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.
Apples MacBook Pro: Rotting Core? What Apple Doesn't Want You To Realize.
- Thread starter wikoogle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, some don't care (especially if they're not paying for it), but I'm a semi-pro musician and know loads of other semi-pro musicians who do care. I don't want to use multiple computers for my music, I want 1 laptop that does as much as it can so I get the most bang for my buck, and I can edit my songs then use them straight away on practices and on stage. I don't want to be copying stuff around. I don't want to be freezing tracks to reduce CPU load. Therefore I want as fast a processor as possible as Ableton Live (and most other music software) has a CPU meter continuously reminding me the limits of how many plugins I can run, and also I am acutely aware that if I run it near the limit and for any reason it maxes out on stage I'm gonna have egg on my face as the audience hear the song break up!
So no, some don't care. A number of people do though. I for one have been waiting since the desktop i7's came out for the laptop update in january. I certainly won't buy one 'til the new processors are out. If people need a new one NOW and they're a mac user then they'll buy one, but I'm sure there must be plenty of people like me who really want a new laptop, but since they don't have more money than sense, look at the Viao with jealously as they're waiting for Apple to produce something of similar calibre before they blow their cash.
Hard drive access speed is still the main limiting factor for music production, but I don't want to limit my creativity by how many plugins I can run, when for the same money I can get a better processor soon, and it's got to last me the next 4-5 years! I can always upgrade to a 5TB flash drive in 3-4 years, but I'm stuck with whatever processor I get now, so to me it's very important in the long run that I get the best available.
People are free to spend their money on what they like, but I'm sure there's plenty of waiting people too.
Hey, i can live with those (numerical) results too... and also thank fpnc for his diligent research work. Your earlier complaint about his "linking to his own posts" was a bit silly, because they themselves (his targeted posts) contained the external linkages.
However, being right about some 'number' doesn't necessarily vindicate the notion that Apple "needs" to release new technology products (e.g., Core iX laptops) on the exact same schedule as Sony, hp, etc., in order to remain competitive. [most posts in this thread (and most other similar topics here) do seem preoccupied with that prevarication.] I.e., the real point of contention here wasn't about a precise calculation of release dates... but rather the ramifications of their differences between Apple and other companies in the industry. [EDIT: ignoring the "6-month/Clarksdale" gaffe in the original Tom's Guide, naturally.]
Even the current 2-month differential (including those i3 units w/Intel-only graphics which you see fit to tally) still doesn't rise to the level of overreaction exhibited in the form of comments seen around these forums to date. Being right about determining some number doesn't equate to being right in one's interpretation of the significance (or consequence) of that number. [if you want to see a meaningful number, do a hash on 'AAPL' at the stock exchange.]
Having said all that however, come April i too will start getting a little antsy.
1080 on 13"
I put a 1920x1200 screen in my MacBook Pro about 6 months ago. I'm gonna remove it and put either a 1440x900 or 1680x1050 back in because everything is just too tiny (and zooming just looks terrible) I can only imagine the pain 1080 on 13" would be on my eyes . . .
I put a 1920x1200 screen in my MacBook Pro about 6 months ago. I'm gonna remove it and put either a 1440x900 or 1680x1050 back in because everything is just too tiny (and zooming just looks terrible) I can only imagine the pain 1080 on 13" would be on my eyes . . .
My brief thoughts.
I just picked up a MBP 13" 2.5ghz after my 7 year old Sony TR-3A (best computer i've ever owned) finally died. The TR was still a great all-around laptop. Small, light, long battery life, great keyboard/trackpad, and a great screen. If there was something similar available, i would have bought it in a second.
I'm a tech geek - i manage unix servers for large websites for a living, and need something fast and reliable. I'm not an apple fanboy - my two main machines are a dell optiplex @ my office (running linux) and a mac mini (also running linux) at home.
I looked at the aforementioned Sony Z series, the HP Envy, alienware M11x, and a handful of others, and ended up buying the current MBP even in the face of the coming upgrade.
Reasons why i didn't go with other vendors:
1) Sony Z isn't even widely available in the US yet, and they currently have no plans on bringing the 1080p display to North America (japan only the last i asked). The SSD's are proprietary and use an unknown controller. (controller is critical to how the drive handles wear-leveling and write amplification effects). It's also significantly more expensive than the MBP. It's a great laptop though and worthy of comparison.
2) I was unimpressed with the HP build quality, and the trackpad/keyboard has received awful reviews.
3) Alienware M11x was down quite a bit in cpu power for the same price as the MBP, and the few games i play (quake live once in a while) the 9400m has more than enough power. fit/finish and interface bits (kbd/trackpad) are quite a bit worse than the MBP.
4) Apple build quality is stellar - nothing out there really compares - including the sony Z.
