Confused by CPU in new MacBook Pros

[Danindub]

Hi Guys,

After apple recently updated their Pro line with faster CPUs and graphics, I got myself now entry level (€1799-kind entry level...) 2.2 GHz. On Apple spec it seemed that they simply took early-2011 higher-level MacBook Pro, cut graphic memory in half, disk by 250 GB and voilà.

Now I can see however, that they changed CPU. Early 2011 used 2720QM, which is early 2011 2.2 GHz Core i7 CPU. New Macbook is using it's younger cousin: 2675QM.

Looking at specs of both on intel.com it seems liek it's a brand new CPU (released Q4 2011)which is great, however on further inspection, it not only doesn't seem to have any advantage over 2720QM, it's actually slower (max boosts at 3.1 GHz vs 3.3). It also lack some of the features, like Virtualization for I/O etc. Advrtised by Intel price of CPU in bulks of 1000 is exactly the same as the one older one.

I don't understand - firstly, why would Intel released slower CPU at the same price as faster one nearly a year earlier? And why would Apple adopt it??

Spec of early-2011 MacBook Pro 2.2 Ghz CPU: http://ark.intel.com/products/50067/Intel-Core-i7-2720QM-Processor-(6M-Cache-2_20-GHz)

Spec of late-2011 MacBook Pro 2.2 Ghz CPU:
http://ark.intel.com/products/53470/Intel-Core-i7-2675QM-Processor-(6M-Cache-2_20-GHz)

 

[TheRdungeon]

It's because your 2.2 replaced the 2.0 which had the lower turbo and less features etc. the 2.4 is the new version of the old 2.2 if that makes sense. and the 2.5 is the replacement of the 2.3, so had the extra cache and stuff

 

[Danindub]

It's because your 2.2 replaced the 2.0 which had the lower turbo and less features etc. the 2.4 is the new version of the old 2.2 if that makes sense. and the 2.5 is the replacement of the 2.3, so had the extra cache and stuff

You missed the point. Apple instead of use old 2.2 in the new Macbook pros, went for new one, with lower specs and same price (to them). Doesn't seem to make any sense.

 

[TheRdungeon]

tbh i clearly explained it. There is 3 models of CPU in the MBP, all three got slight speed bumps. 2.0 to 2.2, 2.2 to 2.4, 2.3 to 2.5. If they put the old 2.2 in instead they'd be using two types of the same CPU, just one would be older. You have the bottom chip that is now 2.2.

It's not lower spec'd, it's the same specs as the 2.0 but slightly speed bumped

 

[some idiot]

tbh i clearly explained it. There is 3 models of CPU in the MBP, all three got slight speed bumps. 2.0 to 2.2, 2.2 to 2.4, 2.3 to 2.5. If they put the old 2.2 in instead they'd be using two types of the same CPU, just one would be older. You have the bottom chip that is now 2.2.

It's not lower spec'd, it's the same specs as the 2.0 but slightly speed bumped

I think the question still stands... what's wrong with using the old 2.2, even if it is older and just like the new 2.4? It seems to be a better chip than the new 2.2, so even for the same price, why not keep using it?

Is there anything that the new 2.2 does better than the old 2.2? Sure it's better than the old 2.0, but that's not the question.

 

[TheRdungeon]

I'd say because intel don't make it any more

 

[dusk007]

I don't understand - firstly, why would Intel released slower CPU at the same price as faster one nearly a year earlier? And why would Apple adopt it??

Here is where you research was bad.
The 2675QM (2.2Ghz new) is the same price as the 2630QM (2.0Ghz).
Same it is for all the other CPUs.
Apple did only swtich the old CPUs for the new ones all the CPUs cost the same.

 

[TheRdungeon]

Here is where you research was bad.
The 2675QM (2.2Ghz new) is the same price as the 2630QM (2.0Ghz).
Same it is for all the other CPUs.
Apple did only swtich the old CPUs for the new ones all the CPUs cost the same.

Yes! This is what I've been trying to say

 

[Danindub]

Here is where you research was bad.
The 2675QM (2.2Ghz new) is the same price as the 2630QM (2.0Ghz).
Same it is for all the other CPUs.
Apple did only swtich the old CPUs for the new ones all the CPUs cost the same.

I don't understand?

According to Intel, both CPUs were released with $378 pricetag (in batches of 1000). So in January they released 2720QM, 2.2 GHz. Nearly year later they released 2675QM, with lower turbo boost and less features, exactly same package and cache, also at $378.

So, even assuming, that intel did not drop prices of older CPUs, it still makes more sense to go for older better one?

----------

Yes! This is what I've been trying to say

I'm not comparing 2.2 and 2.0. I'm comparing old 2.2 and new 2.2.

 

[dusk007]

Yes but check out the price of the 2630qm with 2.0 Ghz. That is the same price again.
Considering fow many 26X0QM are out in the wild and how few 27X0QM you can quite savely assume that Intel actually gives the former away for a smaller price, despite those odd price lists.
What I wanted to say is that still they only replaced old models for the same price. The argument that why is there any 26X0QM used at all would have applied to the early 2011 model just the same.

