a lot faster. Am I crazy? Or do I think this update is really nothing to complain about?

I also forgot to mention thats with the high-res display

 

[MacNut]

So in feburary 2009 my parents finally bought me a new Macintosh for school because my iMac G3 started... really... well not booting right.

$100 dollars cheaper for the high end 15 inch that would completely smoke my MacBook Pro?

Don't know what all the complaining is about =/ Sure, no blue-ray and USB 3 but COME ON!!

It's $100 dollars cheaper than a computer a little over a year old and its like.. a lot faster. Am I crazy? Or do I think this update is really nothing to complain about?

I also forgot to mention thats with the high-res display

Smartest post of the day, well done. I know I will be finally upgrading my aging Powerbook in the next few days.

 

[Shirotai]

Me too

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.

I was kinda toying with the idea of getting a new MBP 13" too, but it's made me realise that the one I've got is just fine.

It's kinda funny reading through these posts. I think that in the 5 months of waiting people had raised their expectations too much. They're still just computers, right!

 

[once]

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.

yeah I guess that was too much hyperbole. I just felt that of all the i7's to stick in their highest end laptop.. it coulda been still been one that was more high end.

 

[mosx]

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

Again, what 15.6" system are we talking about? The Toshiba I linked is 16" and the MBP is 15.4". 1366x768 is a 16x9 resolution. 1440x900 on the MBP is 16x10. 16x9 is always better because EVERYTHING is formatted for 16x9.

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

And even if I did, it's not an issue. Macs used to weigh 6.5+ pounds. As I said, has everyone gotten weaker over the course of the last couple of years? So much so that they can't carry a sandwich worth of extra weight?

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.

Buying a computer is always about getting the MOST for your money. Macs, as a whole, offer very little for the money. The Core i7 MacBook Pro literally costs nearly 2.5x as much as that Toshiba. You're getting half the video memory and a slower processor, and not even half the connectivity.

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

"needs needs needs" People always going on saying cheesy things like "the MacBook Pro fits my needs". So your need is to spend 2.5x as much on a system that weighs only as much less as your lunch weighs and is significantly less powerful?

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.

Because an extra pound makes all the difference in the world, right? Like I said, plugs are everywhere. If you're carrying your system in your hands in this modern age, you are ASKING for trouble. Not just from people who would love to steal it, but from the elements too. If you're caught outside in a sudden unexpected rain with your system in your hands then you're SOL.

If you're carrying your system in a bag, as you should be, it's more secure on your person from muggers and from the elements, and it eliminates the weight problem.

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?

Again, whats with this question of me buying the Toshiba? I don't need a new computer. I most certainly don't need an overpriced laptop. I have an iPad now, so I need a good desktop. Something Apple doesn't offer.

People are free to want whatever they want. But it is just a little on the stupid side to pay 2.5x more for a system that not only does less, but does it slower.

To put it in perspective, I could buy two of those Toshibas and still have money left over compared to just one MBP.

Or I could build a desktop thats better than the top end iMac, and buy a smaller notebook PC thats more powerful than the 13" MBP line, and still have money left over compared to that one Core i7 dual core MacBook Pro. And both that desktop and the laptop would have blu-ray drives WITH HDMI out!

It's $100 dollars cheaper than a computer a little over a year old and its like.. a lot faster. Am I crazy? Or do I think this update is really nothing to complain about?

A year is long time in technology. One technology year is about the same as 10 years for everything else.

The MacBook Pro purchased in Feb. 2009 didn't even keep pace with systems released around that time costing half as much. Now, a little over a year later, the MacBook Pro doesn't keep pace with systems costing 2.5x less.

 

[Rocketman]

The 13" MBP is C2D, not Core i5. You got hosed.

Yet another person who confuses "it's not worth it to me" with "it's not worth it".

For a huge percentage of computer users, C2D is more than adequate. Heck, that system is faster than the one I use every day - and I don't have any immediate need to upgrade. At some point, it's no loner about the specs - and for a large percentage of users, we've reached that point.

I was being facitious. My main question is if an i7 is worth a $400 upgrade charge over an i5, disregarding entirely for the moment the marginal cost to Apple is about $50.

I am the guy who states it is a truism that, "The more you pay the more it is worth."

Rocketman

PB G4 user 10.4.11

 

[Xibalba]

I'll prob pick up a 13", it's time to replace the CD MB...

I think lot's of people will be moaning about these updates. Oh wait it's Macrumors, of course they will...

this truly boggles my mind as well - complaining about a new product release is just juvenile. i believe that the majority of the fools here on MR hang out in the news threads - i have seen very helpful and positive replies in the actual true forums...

