Yes, this is the only other option, to keep the faster graphics on
by switching "Automatic" - off
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.
Early Benchmarks Show Significant Performance Gains for Core i7 MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, this is the only other option, to keep the faster graphics on
by switching "Automatic" - off
So far for me, autoswitching is a dream come true! The previous mbp I had (exchanged it since I was within 30 days for the new i7 17" 2.66GHz model) to log out to use the integrated gpu all the time and I had to relaunch all my apps on 4 spaces. Now I dont have to log in and log out anymore while getting 10 hours of battery life.
Yes you heard me right, I'm getting 10 hours of battery life!
Yes you heard me right, I'm getting 10 hours of battery life!
Computer Shopper
Just one more piece of information for all the whiners here:
http://computershopper.com/laptops/reviews/apple-macbook-pro-15-inch-2010-version
So much for all the "this isn't enough of an upgrade" complaints.
Note that Computer shopper has historically never been very positive on Apple products.
Just one more piece of information for all the whiners here:
http://computershopper.com/laptops/reviews/apple-macbook-pro-15-inch-2010-version
So much for all the "this isn't enough of an upgrade" complaints.
Note that Computer shopper has historically never been very positive on Apple products.
The 15" and 17" got an awesome upgrade. I don't think anyone doubts that. I think the complaints are of the 13".
People will complain about anything - no matter how badly informed they are.
The new 13" is the same size as the old one, but has a faster processor, much faster graphics, longer battery life, bigger hard drive. On game benchmarks, it is 30-80% faster than the old model at the same price (yes, I know they're old games, but new games would likely scale similarly). What is there to complain about?
Yes, I realize that there are a bunch of pseudo-geeks who think they know more than they actually do. They believe that you can magically replace the Core2 Duo with an i3 and magically make everything better. You could - if you ignore the fact that if you use the existing format, this would require much slower graphics (slowing the whole system down), higher power usage, more cooling, shorter battery life, and more weight. There are tradeoffs - and I trust Apple to balance those tradeoffs better than some anonymous geek-wannabe on Macrumors.
Personally I am a little wary of the update on the 13". It isn't a horrible one, but I am concerned that there will be a refresh 6 months from now incorporating all the things that some here are claiming isn't possible with the 13". (See the SD card slot or the firewire arguments before and after the Aluminum to Pro conversion)
Plus you have to be honest, this Pro notebook doesn't seem to fall in line with the rest of the Pro line. I also wouldn't be surprised if the white Macbook ends up with the same GPU and CPU in a few more weeks.
I believe that you are going to see Core 2 Duo once more in the 13" MacBook Pro unless Apple redesigns the logicboard or body. Then again given the Mid 2010 naming it's also entirely possible you won't see another update until 2011.
I expect the MacBook (Mid 2010) to be a Macbook Pro 13" (Mid 2010) without FireWire 800 in a plastic body at $999. If that does end up being true then even the "great value" base Macbook Pro is going to see some stiff competition from Apple's own lineup.
In all honesty Apple should have choosen faster processors than the Core 2 Duo 2.4/2.66 GHz so that the Macbook wouldn't cannibalize the more expensive 13" model.
Apple could just stick with the 9400M G and bump the processor up on the Macbook. We just don't know, yet.
I wonder what the max TDP the 13" Pro can handle. It would have been cool to get the Q9000/Q9100 since the i5 and i7 show up as QC to OSX. I think the sell would have been a little harder though as the speed is slower than what was available before (2.0 & 2.26 vs 2.26 & 2.4) but hey didn't Apple used to argue that the Mhz didn't mean anything
?
It looks like 25-35W is still a reasonable ballpark.
It's more than likely possible in the 17" Macbook Pro. Though Apple would have to order a slightly different chipset since Clarksfield lacks the onboard IGP. I can't see to find a price list for the various H/P/Q 5 Series chipsets right now. I've seen it before though.
Turbo Boost makes a good showing on the Core i7-720QM. I'm sure that the rendering and encoding benchmarks would have easily shown that off using the usual applications.I think the sell would have been a little harder though as the speed is slower than what was available before (2.0 & 2.26 vs 2.26 & 2.4) but hey didn't Apple used to argue that the Mhz didn't mean anything
Apple didn't appear to have any problems selling the quad core iMac give the lower base clock speeds.
Or, more likely in my opinion, Intel shuts down the old Core 2 Duo fabs and won't sell the CPUs to Apple.
Intel has a few CPU models that they guarantee long availability for, and the rest get dropped with little or no notice (at least to the public).
I also suspect that the "long availability" models in fact are also shut down - but Intel stockpiles CPUs (or maybe just wafers) to generously cover the anticipated needs.
Note that the Mini Mac upgrade from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo happened because the Core Duo chips went EOL.
Do you happen to have a link to the EOL lists for Intel's processor products?
I can imaging one more round of Core 2. One update after a major platform revision appears to be standard procedure.
Knowing your history of posts, you're asking because a number of searches failed to find any info.
Historically, that's been NDA info to OEM partners. For the rest of us, the best indication is to watch online retailers. If Newegg puts a CPU on indefinite backorder, and it's a generation behind - quickly go to eBay and buy as many as you think that you need.
I did that with Merom CPUs for a bunch of Yonah systems that we bought. I was slow at Newegg, and the Meroms were gone. Bought 8 on eBay.
I was being lazy in all honesty. I can catch a break right?Knowing your history of posts, you're asking because a number of searches failed to find any info.