Reasons I don't care so much about the rumored MBP upgrades:
1) Core i5/i7 mobile chips are still only 2core chips. They use more juice at peak load than the P8700 in my MBP - (35w vs 25w) - though they do have an integrated gpu (9400m is 12w peak, so overall, the core i5 wins, but only barely, and the nvidia power management code is excellent, so i wouldn't be shocked if it was overall a wash for normal use). Overall, it's unlikely that the new systems are going to have significantly better battery life. If they do, it will be better battery tech, which might be transferable to the existing MBP's.
2) The i5/i7 mobile chips aren't an enormous jump in performance over the recent C2D mobile chips. Think 20%ish.. Nice but hardly earth-shattering. Most of my benchmarks have shown hyperthreading slowing things down on operating systems with highly efficient schedulers (recent linux kernels for instance). From discussions with friends on the OSX kernel team, OSX has a highly efficient scheduler and is unlikely to see a major boost from HT.
3) Intel GPU's are awful - even when they compete with Nvidia/ATI in benchmarks, they generally run far less well in the "real world" (tm).
4) It's highly unlikely that apple is going to put a high-res (1080p+) display in their 13 mbp.
Basically, even with the current CPU's, the MBP remains a great buy for the price & will do everything that 99% of users need it to. I slapped an X-25M G2 SSD in my MBP and the machine is blazingly fast. I'm really impressed with it overall. If it lasts me 5+ years, it'll supplant my old sony as the best computer i've ever owned.
I just picked up a MBP 13" 2.5ghz after my 7 year old Sony TR-3A (best computer i've ever owned) finally died. The TR was still a great all-around laptop. Small, light, long battery life, great keyboard/trackpad, and a great screen. If there was something similar available, i would have bought it in a second.
I'm a tech geek - i manage unix servers for large websites for a living, and need something fast and reliable. I'm not an apple fanboy - my two main machines are a dell optiplex @ my office (running linux) and a mac mini (also running linux) at home.
I looked at the aforementioned Sony Z series, the HP Envy, alienware M11x, and a handful of others, and ended up buying the current MBP even in the face of the coming upgrade.
Reasons why i didn't go with other vendors:
1) Sony Z isn't even widely available in the US yet, and they currently have no plans on bringing the 1080p display to North America (japan only the last i asked). The SSD's are proprietary and use an unknown controller. (controller is critical to how the drive handles wear-leveling and write amplification effects). It's also significantly more expensive than the MBP. It's a great laptop though and worthy of comparison.
2) I was unimpressed with the HP build quality, and the trackpad/keyboard has received awful reviews.
3) Alienware M11x was down quite a bit in cpu power for the same price as the MBP, and the few games i play (quake live once in a while) the 9400m has more than enough power. fit/finish and interface bits (kbd/trackpad) are quite a bit worse than the MBP.
4) Apple build quality is stellar - nothing out there really compares - including the sony Z.
Reasons I don't care so much about the rumored MBP upgrades:
1) Core i5/i7 mobile chips are still only 2core chips. They use more juice at peak load than the P8700 in my MBP - (35w vs 25w) - though they do have an integrated gpu (9400m is 12w peak, so overall, the core i5 wins, but only barely, and the nvidia power management code is excellent, so i wouldn't be shocked if it was overall a wash for normal use). Overall, it's unlikely that the new systems are going to have significantly better battery life. If they do, it will be better battery tech, which might be transferable to the existing MBP's.
2) The i5/i7 mobile chips aren't an enormous jump in performance over the recent C2D mobile chips. Think 20%ish.. Nice but hardly earth-shattering. Most of my benchmarks have shown hyperthreading slowing things down on operating systems with highly efficient schedulers (recent linux kernels for instance). From discussions with friends on the OSX kernel team, OSX has a highly efficient scheduler and is unlikely to see a major boost from HT.
3) Intel GPU's are awful - even when they compete with Nvidia/ATI in benchmarks, they generally run far less well in the "real world" (tm).
4) It's highly unlikely that apple is going to put a high-res (1080p+) display in their 13 mbp.
Basically, even with the current CPU's, the MBP remains a great buy for the price & will do everything that 99% of users need it to. I slapped an X-25M G2 SSD in my MBP and the machine is blazingly fast. I'm really impressed with it overall. If it lasts me 5+ years, it'll supplant my old sony as the best computer i've ever owned.
Nope, the desktop core i5/i7 chips are quad, but all of the aarandale (i5/i7 mobile) chips are dual core. See:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357283,00.asp
or intel itself:
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?i...935,43562,43563,47700,43122,43124,37109,41755,
Well thanks too. However, I don't think it was really a question of a single individual being "right" or "wrong."
In any case, what is truly rare on these forums is any consistent attempt to provide independent, external, and/or authoritative references to support one's position on a disputed point. It fact, it is even common for persons to insist on a point without relaying any first-hand knowledge or experience on the issue (which I would term sheer opinion or something based on hearsay). Too often the debate devolves to name calling and "You're wrong" and "NO, YOU'RE WRONG" posts which add absolutely nothing to the understanding of the issue.