 

[Kristenn]

A year is long time in technology. One technology year is about the same as 10 years for everything else.

The MacBook Pro purchased in Feb. 2009 didn't even keep pace with systems released around that time costing half as much. Now, a little over a year later, the MacBook Pro doesn't keep pace with systems costing 2.5x less.

Plenty of laptops offered the same processor as mine and the same video card (but just discrete, not shared and a discrete)
Sure the MacBook Pro costed $300 more but it had better battery life and weighed a lot less. Higher quality display. I looked at both computers side to side and Apple's screen looked way better.

Also... does that Toshiba get 9 hours of battery life? I don't know about everyone else... but I use laptops for battery life. If its the fastest computer in the world and gets bad battery life I wont want it.

Just saying =/

 

[apolloa]

hahahahahaha
at all the sad muppets on here bitching. You do realize that you are SUPPOSED to be intelligent, you have the unique gift of deciding what YOU want to do. You don't follow a heard of sheep....

So go and buy a PC?



I shall be saving hard now, I want that top end 15" with a 512GB SSD!!! Sweet, 9 hours battery life, brilliant, and they've put in Nvidia's Optimus, result. Hahaha oh how I remember the posts on here stating as fact Apple would NEVER put Optimus in, it's Windows ONLY hahaha.

And thank God they've kept the same chassis size, don't need new cases and bags. Well done Apple.

 

[lilo777]

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.

Re-phrasing one old anecdote: Apple fans do not read, Apple fans write!

 

[MorphingDragon]

Look out children, here comes the evil Mr Opinionated...

 

[iMacmatician]

Because an extra pound makes all the difference in the world, right? Like I said, plugs are everywhere. If you're carrying your system in your hands in this modern age, you are ASKING for trouble. Not just from people who would love to steal it, but from the elements too. If you're caught outside in a sudden unexpected rain with your system in your hands then you're SOL.

If you're carrying your system in a bag, as you should be, it's more secure on your person from muggers and from the elements, and it eliminates the weight problem.

Also, a bag and associated stuff in it (in my bag there's the charger, some papers, some CDs, and some other stuff) adds to the weight of the notebook + bag. So an extra pound takes up a smaller proportion of the weight of a notebook + bag (+ stuff) compared to just the notebook.

Also... does that Toshiba get 9 hours of battery life? I don't know about everyone else... but I use laptops for battery life. If its the fastest computer in the world and gets bad battery life I wont want it./

I like battery life but if I really needed high performance in a notebook I would be willing to sacrifice battery life. Less time needed for a CPU-intensive task to take place means less time the notebook is running at max CPU power.

Unless I'm missing something, high TDP components shouldn't be much of an issue when they're idle, that is, if they have good idle and power saving states. Low battery life of power notebooks tell me that's not a reality right now…

 

[knownikko]

Again, what 15.6" system are we talking about? The Toshiba I linked is 16" and the MBP is 15.4". 1366x768 is a 16x9 resolution. 1440x900 on the MBP is 16x10. 16x9 is always better because EVERYTHING is formatted for 16x9.

Sorry, you've just plain lost your marbles. If you honestly think that losing 10% of your vertical screen real estate is ALWAYS better so you don't have to look at tiny black bars when you watch a movie on your laptop, you probably *should* be looking into something like that el cheapo Toshiba.

16:9 gives you the same width as a 16:10 screen with substantially less vertical space. Vertical space is important for just about everything you do on a laptop, save for maybe watching a widescreen movie.

Toshiba isn't giving you that 16:9 panel because it's "ALWAYS better". They're giving it to you because it's ALWAYS cheaper.

But by all means, go on living your fantasy.

 

[iMacmatician]

Sorry, you've just plain lost your marbles. If you honestly think that losing 10% of your vertical screen real estate is ALWAYS better so you don't have to look at tiny black bars when you watch a movie on your laptop, you probably *should* be looking into something like that el cheapo Toshiba.

16:9 gives you the same width as a 16:10 screen with substantially less vertical space. Vertical space is important for just about everything you do on a laptop, save for maybe watching a widescreen movie.

Toshiba isn't giving you that 16:9 panel because it's "ALWAYS better". They're giving it to you because it's ALWAYS cheaper.

But by all means, go on living your fantasy.

For a certain diagonal size 16:9 gives slightly more horizontal space, slightly less vertical space, and slightly less total area. However in practice it depends on what size and resolution you move from and to.

However, 1440x900 to 1366x768 is a resolution downgrade in both directions.

Many movies are wider than 16:9 anyway.