Historically, that's been NDA info to OEM partners. For the rest of us, the best indication is to watch online retailers. If Newegg puts a CPU on indefinite backorder, and it's a generation behind - quickly go to eBay and buy as many as you think that you need.
I did that with Merom CPUs for a bunch of Yonah systems that we bought. I was slow at Newegg, and the Meroms were gone. Bought 8 on eBay.
Usually you do find some leaked EOL documentation that somehow makes it online. Otherwise it's a news story like this or here is another example.
Just looking at the benches for the 3 Main Processor options on the MBP.
There isn't a GREAT deal of difference between them.
I presume we are talking the 620M i7(2.66) 540M i5(2.53) 520M i5(2.40)
Is it me?
I am upgrading from an iBook G4 1.33 I know whatever I buy is gonna be light years a head but I want something with a bit of longevity in it. Was going to plump for a MacPro but need the portability more.
So I am looking at over speccing the 2.53 i5. Basically I sideline as a Photographer so its gonna be Photoshop and Aperture etc and do a bit of HD video editing but pretty basic in that dept probably won't exceed Final cut express levels.
I don't bother with gaming on a laptop (never seen the point) am I really gonna see a difference in the 256mb 330M compared to the 512mb 330M ?
There isn't a GREAT deal of difference between them.
I presume we are talking the 620M i7(2.66) 540M i5(2.53) 520M i5(2.40)
Is it me?
I am upgrading from an iBook G4 1.33 I know whatever I buy is gonna be light years a head but I want something with a bit of longevity in it. Was going to plump for a MacPro but need the portability more.
So I am looking at over speccing the 2.53 i5. Basically I sideline as a Photographer so its gonna be Photoshop and Aperture etc and do a bit of HD video editing but pretty basic in that dept probably won't exceed Final cut express levels.
I don't bother with gaming on a laptop (never seen the point) am I really gonna see a difference in the 256mb 330M compared to the 512mb 330M ?
4GB vs. 8GB
Hi there,
could anyone of you hardware folks explains whether to upgrade to 8GB will make a difference. I am running a lot of audio software (Ableton Live, plugs etc.), so given that I will be in HK shortly where the prices are much better, I am wondering whether to go for the sky.
thx, nick
Hi there,
could anyone of you hardware folks explains whether to upgrade to 8GB will make a difference. I am running a lot of audio software (Ableton Live, plugs etc.), so given that I will be in HK shortly where the prices are much better, I am wondering whether to go for the sky.
thx, nick
Get the 4GB then use Crucial or OWC (OWC aslo has Install videos but you have to give them a little time because of the new release) to update your machine. Get a third party SSD for a really fast system just get it cheap from a third party also.
Going via third parties will save you a ton of money.
I looked at this on crucial yesterday, and it was still cheaper going through Apple for the 8GB of Ram upgrade (A First a know)
TBH It may be worth waiting, that ram is new and chances are given a few months the prices may drop anyway, but thats a bit of a guessing game.
c2d vs. core.
i have the last gen C2D as you can see > and it is a monster on every app, video and website. I don't see the need for a core 5 or 7, the config is perfect! the huge bus and same ram as core!!!
If you are a really heavy power - only if ? then the core would be great. REALLY heavy power user. with HUGE apps.
i have the last gen C2D as you can see > and it is a monster on every app, video and website. I don't see the need for a core 5 or 7, the config is perfect! the huge bus and same ram as core!!!
If you are a really heavy power - only if ? then the core would be great. REALLY heavy power user. with HUGE apps.
Appreciated,
I just want a new laptop and I want a MBP it seems prudent not to go for the later model over a refurb for similair price.
I realized that too, going through apple (hk) will cost 400 US$ which is the same as on crucial (of course, you get to keep the old memory if going through 3rd parties).
but actually, my question was rather geared towards whether such an update makes sense or whether there limitations which make the additional memory less usable. But I guess, the more RAM the better, addressing from the OS shouldn't be a problem, right ?
nick
I've just had a look at ...
http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2010/04/
.... & there, the figure given are not as good, by a long way, as the figures Gizmodo gave. Am I mistaken?
http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2010/04/
.... & there, the figure given are not as good, by a long way, as the figures Gizmodo gave. Am I mistaken?
Me, too! I mean, the C2D 3.06 GHz was top of the line in the 2009 MBPs.
Now, I want to see how that compares to the top of the line 2010 i7 MBPs!
Talk about a useless benchmark graph!
From the PrimateLab benchmarks and relative to the 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo, we would get the following.
Overall Performance:
Core I7 @ 2.66 GHz: 29% faster
Core I5 @ 2.53 GHz: 18% faster
Core I5 @ 2.40 GHz: 14% faster
Integer Performance:
Core I7 @ 2.66 GHz: 18% faster
Core I5 @ 2.53 GHz: 7% faster
Core I5 @ 2.40 GHz: 3% faster
FP Performance:
Core I7 @ 2.66 GHz: 34% faster
Core I5 @ 2.53 GHz: 23% faster
Core I5 @ 2.40 GHz: 17% faster
Overall Performance:
Core I7 @ 2.66 GHz: 29% faster
Core I5 @ 2.53 GHz: 18% faster
Core I5 @ 2.40 GHz: 14% faster
Integer Performance:
Core I7 @ 2.66 GHz: 18% faster
Core I5 @ 2.53 GHz: 7% faster
Core I5 @ 2.40 GHz: 3% faster
FP Performance:
Core I7 @ 2.66 GHz: 34% faster
Core I5 @ 2.53 GHz: 23% faster
Core I5 @ 2.40 GHz: 17% faster