Core 2 Duo vs. i7

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by anti-win, Oct 28, 2009.

  1. anti-win macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    #1
    Now, let me start out by saying that I am not taking the side of HP, Microsoft or other companies for that matter. I am simply puzzled by the lack of improvements Apple has shown to this product line.

    Example, Best Buy flying has a.....

    HP 17.3" 16:9 Widescreen laptop with Intel Core i7-7200QM QW Quad Core Processor, Windows 7 Premium, 6GB DDR3 Ram, 500GB 7200rpm HDD, NVIDIA GT 230M with 1GB dedicated memory along with wireless N, webcam/mic...

    Forrrrr only $1299!!

    Best buy slaps that ad right next to Apples 17" MacBook Pro ad for $2499.

    Now don't get me wrong, you do get a lot with Apple, their software is untouchable. The quality of the physical laptop is best in class. I'm not here to fight over that. But when you've got a laptop from HP that is decked out in the best of the best for 2009, how can Apple stand up to that?!

    The MacBook Pro only has 256gb dedicated graphics... it simply does't stack up.

    What do you guys think, is Apple really going to ride this out until 2010? I can't imagine them doing this with new quad core processors out.
     
  2. chrisrottan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    #2
    They would keep it as it is as most apple computer boughts are loyal customers who will buy whatever apple throws at them. However, if sales decline steeply, then apple might have additional upgrades to their line-up. That's pure economics.
     
  3. nOw2 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2009
    #3
    I took a closer look at the HP and a number of anti-features stood out, such as the battery life and physical size.
     
  4. joina macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bath,uk
    #4
    I think HP ENVY is the one which can compare with mbp. The 15" one is way better than the best mbp in anyway but i just dont like the "fake mbp" looking
     
  5. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #5
    Sad but true. You'll see thread after thread speculating about when Core i5 or i7 will make it to the MBP--when its already been released everywhere else. To add insult to injury, many of those machines have blu-ray and are cheaper. Yet, Apple is having no problems selling tons of computers.

    Why? Apple is great at taking existing or even outdated technology and re-imagining it in ways that make it so much more usable and then presenting it in an aesthetically pleasing form.

    When Apple does finally incorporate these technologies, you can bet their version will be much better, but sadly the extra engineering takes more time than a plastic PC company that quickly churns out computers with advanced components with very poor engineering.
     
  6. chrisrottan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    #6
    Yet we keep buying them.

    Yeah but that's because molding of plastics comes at a cheaper price and a more pleasant look.
     
  7. pacers721 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    #7
    a lot of people agree that apple is waiting for the new arrandale cpu which isn't going to be released until january. Considering apple only updates the mbps every 4-6 months, its better if they wait till january to update rather than update now w/o arrandale.
     
  8. chrisrottan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    #8
    Alot of people like who? Your uncle, his friend's uncle and his friend's friend's gf's son who knows a guy who knows another guy who knows a girl who heard apple is waiting for the new arrandale cpu?

    Truth of the matter is, that if you will see new technology, you will see them in the mac pro and the imac's.
    Macbook pro's would probably get the i5's.
     
  9. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
  10. js81 macrumors 65816

    js81

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    KY
    #10
    Twice as thick, a full pound heavier, plastic, Windows, no iLife, no multitouch, no bluetooth... but hey, its got a MODEM! :D Oh, and not to mention, that snazzy i7 processor runs at all of 1.6GHz! Wahoo! (The standard 17" MBP is 2.8 BTW) And some sneakin' suspicion of mine tells me no 8 hour battery life, either...

    I don't really see the comparison here... save for the $$ vs. $$$$. (And all Mac-heads know you get what you pay for, right? :D)

    EDIT: AHHHH! Missed one... 1600x900 screen... lol.
     
  11. Mr Dobey macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
  12. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #12
    Please go on about your clock speed comparison between Penryn and Clarksfield...
     
  13. CrackedButter macrumors 68040

    CrackedButter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    51st State of America
    #13
    As long as Apple make huge profits they don't have to do anything sadly, because obviously they are not doing anything wrong because pure specs don't seem to matter.
     
  14. Kennedy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    #14
    4 cores at 1.6GHz is more powerful than 2 cores at 2.8Ghz, and I'm pretty sure the i7 has hyperthreading, which makes it a virtual 8 core processor. Apple loses that one, except that the Core 2 Duo isn't as hot.

    1600x900 screen is good for a laptop, too.
     
  15. chrisrottan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    #15
    And the fact that you don't need a front bus as a bridge to process memory but instead it goes directly.
    That's why you dont need high speeds in processors.
     
  16. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #16
    Don't forget Turbo Boost (2.8 GHz for 1 core).
     
  17. bware189 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    #17
    I recall hearing the overclock was 3.3GHz. Maybe that was in the desktop version or something?
     
  18. darkdream macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #18
    1 GB for a videocard in a laptop kills the battery fast (my alienware m17x with 2 GB video ram is basically useless without and outlet) and the mainstream apple user isn't a gamer nor is there a need for all that clock speed really, but would be nice if it didn't come at a cost of higher energy consumption...
     
  19. combine macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    #19
    those laptops produced by HP, Dell "alienware series" are mainly to be used as a desktop replacement. Whereas Apple's laptop are meant to be what they are used for.

    They are built for mobility with longer battery life and smaller footprints. If they(dell,hp etc..) could come out with a laptop with better specs, same/longer battery life and the apple form factor. I'm sold. Although OS X is still a big win compared to Windows ;)
     
  20. chrisrottan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    #20
    They already have. It's called the ENVY
    Made out of magnesium
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiYz9ZpK4z0
     
  21. kryptonianjorel macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    #21
    The ENVY was a nice try, but a major fail.


    Anyway, you guys do realize that arrandale hasn't been released yet, right? That the mobile version of the i7. Right now clarksfield is way too hot to throw into a MBP. The coolest one is 45W and thats before the chipset and graphics. Arrandale has graphics built in, and maxes out at 35W, and the ULV version tops out at an amazing 17W.

    MBPs update in Feb. If arrandale is out by then, it'll be in the MBPs. If not, the MBPs will be announced but not released.
     
  22. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #22
    Agreed and as bad as the issue with dealing with the apple premium has been, now you're paying more $$ for less computer.

    Not much we can do about it, as consumers, we are at the mercy of a corporation. Its apple who loses out.
     
  23. copykris macrumors 6502a

    copykris

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Location:
    home
    #23
    here's something crazy: you are absolutely free to choose any brand you damn well please over apple if you don't like what they are offering

    wrap your head around that concept
     
  24. Davidkoh macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    #24
    http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/notebooks/0,39050488,45073846p,00.htm

    lol, Envy sucks. 179 minutes of video playback on battery, the 13" MBP gets 342 in the same test. I wonder what I would choose ;)

    That's the problem with like all the PCs, they either got alot of power or bad battery life. I haven't yet seen a PC that matched the MBP 13" in size, weight, performance and battery life for a lower price. And then we are not counting in the aluminium feel, backlit keyboard and such. Just the normal hardware all computers uses.

    Please show me 1 PC that can offer same performance (both CPU wise and battery wise) in the same weight and size category for a "much lower price". I've yet to see one ;)
     
  25. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #25
    Wow someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed
     

Share This Page