 

[pytter]

Wow, UK got screwed, $1199 -> £ + 17.5% is 915. Yesterday the price was £918, good price match, today it's gone to £999. Almost 10% up. Anyone know what the 15" prices were yesterday?

Check the John Lewis site for the last model prices in the UK - they have yet to update to their stock list to the new models and prices.

 

[arcite]

Sorry, you've just plain lost your marbles. If you honestly think that losing 10% of your vertical screen real estate is ALWAYS better so you don't have to look at tiny black bars when you watch a movie on your laptop, you probably *should* be looking into something like that el cheapo Toshiba.

16:9 gives you the same width as a 16:10 screen with substantially less vertical space. Vertical space is important for just about everything you do on a laptop, save for maybe watching a widescreen movie.

Toshiba isn't giving you that 16:9 panel because it's "ALWAYS better". They're giving it to you because it's ALWAYS cheaper.

But by all means, go on living your fantasy.

Oh the hilarity. I'm on a toshiba right now! It has a 16 screen, shiny slippery keys, a fan that is loud and always on, a cd drive that is noisy, weighs around 8 pounds, has a battery that lasts a little over 2 hours, and a screen with poor viewing angles (and don't even mention color accuracy). Oh yea, and its PLASTIC...shiny, glossy, gaudy plastic. And it creaks and flexes every time I touch it. Oh and the touchpad is hidious. Not to mention it runs on Vista.

But go ahead and be a cheap bastard and buy your toshiba...more macbooks for the rest of us I say!

...but is it really necessary to whine about it?

 

[knownikko]

Hahaha oh how I remember the posts on here stating as fact Apple would NEVER put Optimus in, it's Windows ONLY hahaha.

Umm.

Those people were right.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/inside-apples-automatic-gpu-switching.ars

 

[dcoux09]

My Two Cents:

At first I was really pissed about the 13" MBP, but really, I have a core 2 duo now with 4GB of ram and a 120GB hard drive on my white MB (which cracks all the time), and it certainly meets my needs very nicely (except for the hard drive). I'm going to upgrade when the "free iPod" promo starts for college students to the 13" unibody. Although it would be nice to see a new processor, I highly highly doubt that I would have seen a difference. I'm not a gamer, photo-editor, movie maker, so the 13" update is more than adequate with me: I'd rather keep the cost down than to get a minor boost in performance. I'm also confident in saying that most serious editors, or "Pros," would rather have the real estate of a 15" or 17" notebook, so I'm sure the i5 and i7's were very welcomed.

I'm really happy with the mini displayport carrying audio and being HDMI compatible, that was a nice little change. All in all, I feel like I'm buying the same machine as yesterday, only cheaper, with a .14 GHz boost, 2 gigs of extra ram, and $50 less for a 500 GB hard drive. Since I'm not an intensive user, I think opting for 8 gigs of ram would be overextending myself, but it is a nice drop in price to upgrade, costing $200 less than before. If this computer can last me 3-4 years until Macs have a touch screen and USB 4.0, I'd be happy. I don't ever picture Macs getting Blu-Ray.

 

[knownikko]

For a certain diagonal size 16:9 gives slightly more horizontal space, slightly less vertical space, and slightly less total area.

For most common laptop sizes, it's less than half an inch gain horizontal, an inch or more loss vertical, and what I'd call substantially less area (10%).

Consider the example of a 1920x1080 (16:10) vs 1920x1200 (16x9) panel.

The 16:10 has 2,073,600 pixels. The 16:9 has 2,304,000. That's 10% more. So again, suggesting that losing 10% of your screen real estate and resolution is "ALWAYS better" is just plain deluded.


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328931,00.asp

 

[jragosta]

I was being facitious. My main question is if an i7 is worth a $400 upgrade charge over an i5, disregarding entirely for the moment the marginal cost to Apple is about $50.

It might help if you dealt with facts rather than making things up. Apple charges $200 more for the i7, not $400.

If you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it (as if you were going to buy any Apple products, anyway). It's called a free market. If no one buys the i7, then Apple will probably lower the price differential. If lots of people buy it, then the price differential is OK.

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

What? But 45 is bigger than 32!!!!

Or at least that's the way the Apple bashers work. It's all about numbers. Bigger numbers (weight, battery consumption) must be better.

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?

No, it means what it says. It will typically SHIP within 1-3 days (but I think there's also a 1 day cushion for processing). If you need it by Friday, you'd better head to your local Apple Store or other retailer who carries it.

16x9 is always better because EVERYTHING is formatted for 16x9.