2630QM/2675QM/2720QM/2760QM (2.0,2.2,2.2,2.4 Ghz) are all listed at $378. Whatever reason there is to use the 26X0QM CPUs at all still applies obviously.

 

[reebzor]

I just wanted to throw this out there-

It doesn't matter where you came up with those prices because that is not necessarily what Intel actually charged Apple. We would have no idea about that...

 

[GuitarG20]

I just wanted to throw this out there-

It doesn't matter where you came up with those prices because that is not necessarily what Intel actually charged Apple. We would have no idea about that...

This is the most valid point I have seen in this argument, along with the ones about the 2.0to2.2 and 2.2to2.4 and 2.3to2.5 being the same price as each other.

Although the first part seems to counteract it, we can assume that Intel charged apple the same price for each of the pairs, although we don't actually know what that price is.

 

[thundersteele]

It makes sense to me. Apple did upgrade the low end model, not just take the high end model and relabel it as low end.

The list prices on the intel website do not reflect what apple pays for buying one million of each. Also, there might be some capacity issue. It's not clear that intel can produce enough of the high end chips with the higher turbo.

 

[nicklad]

There's actually quite a big difference between the 26xx and 27xx chips. Between these:

Max Turbo Frequency
3.1 GHz vs 3.3 GHz

Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type)
16GB vs 32 GB

Memory Types
DDR3-1066/1333 vs DDR3-1066/1333/1600

Intel® vPro Technology
No vs Yes

Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d)
No vs Yes

Intel® Trusted Execution Technology
No vs Yes

 

[TheRdungeon]

There's actually quite a big difference between the 26xx and 27xx chips. Between these:

Max Turbo Frequency
3.1 GHz vs 3.3 GHz

Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type)
16GB vs 32 GB

Memory Types
DDR3-1066/1333 vs DDR3-1066/1333/1600

Intel® vPro Technology
No vs Yes

Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d)
No vs Yes

Intel® Trusted Execution Technology
No vs Yes

Woah had no idea about the memory limit, so in theory when the chips come around the early 2.2/late 2.4 and above will support 32gb of RAM?

 

[calderone]

I just wanted to throw this out there-

It doesn't matter where you came up with those prices because that is not necessarily what Intel actually charged Apple. We would have no idea about that...

This along with the fact that what makes senses to the OP at the individual computer level, does not make sense when talking about economies of scale.

Sure, to the consumer: better cpu, same price? Why wouldn't Apple keep using the older CPU? Maybe it is even cheaper since it is older!

As has been mentioned, Intel will likely ramp down production of the old chip, meaning at some point Apple would then have to negotiate a rate to get the newer chips. Given the remaining lifecycle of the machine, that price may very well be higher.

The point is, you have to get away from the surface level and consider scale as well as lifecycle management. 1000 chips is nothing.

 

[nicklad]

Woah had no idea about the memory limit, so in theory when the chips come around the early 2.2/late 2.4 and above will support 32gb of RAM?

In theory, yes. But Apple have a history of limiting the RAM below the hardware capabilties in the EFI. Hopefully...

 

[Minhthien]

So its the early 2011 15' 2.3 quad core faster/better than the late 2011 15' 2.4 quadcore?

 

[tigres]

Along with this thread, and not starting another:

MicroCenter has the 13" MBP model MC700LL/A (Feb model) for 999.00
While Apple has the 13" in model MD313LL/A.

Is there any difference between the two from a gamers/beginners standpoint?

Worth the extra 200 for the latest?

Thanks-

 

[thundersteele]

So its the early 2011 15' 2.3 quad core faster/better than the late 2011 15' 2.4 quadcore?

Hmm, that's tricky. The 2.3 GHZ has 8 MB L3 cache, while the 2.4 only has 6 MB. Geekbench says the late 2011 2.4 GHZ is faster, but I'm not sure if the CPU makes the difference here or something else.

@tigres

the new one has a 500 GB hard disk and a slightly faster CPU. For gaming, both are limited by the built in graphics. For beginners, both are fine. There's no big gain from the new model, unless you need a lot of storage.

 

[tigres]

Hmm, that's tricky. The 2.3 GHZ has 8 MB L3 cache, while the 2.4 only has 6 MB. Geekbench says the late 2011 2.4 GHZ is faster, but I'm not sure if the CPU makes the difference here or something else.

@tigres

the new one has a 500 GB hard disk and a slightly faster CPU. For gaming, both are limited by the built in graphics. For beginners, both are fine. There's no big gain from the new model, unless you need a lot of storage.

Perfect thanks. I am putting in an ssd and optibay so you answered my question. Thanks a lot!

 

[nicklad]

So its the early 2011 15' 2.3 quad core faster/better than the late 2011 15' 2.4 quadcore?

It depends on the use case. For typical usage patterns, no, having the extra MHz outweights the larger cache.

I think this thread highlights the need for Apple to have better specs. Just listing the speed of the processor is clearly not enough as it doesn't differentiate.