Only the QM series are quad-cores, and they're power-sucking beasts. The i5-520M and i7 620M--the ones rumored to be in the new MBPs--are dual-core.
Why don't you become a photographer before making blanket statements, although you did say arent always techies...
I have a dual quad Mac Pro and a crazy friggen video card with 10g ram 10TB of hard drive space, why? Because i can't be twiddleing my thumbs when i process 15,000 images into my computer and then do edits. I need to know how i get there fast so i educate myself on tech and dont need to get an expert to tell me what i need. Actually the hard drives are the largest buffer, 32mg, at speeds of7200 rpm which still arent fast enough. I have considered SSD but not ready to go that route yet.
I am not saying we all give a crap about this stuff but when a photographer deals with this big of a power drain on a system they find a way to make it right.
What I really don't understand is all the secrecy from Apple regarding their upgrades. Don't they realise it just pisses people off? They probably figure they will sell more by doing this, but I can't see why, myself...
You see, this is the problem. I assume that either dukebound85 is getting information from the "Rotting Core" article or (s)he is just as confused about the Core i7/i5 as was the author of said article.
However, there is a quad-core version of the Core i7 that is considered a mobile chip by Intel. That's the Clarksfield that I and a few others have been talking about for the last several days. However, the Arrandale processor family is dual core, four thread and Arrandale is the mainstream mobile part that most expect in the next revision of the MacBook Pros. Lastly, to the best of my knowledge (and I've checked this on Intel's own website) there is currently no quad-core, mobile-version, of the Core i5 (only the Arrandale Core i5 is considered a mobile part).
I bet you have been dying to use this quote and it was a fabulous release for you.
I am a photographer and i wouldn't bother throwing that one out there, its incredibly cliche.
I don't worry about any of these but i do obsess.
I guess Dell is using desktop chips in laptops...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/09/dell-brings-next-gen-precision-performance-to-m4500-15-6-incher/
Secrecy does fuel Apple sales. Unfortunately, we're missing a key component here: leaks.
In the past, leaks are what led to the excitement build up of unreleased Apple products. Without leaks, it leads to a sad community.
I bet you have been dying to use this quote and it was a fabulous release for you.
I am a photographer and i wouldn't bother throwing that one out there, its incredibly cliche.
I don't worry about any of these but i do obsess.
Wow, sorry it wasn't to your liking there... I read it somewhere else and it felt strangely appropriate.
I will seek the approval of anonymous pretentious photographers on the internet before ever posting something like that ever again. Thank you for setting me straight.
It's actually pretty simple. If they tell people that the new MBPs are coming out in two weeks, who in their right mind would buy one of the current models? Announcing the update would cannibalize sales of the current model so what is the incentive for Apple? If someone is desperate for a computer they will buy regardless, but people who can wait for the update would wait the two weeks or whatever. If it's a brand-new product like the ipad, announcing it beforehand makes sense but they are actually smart to keep the release date for the new MBPs a secret. It's certainly frustrating for us as customers but you can't really fault them for it.
The real-world reviews of Clarksfield-based notebooks have shown about 60-90 minutes of battery life. The Vaio F series, which is Clarksfield-based, quotes a 3-hour battery life with the standard battery, which probably means less than 2 hours of hard use.
Only by people who don't exhibit self control. Sounds more like a personal problem to me more so then Apples fault.
[Tangent]
I keep seeing people write "I could care less" and it really confused me... Where did this come from... Why do you use it?
Anyway ffs I can't stand it. [/Tangent]
Carry on people.
Wow, posting this again. We've had this disucssion in the past.
"I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" actually share the same meaning in common usage. How? That all goes into the unspoken finish to those phrases, which both demonstrate a lack of caring to the degree that you can't even be bothered to finish explaining exactly how little you care.
"I could care less..."
"... but it would take too much effort."
"I couldn't care less..."
"... even if I felt like trying."
Both of these phrases denote an immeasurably small level of caring about the subject at hand.
You can complain that it doesn't make sense, but that's a shortcoming on your end which means you simply share a common trait with those who complain that 'flammable' and 'inflammable' mean the same thing, but 'sane' and 'insane' don't.
Originally Posted by pepepaco
What I really don't understand is all the secrecy from Apple regarding their upgrades. Don't they realise it just pisses people off? They probably figure they will sell more by doing this, but I can't see why, myself...
So basically they do it so that they can keep selling ageing outdated notebooks to poor sod Apple aficionados and worshippers at inflated prices. That is mean! Isn't Apple supposed to be "one of the best companies this year"?
What I really don't understand is all the secrecy from Apple regarding their upgrades. Don't they realise it just pisses people off? They probably figure they will sell more by doing this, but I can't see why, myself...
So basically they do it so that they can keep selling ageing outdated notebooks to poor sod Apple aficionados and worshippers at inflated prices. That is mean! Isn't Apple supposed to be "one of the best companies this year"?