And that's why arguing the the more avid Apple haters is like banging your head against a wall. 16:9 is ALWAYS better than 16:10? So I could take an older 16:9 TN screen with fluorescent backlights, low resolution, and a 50% failure rate in the first month and it would be better than a new IPS 16:10 screen with LED backlighting near zero failure rate, and high resolution?

When will you understand that you can't reduce the quality of an item to a single number?

 

[ryero]

No, it means what it says. It will typically SHIP within 1-3 days (but I think there's also a 1 day cushion for processing). If you need it by Friday, you'd better head to your local Apple Store or other retailer who carries it.

Thanks for the heads up!
I'll probably just do that. Head to the apple store on Saturday or Friday.

 

[jragosta]

I like battery life but if I really needed high performance in a notebook I would be willing to sacrifice battery life. Less time needed for a CPU-intensive task to take place means less time the notebook is running at max CPU power.

Unless I'm missing something, high TDP components shouldn't be much of an issue when they're idle, that is, if they have good idle and power saving states.

That might be true - if you never ran your computer above idle. Of course, if you don't push the computer, why do you need more power than a Core 2 Duo, anyway?

You have to design a system for MAXIMUM power usage, not idle power. If you want something more powerful than the i7 used in the MacBook Pro, you're going to have to give up something - probably weight and size. Apple has decided that they'll sell more systems in the MBP format than in a larger, heavier format. If they're wrong, the market will tell them.

 

[apolloa]

Umm.

Those people were right.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/inside-apples-automatic-gpu-switching.ars

Oh cool, so it's taken Nvidia's Optimus technology and made it better then!

 

[mosx]

Also, a bag and associated stuff in it (in my bag there's the charger, some papers, some CDs, and some other stuff) adds to the weight of the notebook + bag. So an extra pound takes up a smaller proportion of the weight of a notebook + bag (+ stuff) compared to just the notebook.

CDs?

An extra pound isn't anything in the long term. The notebook I linked to weighs the same as the 17" MacBook Pro.

If you're talking 3 or 4 pounds, then use, that can change things. But one pound? Thats nothing.

Sorry, you've just plain lost your marbles. If you honestly think that losing 10% of your vertical screen real estate is ALWAYS better so you don't have to look at tiny black bars when you watch a movie on your laptop, you probably *should* be looking into something like that el cheapo Toshiba.

As I said, everything these days is formatted for 16x9. And I hate to burst your bubble, but generally speaking, 16x9 resolutions offer higher pixel counts than 16x10. Obviously 1440x900 is a higher resolution than 1366x768, but you're getting a proper aspect ratio. When comparing similar resolutions, like 1600x900 to 1440x900, the 16x9 resolution always comes out on top.

16:9 gives you the same width as a 16:10 screen with substantially less vertical space. Vertical space is important for just about everything you do on a laptop, save for maybe watching a widescreen movie.

Not true at all. A 13" 16x9 screen running at 1366x768 will give me a higher pixel count than the MacBook's 16x9 1280x800 display. So I lose absolutely nothing. I gain everything.

Also, this argument doesn't work anyway. The menu bar in OS X is permanent. It's always eating up a good amount of screen space. That menu bar itself can eat up any "extra" vertical resolution. The dock can disappear too but then its essentially useless. So your argument doesn't hold any water anyway because OS X's UI eats up any advantages.

And explain to me, how is vertical resolution so important? I find the wider 16x9 resolutions to be more useful than having a funky 16x10 resolution that nothing fits in.

And that's why arguing the the more avid Apple haters is like banging your head against a wall. 16:9 is ALWAYS better than 16:10? So I could take an older 16:9 TN screen with fluorescent backlights, low resolution, and a 50% failure rate in the first month and it would be better than a new IPS 16:10 screen with LED backlighting near zero failure rate, and high resolution?

Zero failure rate on an Apple product? Now I know you're trying to be a comedian.

LED backlighting does NOTHING to enhance the image quality in Apple products. They're using edge-lit LEDs. Want to talk about image quality improvements? Have a look at the Dell products that use RGBLED.

IPS is overrated too. I have a 23" desktop display that uses a TN panel. Same viewing angles as Apple displays, but significantly faster response time (no ghosting whatsoever), higher contrast ratio, same color response, and it cost less. Oh and it has HDMI in too.

I love my iPad and it has a beautiful display. But seeing the ghosting artifacts on it proves to me that IPS is all marketing fluff and a reason to charge a lot more than it should cost.

 

[once]

If they're wrong, the market will tell them.

nobody is saying they're completely wrong. the market only tells them when apple screws up big time. but that doesn't mean that they're close to perfect or the best.

it's not a black and white world.