Because the old MBPs, they only had the high-end Merom chips. Which all had 4MB of L2 Cache. Now, the new base model is 2.4, which in the Penryn chips, is a mid-range chip, not high-end. So, you get 3MB of cache. Just like the MacBook.
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.
Hell NO: Base MBP has 3 MB of L2 memory. They can keep it!
- Thread starter Full of Win
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's impossible to predict precisely, but you shouldn't see much difference. 2-3% vs 4MB, an maybe 3-5% vs 6MB.
Remember that there are people who get excited by tiny speed bumps that buy them 3% better frame rate on some game, so for them, the decreased L2 makes a big difference.
Awesome post. I'm still laughing. So much truth to this.
This fits completely with the old adage that statical studies have shown that 60% of all statistics are completely made up.
so the base model is better than the old refirbed 2nd tier model?
are you sure the new base model will outperform it?
are you sure the new base model will outperform it?
This thread is hilarious. If performance over features is such a big deal, go buy a MacPro and a big trolley to cart it round on 
Anyone else remember the 12" PowerBooks? They always slightly lagged behind the rest of the PowerBook line performance wise, whether it be in FSB and clock speed (Rev A) or just clock speed later on. However, they still always had better specs than the iBooks.
This is exactly what Apple is doing here. A lower-spec MBP to bridge the gap between the MacBook and the "true" professional models. Yeah it's hobbled compared to the higher-end models, but that's why it's £300 cheaper.
Anyone else remember the 12" PowerBooks? They always slightly lagged behind the rest of the PowerBook line performance wise, whether it be in FSB and clock speed (Rev A) or just clock speed later on. However, they still always had better specs than the iBooks.
This is exactly what Apple is doing here. A lower-spec MBP to bridge the gap between the MacBook and the "true" professional models. Yeah it's hobbled compared to the higher-end models, but that's why it's £300 cheaper.
Go for the new one. Even with the lower cache it's a Penryn processor, so will be slightly faster per clock cycle on average. It also has the LED backlit screen, so you should get better battery life out of it.
The cache barely has anything to do with that performance difference. The Pentium 4 was based on NetBurst architecture, while the Pentium M was based on the P6 architecture. The P6 architecture is vastly more efficient than NetBurst (which is why the Core 2 can trace its roots back to the P6 microarchitecture).
Dont forget Multitouch. However, LED was on the previous 15" model as well.
The current baseline beats the previous baseline in clockspeed (2.4 vs 2.2), graphics memory (128 vs 256), and harddrive space (200 vs 120), but not in cache. The current baseline beats the previous 2nd tier in price ($500), harddrive space (200 vs 160), and its Penryn (probably more efficient), but again it has a smaller cache
No. The MPBs had 4MB cache across the board. I just bought the previous baseline on Saturday (I am going to try to upgrade), and I have 4 MB L2 Cache. See attachment.
EDIT: Sorry for the double post
Attachments
Wow. I thought we finally had shrugged off the GHz myth, now we're on cache sizes? Folks, let's just see how they benchmark, shall we? One different number doesn't make a slower processor.
Personally, I care more about increased battery life the 45nm process might bring. Waiting for benchmarks there, as well.
Personally, I care more about increased battery life the 45nm process might bring. Waiting for benchmarks there, as well.
They can stick it as far as I care.
So tell me, what are you going to do on your mbp where the L2 memory size would make ANY difference?
So tell me, what are you going to do on your mbp where the L2 memory size would make ANY difference?
Sort a 3.1MB array over and over
But, you are mistaking a high-end chip with a mid-range chip. Yes, the MBPs all used to come with 4MB of L2. That is true. But that was because they all came with the high-end Merom chips. Now, with the new Penryn chips, the 2.4GHz chip is in their mid-range line, not the high-end. So, it might look like they cut L2 Cache. But, its really just a new chip, not the same chip with less cache.
People really, its not like this was hard to see. The old chips were Merom, and had 2MB/4MB. The new chips are Penryn, which have 3MB/6MB. This isn't a secret. Just because your old 2.4 had 4MB doesn't mean this new 2.4 will as well.
Right, and now they have a mid-range chip and two high-end chips.
But it doesnt really matter anyways. It seems that the 2.4 Penryn (3 MB) is faster than both the 2.4 and 2.2 Merom (4 MB).
how much do you think it costs apple to make a macbook pro?
i'd say around $600. I am basing this off absolutely nothing.
but considering how the BCM5974 Multitouch controller chip has been confirmed to cost $2.95, I wonder how cheap the other components are.
i'd say around $600. I am basing this off absolutely nothing.
but considering how the BCM5974 Multitouch controller chip has been confirmed to cost $2.95, I wonder how cheap the other components are.
And the hundreds of designers, engineers, documentation people, etc that it takes to create a piece of hardware like this all donate their time for free so Apple can keep all the profits. Muwahaha
I think this is the most relevant point. People buying these MBs or MBPs are coming from 2-3 year old computers, and 3MB is a step up for them. I'm looking at replacing my iBook, and when you get down to it, 3MB of cache and even the slowest dual-core is still way better than I have now.
On a side note, Coppermine P3 cores where also faster that equally clocked P4, and they had 256KB.
The problem was that the P4 architecture was completely messed up. A centrino is more similar to a P3 than to a P4, so I dont think your assertion is a valid reference anyway.
Correct.But it doesnt really matter anyways. It seems that the 2.4 Penryn (3 MB) is faster than both the 2.4 and 2.2 Merom (4 MB).
Its like saying, hypothetically, the new Honda Accord has 10hp less than the model from a couple years ago. And you know what, that might be the case. But its still a great car, and with all the other new features on the car, who really cares about 10hp.
Stop worrying about 1MB people. The move to 45nm should be more than enough to outweigh loss of a pinch of L2 cache. Even though it wasn't really "LOST" to begin with.
Exactly, performance decrease would be negligible. Going from the previous baseline to the current baseline offers plenty of other things (Multitouch, bigger HDD, more VRAM) so that even if there is a 2-3% performance decrease (and if anything, results are showing a performance INCREASE), youre still getting a much better computer.